NAGPRA: Before and after
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed in 1990. NAGPRA is a Federal law that requires Federal agencies to provide opportunities for federally recognized tribes to obtain culturally affiliated human remains and artifacts. Most anthropologists are not opposed to repatriation of affiliated remains. For example, Rose and colleagues (1996) hypothesized that repatriation will eliminate gaps in knowledge of specific times and geographic areas, require osteological analyses to be more comprehensive, and increase use of new methodologies. Additionally, Buikstra and Ubelaker (1994) published a standardization book to provide uniform procedures for examining skeletons. The current study examines articles from the primary physical anthropology journal before and after 1990 to ascertain whether NAGPRA has resulted in the above-mentioned predictions. Statistically significant (Student’s t-test, Ps < 0.05) results indicate that compared to pre-NAGPRA, osteological studies containing Native American remains have decreased, fewer sites are used, and fewer geographic locations are examined. Only one-third of osteological studies using Native American remains published after 1994 use Buikstra and Ubelaker’s standards. Both before and after NAGPRA was enacted, over 70 percent of osteological studies come from sites in nine states. Thus, none of these predictions occurred and changes in osteological research on Native American after the enactment of NAGPRA seem to indicate that NAGPRA impedes research.
Moving beyond Weiss and Springer’s Repatriation and Erasing the Past: Indigenous values, relationships, and research
Abstract This commentary debunks the poor scholarship in Repatriation and Erasing the Past by Elizabeth Weiss and James Springer. We show that modern bioarchaeological practice with Indigenous remains places ethics, partnership, and collaboration at the fore and that the authors’ misconstructed dichotomous fallacy between “objective science” and Indigenous knowledge and repatriation hinders the very argument they are espousing. We demonstrate that bioarchaeology, when conducted in collaboration with stakeholders, enriches research, with concepts and methodologies brought forward to address common questions, and builds a richer historical and archaeological context. As anthropologists, we need to acknowledge anti-Indigenous (and anti-Black) ideology and the insidious trauma and civil rights violations that have been afflicted and re-afflicted through Indigenous remains being illegally or unethically obtained, curated, transferred, and used for research and teaching in museums and universities. If we could go so far as to say that anything good has come out of this book, it has been the stimulation in countering these beliefs and developing and strengthening ethical approaches and standards in our field.
Indian Heritage Preservation and Archaeologists
Indians and archaeologists have a unique relationship. Because of our fascination with Indian culture, archaeologists are interested in many of the things which are important to Indians, such as artifacts, village sites, burials, and other heritage materials. The reasons for our interest differ from those of Native Americans, but our overall goals sometimes overlap and are compatible, since we often want to see Indian sites and heritage materials preserved. We are also very much aware of the intrinsic value of the sites and their contents. As one archaeologist has put it: "It is terribly important that the 'small things forgotten' be remembered. For in the seemingly little and insignificant things that accumulate to create a lifetime, the essence of our existence is captured" (Deetz 1977:161). This unique relationship between archaeologists and Indians can forge strong research and preservation tools. Unfortunately, it can also lead to conflict, since this interest in the same cultural heritage is often accompanied by misunderstandings. With rare exceptions, positive working relationship have yet to develop between archaeologists and Indians. All too often the very same things that are treasured so highly have produced controversy. This paper discusses some of the ways that productive relationships can be developed. It also analyzes the sources of conflict. Both groups have far more to gain by working together than they have to lose.