20 Anthropology Newsletter/Aprill998

Striking .a Balance with NAGPRA By Francis P McManamon (National Park Service)

Since the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repa- triation Act in 1990, a set of procedures has been developed from scratch, to deal with what often are difficult and emotional cases that place anthropolo- gists, archeologists, curators and other scientists in potential conflict with American Indians, Native Alaskans and Native Hawaiians. Perhaps the most striking aspect of what has happened regarding the implementation of the law is that thousands of government, museum, and academic professionals in hundreds of museums and agency offices have been able to arrive at acceptable resolutions to hundreds of NAGPRA cases in consultation with thousands of Native Americans.

As of January 1998, 264 public notices had appeared in the Federal Register announcing the willingness or intent to repatriate from museums or federal agency repositories Native American human remains or cultural items covered by NAGPRA for which cultural affiliation or lineal descent have been determined. These notices cover over l0,OOO sets of Native Amer- ican human remains, nearly 300,000 funerary objects, over 500 sacred objects and nearly 200 objects of cul- tural patrimony. Specific information about these notices and other informa- tion related to NAGPRA implementa- tion can be accessed readily via the National Archeological Database NAGPRA module (http: //www.cr. nps. gov/aad/nadb.htm).

New Relationships

One might ask whether or not it is a good thing that all these remains and artifacts move out of public control and stewardship. The answer one gives to this question depends on one’s perspec- tive on what appropriate treatments and uses are for Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural property. Since individuals’ perspectives range widely, answers to the question like- wise vary widely, from unqualified yesses or nos, through qualified responses of all kinds.

NAGPRA has created a new rela- tionship between Indian tribes, Native Aiaskan groups and Native Hawaiian organization and museums and federal agencies. The former now have greater opportunity to influence how the remains and cultural i tems covered by the law are dealt with by museums and

federal agencies. Museums and agen- cies with collections containing Native American human remains and funerary objects have had to inventory these materials and determine whether they are linked to lineal descendants or cul- turally affiliated with Indian tribes, Native Alaskan groups or Native Hawaiian organizations. If there is a reasonably clear relationship of lineal descent or cultural affiliation, museums or agencies must offer to repatriate these materials to the appropriate group. A similar set of steps holds for unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrjrno- ny. On federal land, the land managing agencies must consult with Indian tribes or Native Alaskan groups when they are planning archaeological exca- vations or when Native American remains are unexpectedly discovered, often through natural erosion.

These requirements for action by federal agencies and museums and the new role of tribes and the other Native American groups empowered by the law have substantially altered the rela- tionships that formerly existed. Muse- ums and agencies must pay more atten- tion and, in some cases, are legally bound to follow the wishes 6f the tribes. The Indian tribes, Native Alaskan groups and Native Hawaiian organizations have new rights of access to museum collections and federal repositories and records. They also have rights to be consulted formally and have their views heard before museums and agencies make decisions about the kinds of remains and objects covered by NAGPRA. They also have rights to protest, administratively and judicially, decisions on these matters with which they disagree.

NAGPRA = Science

NAGPRA is not antiscience, as some have asserted. Anthropological, archeological, biological; ethnohistori- cal, ethnological, forensic and histori- cal data, methods and techniques are recognized in the law and its regula- tions as important sources of informa- tion and means of making decisions about appropriate actions. These scien- tific data, methods and techniques have been and should continue to be used for the documentation and recording of items covered by NAGPRA in existing collections, as they have been in the inventories required by the statute. Such information is essential for mak- ing informed and justified determina- tions of cultural affiliation regarding remains and objects in collections, as well as for remains and objects encoun- tered in new excavations or inadver- tently discovered.

