Sins of Our Fathers
The effects of NAGPRA on Anthropology and Native American Relations
The relationship between Native Americans and anthropologists has often been a difficult
and volatile one. Both sides of the debate have fought hard and long to claim what they feel is
their own fair piece of American history. Anthropologists, and particularly archaeologists, fight
in the name of science, as each artifact and every find opens the window into the past a little
wider. Native Americans fight to retain what little piece of their heritage, and of their humanity,
that may be left for them in the ground. In order for both sides to learn to work together,
government intervention became necessary. The government solution was in 1990 to pass the
Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act, otherwise known as NAGPRA (Adams
2001:1). Now after nearly twenty years it has become necessary to look back on how both
anthropologists and tribes have adapted and worked together through NAGPRA, and to
understand the impact of NAGPRA on mending fences between science and Native American
rights.
It is often difficult for Euro-American people to understand the controversy surrounding
such seemingly mundane academic activities as maintaining a museum display or doing
archaeological research. Most people recall childhood stories of searching for arrowheads, and
consider archaeology a more organized search for arrowheads, and therefore a relatively
harmless scientific activity. The experience that Euro-Americans have when observing ancient
human remains behind museum glass is completely opposite from what a Native American
museum patron might see. A Euro-American can observe the body with the same emotional
detachment that one observes dinosaur fossils, and then move on to the next exhibit. A Native
American can view the same remains and see a great grandfather or a distant family member.
Instead of allowing this distant relative to rest in peace the Native American must now watch in
horror as their ancestors become tourist attractions. This is an emotion that is difficult for Euro2
Americans to understand, and thus is the heart of much of the controversy. Native Americans
suffered centuries of hardships by Euro-Americans. The massacres, the starvation, and the
overall horrendous treatment of Native Americans is now little more than pages of a history book
to most of modern society. To the Native American, the repercussions of this treatment are still
felt today, and centuries old wounds have still yet to heal.
When undertaking the complicated task of repatriating remains, it is necessary to
understand where the remains came from, and how museums across the nation acquired such
massive collections. Many of the bodies collected by museums were from massacres or
government endorsed actions. These actions included discouraging any form of Native American
culture, which was presumed “hostile” (Fine-Dare 2002:32). The bodies and artifacts compiled
from the smothering of Native American culture served to fill the collections of museums around
the nation. The remains included over 4500 skulls found in the Smithsonian alone, all collected
by the United States army over a six year period (Fine-Dare 2002:33). This foul treatment of
Native Americans during this period was largely the result of the Euro-American opinion of
Indians as lesser-people or a bothersome animal that needed to be cleared away (Thomas
200:52). This brutal treatment of Native Americans led to collections so vast that it was
approximated that over 600,000 human remains were held by institutions across the country
(Fine-Dare 2002:35). All of these bodies and sacred artifacts were taken by scientists from
Native Americans. It is no wonder that Native Americans began to sour towards anthropologists.
As time progressed science and tribe relationships reached a tipping point. In 1971, a
group known as the American Indian Movement took over a Colorado State University lab and
began protesting against the treatment of their ancestors (McGuire 2008:78). In 1989, Douglas J.
Preston, who worked at the American Museum of Natural History, began writing about the
3
numerous remains he would find in adjacent offices, or spilling out of curio cabinets in hallways
(Fine-Dare 2002:34). Native Americans felt the work of anthropologists were a form of EuroAmerican oppression in the modern day (McGuire 2008:78). Museums and institutions slowly
began to understand that the rights they had presumed over the bodies in their respective
collections were without grounds. What may be specimen A to a museum was in actuality a
distant aunt or uncle of a Native American person. Museums understood that they needed to
work with Native Americans, but the difficulties of realizing the goals of appeasing both parties
proved daunting.
