The Native American Graves Repatriation Act is one of the most important pieces of American legislation affecting archaeologists. Enacted into law in 1990 by George H.W. Bush, NAGPRA provides a process by which museums and other federal agencies use to return certain Native American human remains and grave goods to lineal descendants, and culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, if they can be determined. It was assembled with a great deal of anguish balancing both scientific and Native American needs.
In 2004, the US Senate bill S.2843 proposed that the NAGPRA definition of Native American be reworded from:
'Native American' means of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United Statesto
'Native American' means of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is or was indigenous to the United States
While on the surface this change may seem minor, the implications may be very great indeed. Truly ancient human remains and grave goods found on the American continents (such as Kennewick) cannot be identified to a specific tribe or set of tribes, and under NAGPRA as it currently stands, those found on US federal properties may be closely studied and kept in repositories. Those ancient remains are very rare, and represent an important part of understanding how the Americas became populated, questions scientists have yet to answer.
Archaeologists are concerned because the addition of the two words 'or was' means that very ancient remains which cannot be identified to a specific tribe (such as Kennewick Man), may be repatriated to the tribes which have historic connections to the properties on which the remains were found, rather than kept for future study. As Kate Riley writes in the Seattle Times "Tribes no longer would have to prove a connection to the remains beyond the coincidence the remains were found on their ancestral lands, despite prolific evidence of the widespread migration of early people."
Objections to the wording have been made by several professional associations including the Society for American Archaeology and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists.
This is a touchy problem at the very heart of archaeological research in the Americas, which must constantly respect both the past and the present, to work towards understanding and reporting what our collective past might have been, and at the same time respect the rights of the modern day indigenous peoples.
The wording change has yet to adopted by the Department of Interior and U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco is asking Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to delay adoption of the proposed regulation.
Commentary
- Shed a light on prehistory, Kate Riley in the Seattle Times
- SAA statement: Comments on 2007 Proposed Rule Relating to Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains Under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act [79 Federal Register 58582, Published Tuesday October 16, 2007]
- AAPA statement: Position Statement on the Department of the Interior’s Proposed Rule for the Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains
- Comments on the NAGPRA Word Change, Friends of the Past
Background on the Issue
- Two Word Change to NAGPRA (September 2004)
- Working Together, NAGPRA and archaeology, opposing viewpoints on NAGPRA from archaeologists Joe Watkins and Geoffrey A. Clark, from 1998
- Kennewick Man and the New World Entrada
- The Roots of NAGPRA, historical background of the law from Steve Russell
Comments
One might also note that opinion in the archaeological community is sharply divided. We do not all oppose these changes. In fact, the World Archaeological Congress has issued a statement supporting the proposed change:
http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/news_pres_22.php
Proposed US Federal Rule Reaffirms the Importance of NAGPRA
Adelaide, South Australia, December 16, 2007
The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) supports a proposed rule by the U.S. Department of Interior that will help to clarify terms defined when the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed in 1990.
NAGPRA now requires federally-recognized tribes to demonstrate cultural affiliation in order for federal agencies and federally-funded museums and universities to transfer control of human remains, sacred or funerary objects, and other culturally important artifacts.
Although NAGPRA has worked reasonably well and is supported by many tribes, archaeologists, and museums, “cultural affiliation” has forced a definition onto Native American people that comes mostly from anthropologists and archaeologists. Affiliation in the sense of being linked by genetic or archaeological evidence often is difficult to prove with non-scientific evidence such as oral traditions used more commonly by Indigenous peoples.
The draft regulations, published by the Department of the Interior on October 16, 2007, make some changes in the law. Instead of affiliation, “cultural relationship” will become a key principle for decisions about returning culturally sensitive items. This simple change allows greater flexibility in decision-making and removes what many Native Americans have seen as a word with strictly scientific meaning that often stands in the way of repatriation.
“Some archaeologists seem to think that the proposed regulations would undercut NAGPRA and do great harm to the archaeological record of the United States,” said Claire Smith, WAC President, “but that is the same thing many archaeologists used to say about NAGPRA. It was hardly the end of the line for archaeology or museums. In many cases where
American Indian people, archaeologists, and museums built good working relationships, access to archaeological information actually improved! To say that the proposed regulations would harm archaeology or NAGPRA is just plain misguided.”
“There is a lot of fear that museums or archaeologists would somehow have to say who is or isn’t Indian or how close the relationship is,” said Larry Zimmerman, WAC Vice President and early advocate for the return of remains, “but that’s clearly incorrect. What it will do is allow for more remains that are now called culturally unidentified to be returned to descendents and treated with respect instead of being on some laboratory shelf.”
Background: The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) is a non-governmental, not-for-profit organization and is the only elected international body of practicing archaeologists. WAC promotes interest in the past in all countries, to recognize the historical and social role and political context of archaeology, and endeavours to make archaeological studies relevant to the wider community. WAC acknowledges and recognizes Indigenous methodologies for interpreting, curating, managing and protecting Indigenous cultural heritage.
http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/news_pres_22.php
One might also point out that the archaeological community is sharply divided on this issue. The About.com links only point towards the opinions of archaeologists in opposition to this change but there are a sizable number of us who support the proposed clarification.
