Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-18T01:21:37.922Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Complex Legal Legacies: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Scientific Study, and Kennewick Man

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Susan B. Bruning
Susan B. Bruning*
Affiliation:
Department of Anthropology and Dedman School of Law, Southern Methodist University, P.O. Box 0336, Dallas, TX 75275-0336 (sbruning@smu.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Debates over disposition options for an inadvertently discovered set of early Holocene human remains known as Kennewick Man have fueled discussions about the scientific, cultural, and ethical implications of the anthropological study of human remains. A high-profile lawsuit over Kennewick Man has led to the most extensive judicial analysis to date of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), the primary law affecting access to, and the ultimate disposition of, ancient human remains found in the United States. However, despite years of litigation, some key questions remain unanswered. The judicial decisions in Kennewick address important questions about determining Native American status and assessing cultural affiliation under the law. However, the court opinions fail to address the role of scientific study within NAGPRA's confines. This article examines NAGPRA and concludes that two provisions in the law expressly permit the scientific study of human remains if certain conditions are met. Significantly, Kennewick Man might have qualified for study under NAGPRA even if found to be Native American and culturally affiliated with the claimant tribes, which would have enabled study to proceed from the outset while the parties debated the issues of Native American status and potential cultural affiliation.

Résumé

Résumé

Los debates acerca de la forma de disponer de los restos humanos del holoceno temprano accidentalmente descubiertos conocidos como "Kennewick Man" han precipitado discusiones sobre las implicaciones científicas, culturales, y éticas del estudio antropológico de los restos humanos. Una demanda que ha llamado mucho la atención sobre Kennewick Man ha provocado el análisis judicial mas extensivo hasta la fecha del Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), la ley principal que gobierna la forma de disponer de los restos humanos antiguos encontrados en los Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, a pesar de varios años de litigación algunas preguntas clave permanecen sin respuesta. Las decisiones judiciales con relación al Kennewick Man consideran preguntas importantes sobre la determinación de la clasificación Nativo Americana y la evaluación de la afiliación cultural según la ley. Sin embargo, las opiniones de la corte no consideran el papel del estudio científico bajo los parámetros determinados por NAGPRA y concluye que dos provisiones de la ley permiten explícitamente el estudio científico de restos humanos siempre y cuando se cumplan ciertas condiciones. Mas importante aún cabe hacer notar que Kennewick Man pudo haber calificado para estudios bajo NAGPRA aún cuando hubiese sido clasificado como Nativo Americano y afiliado culturalmente a las tribus demandantes, lo que hubiese permitido que se comenzaran investigaciones mientras se debatían los asuntos concernientes a la clasificación Nativo Americana y la posible afiliación cultural.

Type
Articles
Information
American Antiquity , Volume 71 , Issue 3 , July 2006 , pp. 501 - 521
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for American Archaeology 2006 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References Cited

