The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is a federal law that requires federal agencies to return cultural items excavated from Native American burial sites to appropriate tribes. “Cultural items” in this context include human remains as well as various material objects that can be found in graves. The law was adopted in 1990. Within past 26 years, various activities were conducted associated with the process of protection and repatriation. NAGPRA is part of the extensive debate in the United States between the Native American community and the archaeological community. On the one hand, Native Americans insist that the bodies of their ancestors should not be disinterred or displayed in museums. On the other hand, archaeologists insist on the scientific importance of studying burial sites. Despite the complexity of the debate, its analysis and examining relevant examples can help achieve a compromise.
The debate of the Salina Indian burial pit is an illustrative example of the Native American grave protection issues. Exploring the Salina burial pit was important because it provided valuable material evidence of cultural and anthropological importance. But excavation of human remains provoked a strong emotional response from the Native American community. Walter Echo-Hawk, who acted as the community’s spokesperson for this case, said, “The time has come for the people to decide, are we Indians part of this country’s living culture, or are we just here to supply museums with dead bodies?” The attempts of the Native American tribes to return the remains from the Salina burial pit to the graves were presented as a battle for human dignity because exhibiting dead bodies was regarded as degrading and offensive according to the Native Americans’ beliefs. I think that it is very important that both sides, archaeologists and native people, had an opportunity to participate in the Salina burial pit discussion, which laid the foundation for NAGPRA.
The Kennewick Man case revealed interesting aspects of the graves protection and repatriation issues. With NAGPRA already effective, the remains of a prehistoric man were claimed by several Indian tribes. Particularly, the Umatilla people believed that the remains belonged to a man of their culture and wanted to bury them according to their traditions. Researchers, however, did not want to give up Kennewick Man because his remains were one of the most valuable ancient skeletons ever found. The complication was that the remains were about 9,000 years old, which made it practically impossible to establish their relation to present-day inhabitants of the area. On this basis, the court refused the local tribes’ claims because no evidence of kinship was presented. Attempts to introduce changes to NAGPRA that would allow repatriation of Kennewick Man were not successful. The claims of Native American tribes to rebury Kennewick Man are still effective. I think it should not be done because the remains are scientifically valuable and also because they are too old to be considered part of any present-day culture.
Addressing difficult NAGPRA-related issues requires two major considerations. First, we need to understand what the rights of native people are and how they should be recognized and fulfilled. Second, we need to define the role and interests of archaeologists and other researchers, whose activities may violate the rights of Native Americans. Failure to consider these two issues will significantly obstruct any discussion on Native American grave protection and repatriation.
NAGRPA is based on the recognition of the right of Native Americans to receive back cultural items, including human remains, excavated from burial sites. It is based on the beliefs shared by many Native American tribes that interred bodies should not be disturbed. Otherwise, spirits will not rest in peace. Exhumation and putting dead bodies on display, e.g. in museums, is considered by Native Americans to be sacrilege and a major offense towards their ancestors. Thus, the concept of scientific value of such cultural items is disregarded. I think it is important to respect the rights of Native Americans to treat the graves of their ancestors according to their religious beliefs. If this right is neglected, it will create social tension between the Native American community and the rest of the United States population.
However, it does not mean that any archaeological studies related to Native American burial sites should be shut down altogether. The conflict between archaeology and native beliefs, in this case, is much like any dispute between science and religion. The religious worldview is based on faith and longstanding traditions. Science explores the world through observation and analysis. When the two collide, there is hardly ever a way to decide which one is right because they are essentially different. However, since we recognize the rights of Native Americans to practice their religion, we should similarly recognize the right of science for advancement and development for the sake of better understanding of the world we live in. Archaeological studies produce valuable knowledge of the past and contribute to our understanding of history, culture, and the development of human society. We need this knowledge in order to secure a better future. For example, present-day medicine is partially based on studying exhumed bodies. Medieval physicians in Europe were not able to study dead bodies because of prohibitions imposed by the church, so they had to disinter corpses illegally and secretly, risking their lives. Later on, their discoveries about the human organism helped to treat various diseases. Therefore, we should acknowledge the importance of archaeology in general and studies of burial sites in particular.
Within recent decades, much effort was dedicated to finding a compromise. NAGPRA is an attempt to establish a framework where the rights of both archaeologists and Native Americans are fulfilled. The main achievement is that a platform for dialogue was created. Although there are still debates, we can say that NAGPRA is beneficial to both sides. It acknowledges the rights of Native Americans for federal agencies-owned items that belong to their cultures, but also provides conditions for scientific advancements. For example, NAGPRA allowed many osteology laboratories to receive grants for studying thousands of remains of Native Americans that had not been studied before due to the lack of funds. These studies significantly contributed to the development of osteology in the US. After the completion of studies, the remains were returned to lineal descendants. This example shows that a compromise where both sides benefit is possible.
NAGPRA deals with a very complex conflict between science and religion. Although the two sides will not achieve full agreement, there are things that can be done, like graves protection and repatriation activities. What makes these activities important is that the rights of both Native Americans and archaeologist are recognized.