1

Luis Salas
Marisa Maughan, M.S.
ANTH 2014
December 1, 2014

Rights to the Bodies of Lineages Past

As years pass, the remains of some once cherished individuals age and are forgotten by
their respected lineage. Countless bodies are scattered across every corner of our planet and
most of them certainly reside within this context. Due to the age and ambiguity of the remains,
many archeologist and researchers have took it upon themselves to study and bring forth
information that would have otherwise remained lost and undiscovered. The problem in the
United States is that there is a law that slows and even brings this process to a standstill. The
Native American Grave Protection and Repatriate Act (NAGPRA) was put placed into action
early in the 1990s and has since brought forth a great deal of debate. This read will shed light
on these debates and will allow you, the reader to interpret for yourself who has the right to
such remains.
The NAGPRA is basically a law that was passed by congress in 1990 to seal certain holes
in the system. The law as it stood beforehand had holes, including one that would provide
protection of burial sites so long as the graves were marked. The problem with that notion is
that is just so happens that there are many Native American burial sites that do not meet this
criteria. As a result, such sites where open to excavation which resulted in the desecration of
many sites. Throughout this era many remains and artifacts have been obtained by museum

and private individuals. When NAGPRA was established it allowed tribe members to claim
these item if direct correlation could be establish between the living and long deceased parties.
Unfortunately, institutions who receive federal grants would see a great deal of change
in the way the Act is carried out after a 2010 amendment to the Act. As the NAGPRA stand,
entities whom receive federal grants would have to, try to link the CUI in their collections with
tribes whose ancestors lived where the artifacts were found, with the ultimate intention of
turning them over. (Smith, 2010) This would overturn the earlier understanding that allowed
old enough remains to be considered unaffiliated. This is good for the tribes since they have
to be contacted by the holder of the remains.
The two side to the argument have strong beliefs on how the remains should be
handled. Each one of these two has an agenda that may be justified. To further complicate the
situation, we must realize that there is not just one Native American tribe but a few thousand.
Of those, there are just about 600 recognized by the federal government. As a result, people
such as archaeologist must come to reason with these populations, some of which are open to
the idea of studying their ancestors remains an some of which are opposed to it. Nevertheless,
it is customary that the living respect the dead, and that alone should be enough to sweep
many individuals to yield toward this side of the conversation.
So what about the opposing side and that of the current remain and artifact holders, the
archeologist, anthropologist, and anyone else for that matter that wants to obtain the remains
for scientific purposes? Although most of us find the need to be respectful he remains of the
dead, do we not also seek knowledge, especially that of our evolutionary history? This is the
notion proposed by the scientific community, and it is being met by a series of challenging

issues. To some, such as a chair member of the Repatriation Committee for the National
Museum of the American Indian, Manley A. Begay, this was seen as a positive notion. He state
in his article that he states that this law brought forth better, education, cooperation, and
collaboration between museums scientist and Indigenous groups.(Begay, 2012) He also
mentioned an anthropologist t as Harvards Peabody Museum that quit because he felt the new
law would take away everything he had ever worked for and dismantled his long years of hard
work.
For this side of the argument, the most restricting passage of the NAGPRA is located on
section 5. Where it states that all artifacts in the possession of federally agency or museum
must inventory and identify the geographical and cultural affiliation of the item in possession in
order to return them to their rightful owner. The word affiliation in the text is broad and as a
result are entitled to geographical, kinship, biological, archaeological, anthropological,
linguistic, folkloric, oral tradition, historical, or other relevant information or expert opinion
(sec. 7 [a][4]). It could certainly be implied that the writers of the document were speaking of
more recent human remains and not that of Archaic and Paleo-Indian.
An example of such a situation is that of the discovery by University of California, San
Diego involving two burials excavated of the cliffs of La Jolla. These remains were dated to be
over 8,300 years old. Even with a confirmed age of that magnitude, a Native American tribe,
the Kumeyaay, in the area claimed that they body should lay in their possession. Luckily for the
scientist who would study the remains, the Kumeyaay were kind and courteous enough to
allow them to run test that they saw suitable. Meaning that there are still some things that
these professionals are retrained form doing and therefore now allowing them to get the most

information out of the remains. (Mayes, 2010) A second and similar example is that of the
remains of an individual, the Kennewick Man, found in the in the Columbia River in
Kennewick, Washington. Since its discovery, five tribes have claimed the body as their
ancestor. Even with prober samples tested for affiliation, it would be difficult to associate the
body with one particular tribe. So, who would the body go to? As of now, the body is in the
possession of the Burke Museum and all access is regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. Visits are permitted by Native American to conduct ceremonies as well as visits form
professional to study the body on occasion. (Burke, 2014)
The second notion required by NAGPRA is that excavated or land modifying activities
are to be conducted with the underlying priority of keeping or returning the site to its original
state. In addition, members of the excavating party are to contact and inform possible
affiliated Native American groups of such discoveries. With that notion in place, Teresa Olwick
Grose states, Some archaeologist face the possibility of being denied access to the date which
they have based their lifes work. (Grose, 1996) Because of the possibility of damaging and
ultimately offending Native American groups precautions are taken to keep the sites off limits
to hazardous tampering, of which Archeologist and alike personnel may base their practice
upon.
Conclusively, it would be a matter of opinion on who should have the right to the
remains. Personally, I believe that the excavation and discovery of more recent remains and
artifacts should be returned to the rightful owners. As for remains dating back to over several
thousand years is a whole different story. Those remains should be open to study by

professionals that have the proper knowledge to interpret and gain insight from such remains.
It is a shame then that those seeking knowledge of our own human past are being limited.

6
Reference List
Begay Jr. M. THE NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND REPATRIATION ACT AFTER TWENTY
YEARS: A View from Indigenous Country. Arizona State Law Journal [serial online]. Summer2012
2012;44(2):625-638. Available from: Legal Collection, Ipswich, MA. Accessed December 1, 2014.
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.dbprox.slcc.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=36cbc2c4-f405-4542-8fe3117c403089a6%40sessionmgr114&vid=1&hid=121
Burke Museum. Kennewick Man The Ancient One. Burkemuseum.org. 2014. Web. December 1, 2014
http://www.burkemuseum.org/kennewickman
Grose, Teresa Olwick. "Reading The Bones: Information Content, Value, And Ownership Issues Raised By
The Native American Graves Protection And Repatriation Act." Journal Of The American Society For
Information Science 47.8 (1996): 624-631. Library, Information Science & Technology Abstracts with Full
Text. Web. 1 Dec. 2014.
http://eds.a.ebscohost.com.dbprox.slcc.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a9bdbb61-9fca-4bfc-988271404de08be7%40sessionmgr4003&vid=6&hid=4211
Mayes A. These bones are read: the science and politics of ancient Native America. The American Indian
Quarterly [serial online]. 2010;(2):131. Available from: Literature Resource Center, Ipswich, MA.
Accessed December 1, 2014.
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.dbprox.slcc.edu/eds/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=a0a67296-324e-4f72-aa990e3de14ef0f8%40sessionmgr115&vid=0&hid=121
Smith J. Who Owns the Dead?. Archaeology [serial online]. January 2011;64(1):16-62. Available from:
Academic Search Premier, Ipswich, MA. Accessed December 1, 2014.
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com.dbprox.slcc.edu/eds/detail/detail?sid=6e5f4f78-2034-4d98-859382edefc5b2c2%40sessionmgr115&vid=0&hid=121&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWRzLWxpdmU%3d#db=aph&AN=
55758362