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.
A Perspective on Ethics and the Reburial Controversy
It is our opinion that archaeologists have no inherent right of access to human remains, grave goods, or objects of cultural heritage; that respecting diverse cultural views does not amount to an abdication of academic freedom; that historically archaeologists have been unanthropological in their approach to living populations and inconsistent in their treatment of indigenous peoples; and that archaeologists are fighting a losing battle when they ignore public opinion and clash with indigenous groups in the name of science. We offer some guidelines that we feel will alleviate much of the current tensions between archaeologists and indigenous peoples. A professional ethic must be devised that is consciously anthropological, values the rights of those studied and their cultural descendants in their own terms, and places academic pursuits in their proper context.
THE LAST RIGHTS: MORE ON ARCHAEOLOGY AND THE DEAD
Summary. In a recent paper, one of us (Bahn 1984) made a preliminary sketch of the main issues involved in the question of whether archaeologists have the right to disturb the dead. Since then, a number of important new case studies have featured prominently in the media, and more literature on the subject has started to appear—most notably a collection of papers (Green 1984) which, though focused on the particular problems of North America, contains much food for thought for archaeologists elsewhere. In this article we propose to look at the new data and consider what light moral philosophy can throw on the problem as a whole.