From 1988-1990, a series of meetings were called between Native American
representatives and Museum representatives that was known as the Dialogue on Museum and
Native American Relations (Adams 2001:3). It was at these meetings that the Native Americans
expressed their frustration with the current state of affairs. Some repatriations were successful,
but there were not enough organized Native American groups to accomplish the goal of
recovering their heritage, and there were several museums that were not willing to part with key
portions of their collections (Adams 2001:2). This sudden obvious need for legislation led to
NAGPRA, which was believed to be the best step towards building bridges between science and
heritage.
NAGPRA was designed to help give Native Americans their culture and their heritage
back, along with their family. This goal was implemented through several key aspects of
NAGPRA with relation to Museum and Native American interactions. The most pressing
matters, summarized by Francis P. McManamon (2002), involved creating an inventory of every
cultural object in a museum or other institution, and providing this list so that the museum and
the tribes that claim original ownership of the objects may reach a compromise over what objects
4
must be returned and what can stay in museum collections (Fforde et al 2002:134). A deadline
was given to accomplish this, and in the future all affiliated tribes were to be contacted with
regards to any funeral remains (Scarre and Scarre 2006:8). The federal funding to accomplish
was minimal, and both museums and tribes were forced to pick up the financial burden and
quickly create formal ways of communicating with each other (Fforde 2004:93). The ambiguity
of the law, and the burden it placed on both parties involved, is a large portion of why both sides
feel that NAGPRA has not been the miracle fix that it was initially supposed to be.
One of the few things that both Native Americans and anthropologists can agree on has
been that NAGPRA was a significant step. Whether it was a step forward, backward, or to the
side is still hotly debated. NAGPRA represented an attempt to start mending fences after years of
Native American abuse by the United States. What was produced instead was a law that satisfied
no one and created more problems than it solved. Some of the biggest issues with NAGPRA
have come from the time table given to inventory all the artifacts, and the financial aid that has
been provided to meet the goals in the proposed time. The estimated amount necessary to move
repatriations forward would be around $10 million a year, and so far the amount of grants
provided has proven to be significantly less (Fine-Dare 2002:143). This financial burden has led
to delays in producing the required inventories, with many institutions falling significantly
behind schedule (Fine-Dare 2002:143). There has been much suspicion that the delays were
deliberate, or at the very least that some museums did not take NAGPRA seriously (Fine-Dare
2002:143). There is also a more serious charge put forth by Larry J. Zimmerman (1997) against
institutions compiling inventories, and that is that the inventories provided may not be accurate,
and for some institutions these inaccuracies may be deliberate (Swindler et al 1997:49). Since the
remains still resided in museum collections, the burden was on the Native American to prove that
5
certain federal institutions were not showing all of their cards.
Another equally disruptive consequence of NAGPRA has been the reopening of old
wounds between enemy tribes. The Navajo and the Hopi are an excellent example. The Navajo
and the Hopi people have had a long and complicated relationship, and old hostility and friction
between the tribes can sometimes complicate NAGPRA matters, leading to delays and
accusations from both sides (Fine-Dare 2002:152). This highlights the problems with the law
being written from an ethnocentric point of view. The possibility of two tribes not getting along
or other tribal difficulties seems to not have been taken into account. This can lead many to the
assumption that the law was written assuming that all the Native Americans would just naturally
get along and move forward, as if one piece of legislation could undo centuries of conflict.
NAGPRA was drafted with a vagueness that has continued to complicate matters. A very
important question is what exactly property means. Property obviously applies to the tangible
items, the skeletal remains, and any artifact that the tribes feel they deserve back. The question
remaining is whether an intellectual property can be considered in this law. An example of this
controversy would be the Zuni people, who regard anything made using Zuni cultural practices
as a Zuni artifact (Fine-Dare 2002:157). This means that any artifact that was created by an
individual using Zuni skills, regardless of if the individual is Zuni or an archaeologist or another
individual, belongs to the Zuni. The attempts to claim items not made by Zuni as Zuni may at
first appear to be a stretch of the law. Yet it is important to consider modern-day patent laws and
creative property licenses, as these each represent legal ownership of an idea (Fine-Dare
2002:158). If it legally accepted that the creative property belongs to the Zuni, than the Zuni
would be entitled to a much larger array of objects, including any display replicas. This would
also set precedent for other tribes, meaning that it could eventually reach a point where even
6
teaching molds of projectile points could come under NAGPRA jurisdiction. While this drastic
outcome is far from likely, the legal possibility of such a drastic measure only serves to show
how ill-prepared NAGPRA has been in attempting to settle Native American and anthropological
disputes.
