Unless I missed something in this or the surrounding sections regarding the reclamation of ancestors in this project, I feel like the article didn't really explain how it came to properly attribute these ancestral artifacts and remains. The article mentions this aspect of being very difficult as well as specific regarding the determining of cultural ownership of certain ancestors in this project. However, to me at least, it didn't seem to fully break down what processes, both cultural and scientific, were conducted to properly determine ownership of the ancestors. The conflation of cultural artifacts as being simply "indigenous", generalizing and in turn potentially misattributing, has been a topic I have previously encountered as decently frequent issue. This is to say that proper attribution is clearly an important aspect, the article itself reinforcing this. I feel like the article perhaps could have built on more the specifics of this case more in terms of the exact techniques and methods used to properly determine ownership, seemingly glossing over it, though again I may have simply missed some details.

Written by Aidan Pare

I appreciate this acknowledgment of the difficulty faced by indigenous communities in allocating their own work and resources towards reconciliation efforts, mirroring dialogue from other classes and overall indigenizing anthropology discussions I have experienced. I have in several different classes come upon the discussion of indigenous led reconciliation work, and in discussing that, acknowledging a level of responsibility held by institutions themselves in working with these communities to put their own work in to help facilitate certain events or reconciliation actions out of the, and as is acknowledged here, frequent limitations and logistical struggles faced by communities. An issue or concern within reconciliation work is that their seems to be much onus in put on programs to be fully indigenous directed without work being put in on the part of those partnering with indigenous communities facilitating space or resources they may need for this work. This overall reads to me as an important aspect of consideration towards creating more fair and considerate reconciliation work.

Written by Aidan Pare

I'm curious with several aspects around how the events and teachings of this ceremony were disseminated. While I am familiar with the practice of "witnesses" as key individuals to listen and carry forward the happenings and teachings of an event, I am curious how common and how much of a cultural basis this particular way of doing it is among this nations culture and if it is felt to be effective way of passing on the impact of the ceremony. I am also curious about the journal entry the article mentioned, if this is a common occurrence to translate a description of the event into a published format, as well as how if it served as an effective format to present the event to the wider community.

Written by Aidan Pare

While I appreciated the mention of this blurb and other blurbs like it in framing the sources used with their original context for a degree of important consideration and nuance, I feel like this section detailing all this history and data could have been more clear on where this data was coming from specifically. While of course the information overall is a synthesis of colonial and modern study along with the direct words and teachings of indigenous peoples, I think it would have benefitted from making clear what data came from what particular source. It could have perhaps laid out what stemmed from actual indigenous sources and what is being inferred based on a possible outsider perspective, even a step further in laying out the initial colonial assumptions and the subsequent data from indigenous sources that served to refine or correct it. This is a small gripe on my part but I think the article could have done with some further degree of specificity in presenting this historical and cultural data overall.

Written by Aidan Pare