Zachary Fredrickson

TR 8:30-9:50
Ethics Paper
NAGPRA
Introduction:
On the 16th of November 1990, legislation was passed into United States federal
law that protects the archaeological remains of Native American peoples found in the
country. NAGPRA, an acronym standing for Native American Graves Protection and
Repatriation Act, was formulated by the people native to this land after they felt that the
excavated remains belonging to their ancestry were systematically being disrespected
while contrastingly, those of other ethnic backgrounds seemed to be receiving a marked
difference in reverence. After centuries of subcitizen treatment and a slew of
controversial events including reluctant repatriation and grave robbery, they took legal
action. The act states that any human remains, funerary artifacts, or any extraneous
objects supposed to be buried with the individual in question belong to the tribe that the
body holds lineage to. If no direct lineage can be found, the next closest relative tribe
receives it. This law also requires that any institution receiving federal funds including
museums, federal agencies,universities, and institutions to create an inventory of any
and all Native American artifacts so they can be repatriated with ease.
The other side of the story is inhabited by the anthropologists, the archaeologists,
the scientists, and the scholars. This group believes they should be able to study bodies
uninhibited that have been found for research, especially if the specimen has promise
for historical or scientific breakthrough. Their argument is that they are already dead
and have been so for a rather long time. They mean no disrespect, they just want to
learn.

Viewpoint One:
Ever since the Europeans first settled the New World in the late 15th century, the
Americans native to the land have been arbitrarily persecuted, killed off, and corralled
into miniscule reservations they were forced to habitate. Entire tribes have been snuffed
out and the groups remaining are only representative of a slight portion of their preColombian populations.
The injustices to these people seem to have decreased to the uninvolved; but if
you look at the evidence you can see that marginalization has become subversive rather
than overt. During the early 1970s, a burial site consisting 26 caucasoid bodies and two
American Indian bodies was discovered whilst excavating land for highway
construction. The 26 white bodies were promptly buried while the Native American
bodies were shipped off to a lab for studying. Maria Pearson saw this as injustice and
pressed for the passage of the Iowa Burials Protection Act. Another incident leading up
to this was the desecration and robbing of a 500-year-old burial mound in Slack Farm
Kentucky in 1987. Bodies were dug up and flung carelessly and without respect to the
side while sacred relics and artifacts were stolen. In the 1990s, over 200 bodies of
Native Americans were on display at the Dickson Mounds Museum. After years of
protesting and pressure, the museum relented and took the bodies off exhibit. An article
by Hugh Dellios says At sunrise, Native Americans who fought for several years to shut
down what they considered a racist display celebrated the closing with a pipe ceremony
around a bonfire on a hill next to the museum.
After repeated injustices, NAGPRA was written up and put into legislation. They
did this to protect the people of their culture in a way that existing laws were not

sufficiently doing. Native American burials are unique from the predominantly
European practices present in the country and are often in unmarked graves. Because of
this dichotomy of funerary rites, state laws concerning the protection of marked and
regulated graves were not entirely legally applicable. They argued that their religious
and spiritual beliefs should be respectfully acknowledged and protected by the First
Amendment of the Constitution in that the burial grounds and the deceased associated
with it should be left rest in respect. This could be argued as the main stem of their
point; and it could also be said that this is an appeal to heaven, a logical fallacy where
rationale is based on belief in godly beings.

Viewpoint 2
The other side of the argument are those in the scientific field that wish to expand
on the limited knowledge of history, culture, and genetics that can be learned from these
specimens. Ancient remains of significance arent found every day after all, and they
should have a right as the educated scholars of the world to interpret what they can from
it and build on our understandings of things past.
A noteworthy victory for this group was came with the discovery of one of the
most complete prehistoric skeletons ever found. The Kennewick man, as he has been
dubbed, was found on a bank of the Columbia River in Kennewick, Washington. This
mans genetic origins were puzzling to archaeologists and anthropologists because he
did not fit the description of Native Americans at all. Because of they were unable to
connect his heritage to any modern Indian tribe, the anthropologists won the legal battle
and rights to study his remains. An in-depth examination of the body was performed by
10 different anthropologists in 2005. Their findings and conclusions were rather

peculiar. According to his skull shape he was attributed to have been more likely
delineated from Ainu or Polynesian populations rather than Native American, as Glynn
Custred outlined in The Forbidden Discovery of Kennewick Man (13). They also found a
spearhead shard that had been lodged and infused into his hip bone, two healed broken
ribs, and two depression fractures in his skull: none of which were cause for death. It
was concluded that he was intentionally buried by the river.
Discoveries like these would not have been found if the legal right to study had
been denied. Our current understanding of the migration of Asiatic peoples over the
Bering Land Bridge is now being reexamined. Many anthropologists fear that other
discoveries like this may never come to light the world will forever be in ignorance.
This side of the argument could be seen using logical fallacy known as the appeal
to pity. They express their frustration with it not being fair that they dont get to study
these remains even though they belong to someone else and they possibly dont have a
right to.

Conclusion
Ultimately, the Native Americans and other proponents of NAGPRA have been
largely successful with their motives. Legislation was approved by the government and
put into full effect. According to the National Parks Service, 38,671 deceased individuals,
998,731 associated funerary objects, 144,163 unassociated funerary objects, 4,303
sacred objects, 948 objects of cultural patrimony, and 822 objects that are both sacred
and patrimonial have been repatriated and returned to their respective tribe. Strict
punishments have been laid out where even first time offenses can result in a twelve
month prison sentence and up to $100,000 fine.

Anthropologists obviously could do more good for the world if these regulations
werent in place; they would have no restriction from gathering and obtaining
archaeologically and anthropologically significant information from their specimens.
But that does not take into account the fact that, just like any other American citizen,
those dwelling within the Indian Nations have an unequivocal right to handle their
deceased how they see fit and have their religious ideals respected. It is a good thing to
have legislation like this to protect specific rights of citizens because if not there, the
limits would be pushed as far as they could go.

Works Cited
NAGPRA Glossary National Park Service. Web. October 6, 2014
http://www.nps.gov/nagpra/TRAINING/GLOSSARY.HTM
Custred, Glynn. The Forbidden Discovery of Kennewick Man Academic
Questions. September 2000, Volume 13, Issue 3. Springer, Verlag. pp 12,13. Web.
October 6, 2014 http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs12129-000-10348
Dellios, Hugh. Controversy Laid to Rest as Dickson Mound Closes Chicago
Tribune. April 4, 1994. Web. October 7, 2014

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1992-04-04/news/9201310139_1_nativeamericans-display-jim-edgar
Kosslack, Renee. The Native American Graves Protection And Repatriation Act:
The Death Knell For Scientific Study? 24 American Indian Law Review. 129151, 129-133, 151 (2000). Web. October 7, 2014
http://academic.udayton.edu/Race/03justice/NALR007.htm