The politics that drive NAGPRA controversies have served to shine a very unflattering
light on both Native American tribes and the anthropological community. These conflicts are
largely because of the legal short-sightedness of the politicians who passed the law and then left
the two parties to clean up the mess. In large part the biggest difficulty faced today is the
difficulty of reconciling western thought with Native American heritage. Tessie Naranjo (1995),
who served on the NAGRPA committee, has pointed out that to many Native Americans a pot or
a bowl is not just an item, but is instead a spiritual representation, an item to be respected and
cared for (Adams 2001:20).This can be difficult for many people to grasp, including
anthropologists whose scientific curiosity can often trump their ability to be sympathetic to the
very culture that the anthropologist had studied.
It is considered imperative by both sides to not see NAGPRA as a battle between
anthropologists and Native Americans. NAGPRA is not such a black and white issue. A positive
aspect of NAGPRA is the increase in Native American anthropologists. Native Americans
trained as anthropologists provide a unique and valuable perspective on the relationships
between tribes and other anthropologists. Many tribes employ archaeologists through their Tribal
Historic Preservation Office, or THPO (McGuire 2008:79). These Native anthropologists benefit
everyone by being a bridge between two worlds, or more so being a bilingual guide, serving to
translate between the two parties who are debating the important matter of how much cultural
heritage is truly worth.
7
NAGPRA can be both a burden and a blessing to Native Americans and anthropologists.
Native Americans were granted the legal right to force the western world to listen to what they
had to say, and this opportunity was not wasted by the Native American community. While the
new channels of communication have served to cause unrest between and within each
community, it has also served an important purpose of helping resolve many long standing feuds.
Now that Native Americans can voice hundreds of years of frustration, there is hope that the
animosity between Native Americans and anthropologists will wither away.
Despite what on the surface may seem to be hostile relations between anthropologists and
Native Americans, it is important to note how often the two parties have served to benefit one
another without the need to deal with law. An excellent example is of the Seminole tribe of
Florida, and what they have been able to take from the archaeological discipline. Billy L.
Cypress (1997) notes that while it is unthinkable for a tribal member to disturb a sacred grave
site, there is still a lot that archaeology can offer without breaking tribal taboos (Swindler et al
1997:157). Instead, the archaeologists were able to map out the location of all the burial mounds,
which aided the tribe in mapping out potential economic expansion (Swindler et al 1997:157).
The Seminole tribe and the archaeologists all benefited from working together. The Seminole
received important knowledge about their culture and land, and the archaeologists were able to
compile useful data for further study.
There are several other success stories that prove that Native Americans and
anthropologists can work fruitfully together. The Navajo in particular show how well the science
of anthropology can blend into the Native American cultural fabric. Richard M. Begay (1997)
discusses the size of the Navajo Nation, and states that there are literally over a million
archaeological sites located in the area (Swindler et al 1997:162). The Navajo have a sacred
8
respect for the sites, and thus do not wish to disturb the sites. Due to their desire to respect the
archaeological sites the Navajo Nation employs over a hundred archaeologists who work in the
best interest of the tribe (Swindler et al 1997:162). Archaeology does not necessarily have to be
about taking items from sites to display in museums. Now anthropology has evolved to
understand the importance of respecting the culture that is studied.
NAGPRA had an interesting side-effect within the anthropological community, in that it
allowed the opinion of archaeologists who were supportive of repatriation to finally be heard.