One example of this position is expressed in the press release from the World Archaeological Congress:
The text of the WAC press release:
Proposed US Federal Rule Reaffirms the Importance of NAGPRA
Adelaide, South Australia, December 16, 2007
The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) supports a proposed rule by the U.S. Department of Interior that will help to clarify terms defined when the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed in 1990.
NAGPRA now requires federally-recognized tribes to demonstrate cultural affiliation in order for federal agencies and federally-funded museums and universities to transfer control of human remains, sacred or funerary objects, and other culturally important artifacts.
Although NAGPRA has worked reasonably well and is supported by many tribes, archaeologists, and museums, “cultural affiliation” has forced a definition onto Native American people that comes mostly from anthropologists and archaeologists. Affiliation in the sense of being linked by genetic or archaeological evidence often is difficult to prove with non-scientific evidence such as oral traditions used more commonly by Indigenous peoples.
The draft regulations, published by the Department of the Interior on October 16, 2007, make some changes in the law. Instead of affiliation, “cultural relationship” will become a key principle for decisions about returning culturally sensitive items. This simple change allows greater flexibility in decision-making and removes what many Native Americans have seen as a word with strictly scientific meaning that often stands in the way of repatriation.
“Some archaeologists seem to think that the proposed regulations would undercut NAGPRA and do great harm to the archaeological record of the United States,” said Claire Smith, WAC President, “but that is the same thing many archaeologists used to say about NAGPRA. It was hardly the end of the line for archaeology or museums. In many cases where
American Indian people, archaeologists, and museums built good working relationships, access to archaeological information actually improved! To say that the proposed regulations would harm archaeology or NAGPRA is just plain misguided.”
“There is a lot of fear that museums or archaeologists would somehow have to say who is or isn’t Indian or how close the relationship is,” said Larry Zimmerman, WAC Vice President and early advocate for the return of remains, “but that’s clearly incorrect. What it will do is allow for more remains that are now called culturally unidentified to be returned to descendents and treated with respect instead of being on some laboratory shelf.”
Background: The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) is a non-governmental, not-for-profit organization and is the only elected international body of practicing archaeologists. WAC promotes interest in the past in all countries, to recognize the historical and social role and political context of archaeology, and endeavours to make archaeological studies relevant to the wider community. WAC acknowledges and recognizes Indigenous methodologies for interpreting, curating, managing and protecting Indigenous cultural heritage.
Media contacts:
Claire Smith,
President, World Archaeological Congress (WAC)
Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia
PO Box 2100, Adelaide. SA 5001. Australia
Telephone: +61(0)8 8201 2336
Claire.Smith@flinders.edu.au
Larry Zimmerman,
Vice-President, World Archaeological Congress (WAC)
Department of Anthropology and Museum Studies, IUPUI,
433 Cavanaugh Hall, Indianapolis IN 46228.
Telephone: 317-274-2383
larzimme@iupui.edu
Yes, the division is very deep, and I think the best expression of that division is on the SAA page “Working Together”, linked above, but here too:
http://www.saa.org/publications/saabulletin/16-5/SAA16.html
I agree, there is a strong divide within the “scientific” community as to whether this is a good or a bad change. An interesting take on this from an applied perspective is found on the Indigenous Issues Today NAGPRA post.
All old remains found should be returned to their graves, if not, then to the closet Tribal Nation. But, why do they feel such a need to study our Indigenous people? Why don’t they dig up their own to study & find out what makes them so sick in the head?
This is another important piece in the long debated kennewick man case
As a scientist and a Native American descendent I both approve and disagree with NAGPRA but then again we have a system of checks and balances
I often refer to the kennewick man case when telling outsiders that the anthropology society usually has a habit of filing in federal court when something is not to our liking and it is this fact that keeps us honest and ethical without any major monitoring agency
A combination of modern explorers and world problem solvers that in some societies brings alevel of trust that can’t be compromised at any cost
I have also found there are many adults lacking the maturity to discuss some anthropology topics in great detail which makes our work even harder
iceman
Yeah, you’re right, Jimmy. This is exactly an outgrowth of the Kennewick Man, which I’d forgotten until I did some more poking around.
More on “or was” and NAGPRA
What about adding a Section 106-like process to NAGPRA? You know, negotiation among concerned parties for each situation that arises? Or has the situation gone too far for that to work?
To Tersa,
We do dig up “our own,” and many of us do it only when remains are being threatened by destruction through development and vandalism.
We study Indigenous cultures because we are impressed by them and feel we can learn something from them.
I firmly believe this change should not go through. We need to study the ancient remains in this country, just as ancient remains are studied everywhere else.
Its also interesting to note that in the book “No Bone Unturned” which discusses Kennewick man and legal process that the scientists had to go through to study him, there’s a very telling comment by the Judge.
“As you noticed, Ms. Barran [attorney for the scientists] did make significant issue of ‘is’ and ‘was,” [Judge] Jelderks said, “If the statue said ‘is or was indigenous to the United States’ it would be much easier for me to accept the Departments’ position [to return the remains for burial]. How can I accept the DOI’s definition without, in effect, inserting a couple of more words into the statue?”
Well it looks like someone was paying attention. More of this and we’ll never know the full story of the peopling of the Americas.
I oppose it completely, and so should anyone else who wants to know the fully story.