Reviewed by: Karyn Denny

In his article, “Contesting Scientists’ Narrations of NAGPRA’s Legislative History, Rule 10.11 and the Recovery of ‘Culturally Unidentifiable’ Ancestors,” Clayton Dumont Jr. argued that scientists in archaeology, physical anthropology, and museum studies did not just participate in NAGPRA’s legislative process, but used political and public relations tactics to “resist the repatriation demands of Native peoples” (6).

Dumont examined approximately 1,700 records of these hearings, and based on these findings, the panel’s final report indicated that professionals from the archaeology, physical anthropology, museum, and art-dealing industries opposed repatriation and burial-protection bills under consideration in Congress (10). Furthermore, Dumont demonstrated that scientists fought to reinvent NAGPRA to suit their professional interests, seeking to maintain their “colonial prerogative” (6).

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) became law on November 16, 1990 (P.L. 101-601; 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.). In addition to establishing this legislation, the section defines federal Indian lands, organizations, and agencies, as well as native peoples, including Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian people. Furthermore, it clearly defines burial sites, cultural affiliations, and cultural items, including associated funerary objects, unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and cultural patrimony and possession.

Section 10 of NAGPRA provides grants to Indian tribes and organizations to support the repatriation of Native American cultural items. It also limits the authority of any federal agency or museum(s) in the return or repatriation process for Native American cultural items to Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, or individuals.

In a letter addressed to the manager of the National NAGPRA Program and signed by representatives from the Repatriation Committee of the American Association of Physical Anthropology, the following statement was made:

“Human remains and associated funerary objects determined to be culturally unidentifiable cannot reasonably be repatriated according to the guiding principles of NAGPRA, because they lack a demonstrable relationship of shared group identity between a modern-day, federally recognized tribe and a past group. If such a relationship cannot be demonstrated, then the balance built into the statute that favors Native American/Native Hawaiian groups in decisions of repatriation where cultural affiliation can be demonstrated shifts to the side of American interests in the preservation of our collective heritage.”

Dumont found many letters written in this nature and questioned the motives of these scientists who clearly don’t support NAGPRA. Responding to these attitudes, Dumont’s response is cleverly highlighted here:

“…the inherited privilege and power of the colonial gaze that their assumptions are beyond their capacity for self- scrutiny. That is, the traditions and aspirations handed down from their own European histories appear so natural and normal to them that they are unable to see them as cultural traditions.”

Over 41 months, from February 1987 to July 1990, Dumont discovered that only one institution, the Bishop Museum in Honolulu, actively supported one of the seven pro-Native bills (10). In connection with this, American Indian activist Suzan Harjo testified in support of the NAGPRA bill, stating:

“We have an opportunity to change that view, to take Indians out of anthropology, take Indians out of archaeology, to put us where we belong as people who have developed in wonderful artistic ways and in wonderful functional ways” (16).

Dumont stated that as the drafts of H.R. 5237 “moved toward culmination,” scientists from the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) increasingly pressed to remove the provisions from the “culturally unidentifiable remains,” subsequently calling this category “ubiquitous” and “culturally unaffiliated” (25).SAA attempted to change the statutory terms from “consultation with tribal government” to “consultation with relevant tribal government” (25). According to Dumont, this change occurred because scientists, acting as the determining authority, decided whether modern-day tribes had ties to their traditional lands. If scientists found no ties, they considered those tribal governments and elders as “not relevant,” and so the collection of the dead from those lands would be reported as “culturally unidentifiable” (26). Dumont asserted that when NAGPRA came into law, it did not do justice for Native peoples, but instead furthered the colonist strategy.

Bibliography:

Clayton W. Dumont Jr., “Contesting Scientists’ Narrations of NAGPRA’s Legislative History, Rule 10.11 and the Recovery of ‘Culturally Unidentifiable’ Ancestors,” Wicazo Sa Review 26, no. 1 (2011): 5-41.