Larry J. Zimmerman (1997) notes that prior to the legalization of NAGPRA archaeological
thought that favored reburial was rejected by scholarly journals (Swindler et al 1997:49). The
thought of willingly disposing of scientific data was a difficult concept for many archaeologists
to accept, yet there was still a portion of the community that did not need legislation to tell them
that the dead should be buried. This perspective was unpopular for obvious reasons. NAGPRA
helped change opinions, since being forced to work so closely with tribes provided a new
perspective for archaeologists, or gave those that had supported reburial all along a new
opportunity to express their views (Swindler et al 1997:50). The frustration felt by archaeologists
over giving up the scientific data gave way to the understanding that the bodies were more than
data. This shift in academic thinking provided a giant leap forward in relations with Native
American peoples. It also made it necessary to rethink the foundation of archaeological ethics.
The perspective on archaeological ethics shifted drastically in favor or respecting Native
American remains and traditions. The respect of the cultural heritage became as engrained in
archaeology as the science itself.
This still left the question of what exactly would be ethically necessary in the radical new
world of the archaeologist. Chip Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T.J. Ferguson (2004) note that there
9
is a duality in archaeological ethics, as the archaeologist has a duty not only to the culture being
studied but often to the party that has funded the archaeological research (Scarre and Scarre
2006:118). There remains an obligation to produce important findings and respect cultural
heritage. These two goals are often at odds with one another. Colwell-Chanthaphonh and
Ferguson argue for a switch to a form of virtue ethics that centers around the notion of trust
(Scarre and Scarre 2006:119). The notion of trust is presented as an alternative to the rigid and
confusing code of ethics subscribed to by other archaeologists. This implies that a relationship
built on mutual trust can be useful when trying to have productive conversations about
archaeological sites with Native American tribes. The more radical idea put forth by ColwellCanthaphonh and Ferguson is that the mutual respect should extend to the dead (Scarre and
Scarre 2006:123) In essence it is implied that the dead discovered by archaeologists deserve the
same respect that the same archaeologist would give to a modern day graveyard.
The complete shift in archaeological ethics is undoubtedly one of the greatest
accomplishments of NAGPRA legislation. The archaeological shift in thinking started before
NAGPRA, with NAGPRA acting as the tipping point. In 1983, several years before NAGPRA
was enacted, bodies were discovered when construction of a bridge began in the Tohono
O'odham Nation (McGuire 2008:155).The state of Arizona hired archaeologists to work with the
contractors who were to work closely with the Nation on the construction of the bridge. Tribal
elders and a medicine woman oversaw the construction, and the remains that were recovered
were returned to the tribe (McGuire 2008:155). This example shows that even prior to NAGPRA
there was an increased desire amongst archaeologists to work with the people they were
studying. The practice of working closely with tribes has proven to be standard practice in
Arizona as the result of the Tohono O'odham project (McGuire 2008:156). From a different
10
perspective NAGPRA appears less like a burden on both tribes and anthropologists and more like
the culmination of a wide-reaching paradigm shift in anthropological thought.
Considering that NAGPRA was merely legislation in the same direction that
anthropological thought was moving, it is understandable to be confused as to why such
legislation became so controversial among both Native Americans and anthropologists. The
frustrations felt by both parties is undoubtedly the result of the abrupt shift, combined with the
sudden headache that legal obligation can cause. The natural progression of anthropological
thought was not moving fast enough by the standards of Native American tribes. While
anthropologists slowly came to grasp that their museum pieces were members of a family, Native
Americans lost patience. Thus NAGPRA became an important part of bringing anthropologists
in line with Native American thinking. Hundreds of years of oppression and abuse was more than
enough for Native Americans. There was no reason for Native Americans to struggle without
support. It was time for repatriation. While NAGPRA was a grand gesture, it is important to look
past the gesture and understand exactly how productive NAGPRA has been at returning funeral
remains and other cultural items to their rightful owners.
