Landon White
December 2, 2014
Anthropology 1020
SLCC- Maughan
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
“Tribal representatives described a gruesome scene where pieces of caskets,
the outlines of additional graves, and parts of human burials were exposed and lying
on the surface of the drawdown zone” (Riley 2002). This graphically describes the
site at the grounds of the Fort Randall Dam while it was being built in 1949. It was
known as the Indian cemetery, but the federal government wanted to build this dam
here for Lake Francis Case. They had a plan, which they thought would be a good
one, to move the bodies out of the cemetery and to rebury them somewhere else.
They had good intentions, but this is not what happened.
Many years later, the U.S Army Corps had raised and lowered the lake’s
water levels, which caused the remains of the Indians to come up in the tide. “By the
time the Yankton Sioux Tribe was notified, caskets, bones, pots, and burial shrouds
had floated to the surface of Lake Francis Case” (Riley 2002). This was unacceptable
and completely wrong for the American government to do. “Most Native American
traditions forbid such disturbance of ancestors’ remains” (Lannan 1998). Native
American culture is focused mainly on spiritual things. They honor their ancestors
and they are very sacred about their history. This would be an atrocious site to see
all of the people that have been buried in the past and laid to rest, just for them to be
lying around, unearthed by people who do not respect remains as much as the
Native Americans do. This is when the Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act (NAGRPA) came to be.
“NAGRPA is federal law aimed at protecting Native American gravesites and
human remains from desecration. It also provides a way for Native American tribes
to recover ancestral remains from federally-funded museums, agencies, and
institutions (Midler 2011). The problem with this is that Native Americans are able
to recover some, but not all of the remains. If the remains are culturally
unidentifiable with any of the regular tribes, then the museums are able to keep
them. This has caused much conflict with both the Native Americans and the
anthropologists who want to study the remains.
Even though NAGPRA was passed, it still took anthropologists a while to
return the remains the Native Americans. For example, “in 1998, a thirty-year
drama came to an end when anthropologists at the University of Nebraska agreed to
return the skeletal remains of 1702 Native Americans to a coalition of fifteen
modern tribes” (Niesel 2011). Thirty years is entirely too long to wait for selfish
people who have been studying the remains that are sacred to a culture to return to
the rightful owner. It should not have been a question as to who had the rights. The
remains needed to be reburied in a sacred place to where they could be honored
and laid to rest. Studying bodies is important for scientific and historical
documenting, but it is not as important as the proper burial of many people who had
lived before. Even though they had been gone for a long time, it is still no excuse that
they should not be buried in the ground as opposed to being studied. “To be in
compliance with NAGRPA, federal agencies and museums are required to undertake
an effort to return Native American skeletal remains to a culturally affiliated tribe”
(Niesel 1998). Not only should museums try to return these remains and artifacts
because of the law in place, but they should do it because it is the ethical thing to do.
They need to take into consideration how they would feel if someone else dug up
the remains of their ancestors and loved ones only for the element of science testing.
Native Americans have every right to the remains and artifacts.
“NAGPRA is important human-rights legislation, designed first and foremost
to address the historical inequities created by a legacy of past collecting practices;
the continual disregard for Native religious beliefs and burial practices; and a clear
contradiction between how the graves of white American and graves of Native
Americans have been treated” (Daehnke and Lonetree 2011, page 87). This
statement could not be more correct. It comes down to the simple fact that the
Americans did not care about the sacred culture of the Native Americans, simply
because it was not what they believed and it was not their ancestors that were
involved. This is an error in the society of Americans and their attitudes toward
Native Americans. Because they were so different from Americans, no one took into
account their feelings or beliefs in any situation. They stole their land, killed their
people, and uncovered their dead. This was due to certainty that the American race
was better and more advanced than the Native Americans. Certainty is the most
detrimental thing in history. If one is so sure of themself, they are blinded to other
cultures, people, and beliefs, which causes them to act in stupidity and carelessness.
Most anthropologists will disagree with NAGRPA because of the
archaeological findings to be able to study Native Americans. There are many things
that they can learn from the remains and artifacts that were buried. “Examples of
application of our analyses include determination of biological relationships which
support Indian land claims and understandings of prehistoric disease which could
alleviate suffering among present-day Native Americans” (White 2000, page 325).
Both of these things are very advantageous to learn about for the culture of the
Native Americans. If Native Americans are willing and interested in this, they are
able to donate their artifacts and remains to museums and scientists so that such
discoveries can be made. NAGRPA gave them the ability to choose whether or not
they would want to do something like this. It should be their choice and no one else.
Only Native Americans know about their culture, history, and their beliefs, so the
tribes can decide whether or not they would like to donate artifacts for the
biological anthropology cause.
Bibliography
Daehnke, Jon, and Amy Lonetree. "Repatriation in the United States: The
Current State of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act." (2011): 87. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.
Lannan, Robert. "Anthropology and Restless Spirits: The Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act, and the Unresolved Issues of Prehistoric
Human Remains.” (1998): 1. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.
Midler, Aaron H. "The Spirit of NAGPRA: The Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act and the Regulation of Culturally Unidentifiable Remains.”
(2011): 1. Web. 28 Nov. 2014.
Niesel, Zoe E. "Better Late Than Never? The Effect of the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act’s 2010 Regulations.” (2011): 1. Web. 28 Nov.
2014.
Riley, Angela. "Indian Remains, Human Rights: Reconsidering Entitlement Under the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.” (2002): 1. Web. 28
Nov. 2014.
White, T. D., and Pieter A. Folkens. Human Osteology. San Diego: Academic, 2000.
Print.