"We visited the museum in 1993 to consult with them about the inventory of our ancestors' remains," he said. "We then returned in 1994 to repatriate them."

Ayau said the remains were flown to Hawaii and were turned over to the families of the individuals for reburial.

The Law and Research

Some anthropologists and archaeologists have questioned whether returning the items is the best action to take because academics will no longer be able to study the objects.

But others respond that returning the objects is the right thing to do.

Ayau, who actually helped draft the NAGPRA law while working for Sen. Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii), said "the law recognizes a fundamental right of any society to his right to the dead."

"I believe that reburial of remains that were taken without consent of the families is the right thing to do," Ayau said.

"There is a conflict between those who wish to curate these remains and study them and those who would rather rebury [them]," he said. "For us the bottom line is whether one is family and if so they have the right to determine proper treatment."

Isaac said she agreed that the human remains should be returned to the tribes, but thought that it could hinder further academic work in the field.

"If all the objects went back, archaeologists may lose much of the documentation for prehistory," she said. "I don't know how that will be resolved."

Assistant Professor of Anthropology Carole A.S. Mandryk said, "here are a number of items that were essentially stolen from particular groups of people and it's only fair for them to ask for them to be returned."

"I suppose if somebody was in a big rush to get their stuff back and it had never been studied that would really be too bad," Mandryk said. "On the other hand, it seems there is an awful lot of things that sat around various museums, I don't know about Peabody in particular, for years and years and no one-studied them anyway."

And associate director of the Peabody Museum Flynn, said he thought the preservation issue didn't apply to the repatriation act.

"The preservation issue is irrelevant to the repatriation act," he said. "The tribes have the right to have that object [and] the tribe will do with it what they wish."

"If the tribe is happy to leave the object in the museum, this sort of compromise position is exactly what we would like to foster," he said, "but the judgmental view of what is better for the object is irrelevant when we talk about repatriation.