NAGPRA has many success stories. NAGPRA has successfully repatriated tens of
thousands of skeletal remains and cultural objects since the law passed (Fine-Dare 2002: 175).
The inventories created have brought to light many objects that are of great importance not only
to archaeologists but to the Native American as well, as many of the objects recovered had never
been seen before by members of the tribe (Adams 2001:2). Sacred cultural artifacts of priceless
worth began appearing out of the dusty crates of museum basements. Many museums had never
produced a complete inventory of archaeological items, and thus while the legal obligation was a
hassle, the information retrieved from the inventories can be considered a definite benefit to the
11
museum.
It would seem logical to assume that NAGPRA decimated the collections of many
museums, but this is not necessarily the case. Many recovered items were not wanted by the
tribes that were allowed to lay claim to the artifacts (Adams 2001:2). Often the items were
considered desecrated and no longer of use to the tribe (Adams 2001:2). Some artifacts are left in
the care of the museum that housed it, with the museum respecting the wishes of the tribe to face
a certain direction or follow other sacred guidelines for the care of the artifact (Adams 2001:2).
Certain tribes were willing to work with other institutions in a collaborative effort, which
allowed museums to continue to conduct research and inform the public.
It is fascinating to observe how the increased Native American presence in anthropology,
brought on largely by NAGPRA, has affected how museums respect and care for their
collections. There is record of a physical anthropologist in 1984 who used a Native American
skull as an ashtray (Fine-Dare 2002:33). There are numerous stories of abuse and disregard for
human remains and cultural artifacts prior to NAGPRA. Even the fact that some pieces were
stored in basements can be construed as offensive to Native American culture. Since NAGPRA
has passed the instances of abuse have undoubtedly shrank. In the course of thirty years
anthropology has leaped forward with regards to respecting the Native peoples that are being
researched. This leap was aided tremendously with the passage of NAGPRA.
Even in the best-case scenario, NAGPRA still can be interpreted as taking away from
science to contribute to Native American culture, and this perspective can frustrate any
individual in the anthropological community with a large stake in Native American
archaeological data. No matter how one views NAGPRA legislation, it is undeniable that
repatriation takes valuable resources from the anthropological community. Kurt E. Dongoske
12
(2000) expresses the sentiment of many modern anthropologists when discussing this loss; the
loss of data is nothing compared to what Native American peoples have suffered throughout
history, often in the name of science (Mihesuah 2000:289). Douglas P. Lackey (2006) makes a
compelling point when discussing the fairness of NAGPRA to archaeologists when he stated
that, “Loss of scientific knowledge does not figure in the argument, and no argument is given in
NAGPRA that some compensating good will result from repatriation” (Scarre and Scarre
2006:148). The bones of their relatives are rightfully the Native Americans, so any scientific
information would have come from unethical avenues regardless.
It is also important to note that many of the artifacts were housed in museums and
completely forgotten, making it difficult to argue for the loss of knowledge that had already been
lost by the hands of anthropologists and curators. One could make an argument that there has
been an increase in scientific knowledge since NAGPRA, as museums have been forced to
rediscover their own collections. The artifacts have provided not only an open avenue of
communication between anthropologists and Native Americans, but also has yielded culturally
significant information that would otherwise have gone unnoticed. Understanding the exact
historical context of certain artifacts from a primary source can provide a level of insight into
data that would have been previously unattainable. By forcing a dialogue over remains and other
cultural items between anthropologists and Native Americans a great deal of information has
poured out, and this new information has been enlightening to both parties.
It is undeniable that NAGPRA is a controversial and complicated piece of legislation, one
that has fundamentally altered whole scientific disciplines. NAGPRA is obviously imperfect, but
has served the important purpose of attempting to return some dignity and heritage to Native
American peoples. The essence of NAGPRA is basic law; that someone has legal ownership of
13
an item and deserves the item to be returned. This simple concept is complicated by hundreds of
years of abuse by Euro-Americans and anthropologists, as well as even longer disputes between
tribes. In the past, archaeologists were little more than glorified grave robbers, acting under the
presumed academic pursuit of science. The birth of anthropology was very bloody and violent.
