Washington, D.C. – The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was signed into law 33 years ago, requiring federally funded institutions to catalog, report, and return Native American ancestral remains and funerary objects. In January, the law was updated with stronger provisions, including the requirement for researchers to obtain consent from tribal or lineal descendants before exhibiting or conducting research on human remains and related cultural items.
While some may see this as a hindrance to scientific research, many Indigenous leaders are encouraged by these updates. However, anthropologist Elizabeth Weiss argues that the entire law should be scrapped, claiming that repatriating human remains hinders scientific progress.
Weiss argues that NAGPRA undermines the separation of church and state by giving traditional Native American religious leaders a say over whether and to whom human remains will be returned. She points out that the law requires two out of seven committee members to be traditional Indian religious leaders and only allows for one type of religious evidence to be used in repatriation – Native American creationism.
She also highlights a provision at her university that previously prevented individuals who were menstruating from handling skeletal remains, citing this as an example of tribal “mythology” influencing institutional guidelines. However, her university has since rescinded this provision in April 2022.
Niiyokamigaabaw Deondre Smiles, a citizen of the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe in Minnesota and Indigenous geographer at the University of Victoria in British Columbia, Canada, disagrees with Weiss’ perspective. He believes that her argument ignores the long history of grave robbing of Indigenous burial sites in the name of science.
Smiles points to the example of Samuel Morton, a 19th-century “craniologist” who collected and measured hundreds of human skulls to support his belief in five distinct races, each created separately. He used these measurements to determine a racial hierarchy, promoting the false idea of inherent differences between races.
“There’s been a long history of people treating Indigenous remains as mere objects of curiosity, rather than acknowledging that they once belonged to human beings,” Smiles explains.
Previously, NAGPRA allowed institutions to keep artifacts they deemed “culturally unidentifiable.” However, this provision has now been removed, and tribal historians and religious leaders will have a voice in determining where these items should go.
Shannon O’Loughlin, a citizen of the Choctaw Nation of Oklahoma and attorney for the Association on American Indian Affairs, a nonprofit that helps tribes navigate NAGPRA processes, clarifies that the law does not prohibit research or display of Native remains. It simply requires consent and brings tribes to the table where they have previously been excluded.
“The whole point of the law is to educate museums about the significance of items in their collections and why they belong to the tribes,” O’Loughlin emphasizes.
She also stresses that institutions do not own Native bodies or cultural items unless they can prove a right of possession. If tribes request certain accommodations or protocols, it is because they are the true owners of these items.
In conclusion, while there may be differing opinions on the impact of NAGPRA, it is essential to acknowledge and respect the rights and beliefs of Indigenous communities. The law aims to rectify a long history of grave robbing and give tribes a voice in the treatment of their ancestral remains and cultural objects. It is a step towards reconciliation and understanding, and we must continue to support and uphold it.