NAGPRA requires that any excava- tion or removal of Native American human remains be conducted using modern scientific procedures, methods and techniques called for by the h h a e - ological Resources Protection Act and its implementing regulations. When introducing the legislation that became NAGPRA on the floor of the US Senate before the vote to pass it, Senator Daniel Inouye noted the importance of scientif- ic inquiry for our society:

We ail recognize the value of the work carried out by museums. When we visit museums and look at the remnants of past civilizations, we are really learning about ourselves and how our societies and civi-

- ~~

lizations have evolved. . . . As enlight- ened people, we welcome scientific inquiry and the opportunity to know more about ourselves. Accordingly, we welcome the preservation and scientific purposes that museums fulfill. [Congressional Record- Senate, October 26, 1990, p S I7 174)

Quick Isn’t Best

In some instances, individuals or organizations have rushed to implement NAGPRA, overlooking appropriate pro- cedures or ignoring the need for careful gathering, recording and sifting of vari- ous kinds of evidence. Sometimes these overly zealous efforts have been well- intentioned, though misapplied, lunges at “doing the right thing.” In other instances, they have been hasty attempts to quickly rid an official or organization of a seemingly intractable, complex problem. In either case, the law has been misused or abused. It is unfortunately often true that such bad examples are used to incorrectly characterize all efforts to implement the statute.

What we should learn from such bad examples is that quick is not necessari- ly best or even good. Issues related to determining whether remains or objects fit the definitions used in NAGPRA, determinations of lineal descent or cul- tural affiliation, or whether a museum has the “right of possession” of an object that otherwise would be subject to a repatriation claim, frequently can be complex and emotionally charged. Careful consideration by all parties is appropriate to work through such diffi- cult situations and reach reasonable, well-based determinations calIed for by the law. Striking a balance that takes into account all the appropriate per- spectives and rights under NAGPRA can be time-consuming, though follow- ing such a path should lead to a better common understanding in the end.

Balance Is Key

Senator John McCain reflected on the importance of balance in NAGPRA and the issues it attempts to deal with in his remarks about the legislation on the floor of the Senate:

I believe this bill represents a true com- promise. . . . In the end, each party had to give a IittIe in order to strike a m e balance

Francis P McManamon. (Photo by Chester Simpson)

and to resolve these very difficult and emo- tional issues. . . . I believe this legislation effectively balances the interest of Native Americans in the rightful and respectful return of their ancestors with the interest of our Nation’s museums in maintaining our rich cultura1 heritage, the heritage of all American peoples. [Congressional RecordSenate, October 26, 1990, p S 171731

Balance was key in the passage of NAGPRA; it remains important in its implementation.

[Francis P McManamon is the chief archaeologist of rhe National Park Ser- vice and the departmental consulting archaeologist for the Department ofthe interior. He is responsible for carrying ouf requirements assigned by several starutes to the Secretary of the Interior. including NAGPRA. Implementing NAGPRA has included drafring regula- tions to implement the law, providing staff and professional support f i r the federal advisory committee established by the law, administering grants to Indian tribes and museums and provid- ing technical assistance to agencies, museums and tribes. McManamon oversees the Archeology and Ethnogra- phy Program of the NPS National Cen- ter for Cultural Resource StewardFhip and Partnerships in Washington, DC.]

7 r””“””””“”’”””””--’--------------------- I I t I I I

I 1 I

I 1 I I I 1

I I

1 I

I I I I I I 1

I 1 I I I

I

1 I I I

I

I I 1 I

I I

t

I I

1

I I I

I 1

I 1 I

I I I I

I I 1 1

I 1 I I I I I L,-----,--,---------------------------------------------,----~

I 1997-98 AAA Guide Order Form I I

1 To order a copy of h e 1997-98AAA Guide, please enclose a check for $40 I (members) or $55 (nonmembers). I

1 Name I

Address

I City State Zip I

I American Anthropological Association 1 4350 North Fairfax Drive, Suite 640 I

I Arlington, VA 22203-1 620 I 7031528-1902, ext 3032

Virginia residents add 4.5% sales tax.

http:/hvww.ameranthassn.org I

I