Adler, Michael A. 1996 “The Great Period”: The Pueblo World during the Pueblo III Period, A.D. 1150 to 1350. In The Prehistoric Pueblo World, A.D. 1100–1300, edited by Michael A. Adler, p. 1. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Anyon, Roger, Ferguson, T. J., Jackson, Loretta, and Lane, Lillie 2000 Native American Oral Traditions and Archaeology. In Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists, edited by Kurt Dongoske, Mark Aldenderfer, and Karen Doehmer, pp. 61-66. Society for American Archaeology, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Begay, Timothy 1997 Transcript of oral statement, Southwestern Tribal Peoples Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Conference, James A. Little Theater, Santa Fe, October 9–10.Google Scholar
Bernardini, Wesley 2005 Hopi Oral Tradition and the Archaeology of Identity. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Bonnichsen et al. v. United States et al. 2003 Transcript of oral hearings at Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, September 27. Electronic document, www.friendsofpast.org/kennewick-man/court/briefs/0309270ral.html, accessed February 8, 2004.Google Scholar
Brandt, Elizabeth A. 1997 Anthropological Literature Review and Annotated Bibliography for Sunset Crater Volcano and Wupatki National Monuments. Southwest Regional Support Office, National Park Service, Santa Fe.Google Scholar
Brown, Michael 2003 Who Owns Native Culture? Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.Google Scholar
Cable News Network 2005 Scientists Begin Probe of Kennewick Man. Electronic document, www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/07/07/kennewick.man.ap/, accessed August 3, 2005.Google Scholar
Center for the Study of First Americans 2004 NAGPRA Alert! Proposed Amendment Imperils Study of Ancient Human Remains. Electronic document, www.friendsofpast.org/nagpra/041007CSFA.pdf, accessed May 22, 2005.Google Scholar
Chatters, James C. 2000 The Recovery and First Analysis of an Early Holocene Human Skeleton from Kennewick, Washington. American Antiquity 65(2):291-316.Google Scholar
Cohen, Ronald 1978 Ethnicity: Problem and Focus in Anthropology. In Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 7, edited by Siegal et al. Annual Reviews, Inc., Palo Alto, California.Google Scholar
Deloria, Vine Jr. 1997 Anthros, Indians, and Planetary Reality. In Indians and Anthropologists: Vine Deloria Jr. and the Critique of Anthropology, edited by Biolsi and Larry Zimmerman. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
Dongoske, Kurt E. 2000 NAGPRA: A New Beginning, Not an End, for Osteological Analysis—A Hopi Perspective. In Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? edited by Devon A. Mihesuah, pp. 282-291. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
Dongoske, Kurt E., Aldenderfer, Mark, and Doehmer, Karen (editors) 2000 Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists. Society for American Archaeology Press, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Dongoske, Kurt E., Yeatts, Michael, Anyon, Roger, and Ferguson, T. J. 1997 Archaeological Cultures and Cultural Affiliation: Hopi and Zuni Perspectives in the American Southwest. In American Antiquity 62(4):600-608.Google Scholar
Echo-Hawk, Roger 1997 Forging a New Ancient History for Native America. In Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground, edited by Swidler et al., pp. 88-102. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Evers, Toelken 2001 Native American Oral Traditions: Collaboration and Interpretation. Utah State University Press, Logan.Google Scholar
Ferguson, T. J., Anyon, Roger, and Ladd, Edmund J. 2000 Repatriation at the Pueblo of Zuni: Diverse Solutions to Complex Problems. In Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? edited by Devon A. Mihesuah, pp. 282-291. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
Fine-Dare, Kathleen 2002 Grave Injustice: The American Indian Movement and NAGPRA. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
Fluehr-Lobban, Carolyn (editor) 2003 Ethics and the Profession of Archaeology. 2nd ed. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Mihesuah, Devon A. (editor) 2000 Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln.Google Scholar
Moore, John H. 2001 Ethnogenetic Patterns in Native North America. In Archaeology, Language, and History, edited by John Terrell, pp. 31-56. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Mulick, Chris 2004 Study of Old Bones Upheld. Kennewick Man Virtual Interpretive Center, February 5. Electronic document, www.kennewick-man.com/kman/news/v-kprint/story/4707996p-4658830c.html, accessed February 7, 2004.Google Scholar
National Museum of Natural History 2005 The Management of Culturally Sensitive Collections of the Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution Policy and Procedures Guidelines. Electronic document, www.nmnh.si.edu/anthro/repatriation/pdf/tcpst.pdf, accessed June 22, 2005.Google Scholar
National Park Service 2000a Determination That the Kennewick Human Skeletal Remains Are “Native American” for the Purposes of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). January 11. Electronic document, www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/c14memo.htm, accessed February 1, 2004.Google Scholar
