The Science of Grave Robbing

A law revision complicates the already-strained relationship between Native Americans and archaeologists
by Staff, Utne Reader
May-June 2011
Add to My MSN

Memaloose Island
Image by Flickr user: glennwilliamspdx / Creative Commons


Content Tools

Related Content

Consumption on the Brain

Modern society actively bombards the human consciousness, allowing the most primitive and consumptio...

Deep Thoughts on Death and Dying

Hank Lentfer meditates on what to do with our bodies when we die and the purpose of rituals….

The Plot Thickens: Now it's the Austrians Dressing up as Native Americans

In our International Issue, we asked the age-old question: Why do 40,000 Germans spend their weekend...

Bookmarked: Arctic Tribes on Weather and Communities Holding Corporations Accountable

This week in Bookmarked: Arctic Voices and Civic Empowerment in an Age of Corporate Greed.

“It is most unpleasant work to steal bones from a grave,” said famed archaeologist Franz Boas in 1888 as he dug up Native American skulls for study.

In 1990 the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) attempted to remedy more than a hundred years of mistreatment, however well-intentioned, of aboriginal remains. The law required federally funded researchers and museums to return artifacts and human bones to tribes that could demonstrate a meaningful link to them.

A recent amendment to NAGPRA is shaking up the arrangement, reports Julian Smith in Archaeology (Jan.-Feb. 2011). Through the 2010 revision, all Native American remains—even those that don’t have a tie to a particular community—are to be part of the repatriation process.

Of the 157,000 Native American and Native Hawaiian bodies held in federally funded collections, approximately 42,000 had been returned to or identified with a tribe by 2009. With the new amendment now active, the remaining 115,000 culturally unidentifiable (CUI) human remains are essentially up for grabs. “Any tribe whose historic territory passes the test can claim ownership, even without the sort of demonstrable cultural connection the original law required,” writes Smith.

While the relationship between Native Americans and archaeologists has always been strained, the new amendment further complicates it. In the eyes of Native tribes, it is necessary to respect the remains of their ancestors, with reburial being the best outcome. Archaeologists and educators, however, see the scholarly value of these ancient bones and fear that returning them is imprudent and will be a devastating loss to science.

You’d almost think it was their graves that had been robbed.

Cover-165-thumbnailThis article first appeared in the May-June 2011 issue of Utne Reader.








Post a comment below.

 








Pay Now & Save $5!
First Name: *
Last Name: *
Address: *
City: *
State/Province: *
Zip/Postal Code:*
Country:
Email:*
(* indicates a required item)
Canadian subs: 1 year, (includes postage & GST). Foreign subs: 1 year, . U.S. funds.
Canadian Subscribers - Click Here
Non US and Canadian Subscribers - Click Here

Want to gain a fresh perspective? Read stories that matter? Feel optimistic about the future? It's all here! Utne Reader offers provocative writing from diverse perspectives, insightful analysis of art and media, down-to-earth news and in-depth coverage of eye-opening issues that affect your life.

Save Even More Money By Paying NOW!

Pay now with a credit card and take advantage of our earth-friendly automatic renewal savings plan. You save an additional $5 and get 4 issues of Utne Reader for only $31.00 (USA only).

Or Bill Me Later and pay just $36 for 4 issues of Utne Reader!