An ignorance of humanity in the beginning has served to complicate matters hundreds of years
later. Modern anthropologists are paying for the sins of their fathers, and the process of
repentance has become frustrating and embarrassing. Yet regardless of the difficulties felt by the
young science of anthropology, it is important that the debt to the Native American people be
repaid.
NAGPRA as a legal act of contrition on behalf of the United States of America has
proven to be far from perfect. The law is short-sighted and very unclear, leaving plenty of room
for legal disputes. While many debate how beneficial NAGPRA has truly been, it is apparent that
NAGPRA represents a definite step forward in rebuilding relations between anthropologists and
Native Americans. The repatriation of remains and collaboration between Native American tribes
and archaeologists is pivotal to anthropology moving forward as a science. Allowing all Native
people access to their rightful heritage, from Hawaiian Natives to the wide and varying tribes of
the continental United States and Alaska, should be the first priority of anthropology. Heated
debate continues about what the future should hold for NAGPRA. After twenty years of
NAGPRA being the first step forward in Native American and anthropological relations, it is
universally agreed that now is the time to take the next step. The question of what that next step
should be rages on.
14
References Cited
Adams, Roxana, ed.
2001 Implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.
Washington, DC: American Association of Museums.
Begay, Richard M.
1997 The Role of Archaeology on Indian Lands: The Navajo Nation in Native Americans
and Archaeologists. Nina Swindler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon and Alan S. Downer
eds. Pp 161-170.Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Colwell-Chanthaphonh and T.J. Ferguson
2006 Trust and Archaeological Practice: Towards a Framework of Virtue Ethics in The
Ethics of Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological Practice. Chris
Scarre and Geoffrey Scarre, eds. Pp. 115-130. Cambridge, United Kingdom:University
Press.
Cypress, Billy L.
1997 The Role of Archaeology in the Seminole Tribe of Florida in Native Americans and
Archaeologists. Nina Swindler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon and Alan S. Downer
eds. Pp 156-160.Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
Dongoske, Kurt E.
2000 A New Beginning, Not the End, for Osteological Analysis-A Hopi Perspective in
Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains?. Devon A. Mihesuah, ed.
Pp. 282-293. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Fforde, Cressida.
2004 Collecting the Dead: Archaeology and the Reburial Issue. London: Gerald
15
Duckworth & Co.Ltd.
Fine-Dare, Kathleen S.
2002 Grave Injustice: The American Indian Repatriation Movement and NAGPRA.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Lackey, Douglas P.
2006 Ethics and Native American Reburials: A Philosopher's View of Two Decades of
NAGPRA in The Ethics of Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on Archaeological
Practice. Chris Scarre and Geoffrey Scarre, eds. Pp.146-162.Cambridge, United
Kingdom: University Press.
McGuire, Randall H.
2008 Archaeology as Political Action. Berkeley: University of California Press.
McManamon, Francis P.
Repatriation in the USA: A Decade of Federal Agency Activities Under NAGPRA in The
Dead and their Possessions: Repatriation in Principle, Policy, and Practice. Cressida
Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull eds. Pp 133-148. London: Routledge.
Scarre, Chris and Geoffrey Scarre.
2006:Introduction in The Ethics of Archaeology: Philosophical Perspectives on
Archaeological Practice. Chris Scarre and Geoffrey Scare, eds. Pp.1-12. Cambridge,
United Kingdom: University Press.
Thomas, David Hurst
2000 Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, and the Battle for Native American
Identity. New York: Basic Books.
Zimmerman, Larry J.
16
1997 Remythologizing the Relationship Between Indians and Archaeologists in Native
Americans and Archaeologists. Nina Swindler, Kurt E. Dongoske, Roger Anyon and
Alan S. Downer eds. Pp 44-56.Walnut Creek: AltaMira Press.
17