Thomas Kays

ANTH-101

Reading Response 2

11/1/15

Clark and Watkins Working Together

The article, “Working Together” is actually two articles, one comprising of an argument

against the NAGPRA by G.A. Clark, and a rebuttal in favor of the NAGPRA by Joe Watkins.

Summarizing Clark first, he first states that he is a paleoanthropologist interested in the Plio-

Pleistocene records of Africa and western Eurasia. He goes on to say that the creation of the

NAGPRA is a detriment to Western science. The NAGPRA is a law that was passed in order to

protect Native American descendants and Indian tribes with respect to the repatriation and

disposition of Native American remains and artifacts. Elevating religious beliefs and cultural

traditions of Indians to the same level as science according to Clark, “strike at the heart of a

scientific archaeology.” Archaeology should be treated as a purely scientific endeavor, and not

bend to the whims of political correctness or agendas. And while the NAGPRA does create

short-term opportunities, it will eventually create long-term problems. In the short-term, these

remains and artifacts will have to studied by far more archaeologists and physical

anthropologists, and that the standard for applying descriptions to remains and the curation of

them will be raised. However, the eventual loss of these remains would cause a major setback

to the groups studying these cultures. More problematic however, is that by placing religious

belief on the same level as science, any interested party can make claims as a result.

Watkins responds to Clark is that while Clark’s perception of the conflict is presented

well, it is just a “perception.” He emphasizes that scientists should stop being so dispassionate
and stop trying to step outside of humanity. Because humans can quantify complex, abstract

concepts, we are at the top of the intellectual pyramid. To some societies, the disturbance of

remains can be seen as an affront to their core beliefs, and messing with them is asking for

trouble. Watkins points out that many times, the projects involving remains, are unwanted by

Native Americans, and subjugate them to scientist’s wills. The NAGPRA was created to protect

the rights of Native Americans and take their religious beliefs into account, so anthropologists

should not take the law personally. More importantly, Watkins believes that science should

never be above or outside the law or system in which it presides. And while he does agree with

Clark that some researchers will lose some of their research, the opportunity to work with

American Indians is a great chance to develop programs that could not be achieved without

their cooperation.

I agree mostly with Watkins position in that science must take into consideration the

religious and cultural beliefs of societies. I think both sides were well supported and made

claims that were justifiable, however it seems to me that Clark’s position is rather apathetic to

the beliefs of societies if advancements can be made in the name of science. The very basis of

any religion is that it transcends any man-made law or system, so the violation of that belief in

their mind is abysmal. If someone is religious, then the law of their God is placed above any law

made by man. So while the loss of these remains for study is sad, the support and trust of the

society in question is more important and opens up more avenues for understanding their

culture. The philosophy of advancing science no matter the consequences, is reminiscent of

Nazi Germany and the experiments they performed, “in the name of science.” The problem

though is that there may have to be exceptions to this law. For instance, if studying certain
remains against a society’s wishes could lead to a cure for cancer, should that be pursued no

matter the cost? There may be have to be line drawn where the scientific findings would

outweigh the damage done in the name of science although I don’t know where that line is

exactly.

I believe that this article is important in helping people understand that in any situation,

both sides of an argument can be supported and equally convincing. More specifically with

regards to anthropology, it brings to light a very important and difficult question many

researchers have, “Should religion take precedence over science?” There are countless

arguments on both sides, and this argument even extends beyond science and into politics,

economics, and many other fields. If one is a religious person, then religion should be above

science, but if you are not religious, then science should be on top. It is a touchy subject that

needs to be taken into consideration with great care. A concern that I have that could change

my view on the law however is what exactly are the standard and requirements to make a claim

on remains or artifacts? If the bar is low to make a claim, then many groups are able to make a

claim on a single remain, which could cause many problems in that situation. If perhaps the

requirements for making a claim were represented and shown to be too low, I may be

persuaded to side with Clark a bit more and that changes to the law itself need to occur.

However I still agree with Watkins overall and that there need to some protection for groups in

this subject matter.