National Park Service 2000b Table 1: DOI/NPS Kennewick Man Scientific Investigations. Electronic document, www.cr.nps.gov/aad/kennewick/, accessed August 3, 2005.Google Scholar
Ortner, Donald J. 1994 Scientific Policy and Public Interest: Perspectives on the Larsen Bay Repatriation Case. In Reckoning with the Dead: The Larsen Bay Repatriation and the Smithsonian Institution, edited by Tamara L. Bray and Thomas W. Killion, pp. 10-14. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
Richman, Jennifer R., and Forsyth, Marion P. (editors) 2004 Legal Perspectives on Cultural Resources. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Society for American Archaeology 1990a Letter to Steve Heeley and Lurleen McGregor of the Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs, September 12, jointly signed by the Society for American Archaeology, the National Congress of American Indians, the Native American Rights Fund, and the Association of American Indian Affairs.Google Scholar
Society for American Archaeology 1990b Letter to President George Bush, November 2, in support of H.R. 5237 (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act), jointly signed by the Society for American Archaeology, the American Anthropological Association, the American Association of Physical Anthropologists, the Archaeological Institute of America, the Association of American Indian Affairs, the Native American Rights Fund, the National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers, the National Congress of American Indians, the National Trust for Historic Preservation, Preservation Action, the Society for Historical Archaeology, and the Society of Professional Archaeologists.Google Scholar
Society for American Archaeology 2000 Society for American Archaeology Position Paper: The Secretary of the Interior’s September 21, 2000, Determination of Cultural Affiliation for Kennewick Man. October 14. Electronic document, www.saa.org/repatriation/lobby/KennewickPosition.html. Google Scholar
Society for American Archaeology 2001 Memorandum of Law in Support of the Society for American Archaeology’s Amicus Curiae Submission in Bonnichsen et al. v. United States, et al., CV 96-1481-JE. June 1.Google Scholar
Society for American Archaeology 2002a Letter to Robert Stearns of the National Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Program and Katherine H. Stevenson of the Interior Department, February 7, signed James A. Goold. Electronic document, www.saa.org/repatriation/stearnsletter.pdf, accessed February 9, 2004.Google Scholar
Society for American Archaeology 2002b SAA Responds to the Kennewick Man Court Decision. Press release, September 3. Electronic document, www.saa.org/repatriation/KennewickPressRelease.html, accessed February 1, 2004.Google Scholar
Swedlund, Alan, and Anderson, Duane 2003 Gordon Creek Woman Meets Spirit Cave Man: A Response to Comment by Owsley and Jantz. American Antiquity 68(1):161-167.Google Scholar
Swidler, , et al. (editors) 1997 Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground. Alta Mira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Terrell, John Edward 2001 Introduction. In Archaeology, Language, and History, edited by John Terrell, pp. 1-10. Bergin and Garvey, Westport, Connecticut.Google Scholar
Thomas, David Hurst 2000 Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, and the Battle for Native American Identity. Basic Books, New York.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of the Interior 1997 Letter to Lieutenant Colonel Curtis of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, December 23, signed Francis McManamon, Departmental Consulting Archaeologist for the Department of Defense. Electronic document, www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/kennew.htm, accessed February 1, 2004.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of the Interior 2000a Interior Department Determines “Kennewick Man” Remains to Go to Five Indian Tribes. Office of the Secretary of the Interior, press release, September 25. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
U.S. Department of the Interior 2000b Kennewick Man Cultural Affiliation Report. September. Electronic document, www.cr.nps.gov/archeology/kennewick/index.htm#cultaff, accessed February 8, 2004.Google Scholar
U.S. Department of the Interior 2002 Proposed Regulation on Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains, 43 CFR 10.11 Draft Proposed Rule, May 2. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives 1989 House Report 101-877. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
U.S. House of Representatives 1990 House Report 5237, Version 1. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
U.S. Senate 1990a Senate Report 101-473. Senate, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
U.S. Senate 1990b Senator McCain, 136 Congressional Record S17, 173. Senate, Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
U.S. Senate 2004 Senate Bill 2843, “Native American Technical Corrections Act.” Electronic document, http://indian.sen-ate.gov/.Google Scholar
Watkins, Joe 2000 Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar
Whiteley, Peter 2002 Archaeology and Oral Tradition: The Scientific Importance of Dialogue. American Antiquity 67(3):405-415.Google Scholar
Zimmerman, Larry J., Vitelli, Karen D., and Hollowell-Zimmer, Julie (editors) 2003 Ethical Issues in Archaeology. AltaMira Press, Walnut Creek, California.Google Scholar