You want to do what?

In reading a recent copy of Archaeology, I came across a small information box regarding proposed changes to the landmark statute known as NAGPRA, or Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. There wasn't enough information in the magazine for me to form an opinion on it, so it joined the stack of "deal with later" articles that grew on my desk. Today I've decided to deal with it. :)

After reading more information and a legal commentary from the Society for American Archaeology in response to the proposed changes, I'm still feeling a bit confused about the extent of involvement of the Park Service in these proposed changes but there appears to be a link between the two. So, here goes...

The 1990 statute required that museums and other groups holding collections of human remains and objects that could be culturally affiliated with modern Native American tribes create inventories and begin the process of returning those remains and specific objects (funerary, sacred, patrimonial) to the affiliated tribe. Remains and objects that could not be culturally linked to a modern tribe were classified as CUHR (culturally unidentifiable human remains) and would remain with the museums or groups until such time as they can be identified. IF an indentification was made but the tribe no longer existed, the remains and objects would still remain with museums and groups.

Under the proposed changes to the statute, the term "Native American" would be expanded from modern tribes to both modern and formerly indigenous tribes. This would allow prehistoric remains, such as those of Kennewick Man, a prehistoric man whose remains were discovered in Washington State, to be classified as Native American despite not having a modern tribe that could claim direct affiliation. This would embroil the courts and many tribes in legal battles to determine which tribe has the best argument for cultural affiliation/kinship by lineage to Kennewick Man. This is the exact reason why the original statute specifically limited cultural affiliation directly to modern tribes. To include prehistoric remains would create a complex, controversial upheaval for all players. Not to mention the impact on shortened scientific studies.

At the same time, and possibly in conjunction with proposed changes in the definition of "Native American", the National Park Service has proposed that CUHR would be given to the tribe known to have occupied the land on which the remains were found. This would include not only native american remains, but could apply to any human remains regardless of age or ethnicity, such as Jane and John Doe skeletons currently housed in FBI, state and local law-enforcement evidence lockers.

Now, I would like to think that modern tribes would be polite enough to not make a claim on human remains simply to make a point. However, given the history between "white man" and "Indian", I know this is a naive thought. But I can't help but wonder...say a tribe successfully claimed a John Doe skeleton, buried him according to tradition, congratulated each other on their victory and, all the while, the skeleton is really the remains of a some white man. Wouldn't that make their ancestors turn over in their graves!?

Overall, I say don't fix what isn't broken. In our current age of being politically correct and culturally sensitive, there has to be reasonable boundaries. To purposely amend a statute that would cause such extreme controversy and stress the current cooperative efforts between museums and tribes seems, to me, foolish. Why the National Park Service would propose such a change is a mystery to me. If it is an issue of the amount of time it takes to process and store remains, then another agency can surely be identified to handle it. I'm sure there are local research universities or museums that would be happy to assist in those endeavors while still exploring the possibility of cultural affiliation to a modern tribe under the 1990 law.