Who Owns the Past?

Who Owns the Past?

Introduction

The last decades of the 20th century brought changes that were unprecedented for the Native Indians. This was more so in the tribal sovereignty and human rights aspects. After a long struggle between the scientific establishment and the Indian rights groups in 1990, the Native Graves Repatriation and Protection Act (NAGPRA) was made into law. For the Native Americans, this piece of legislation was the most significant as regards human and civil rights in the 21^st century. Grave goods and skeletons that had for years continued to gather dust in the museums could now be taken back to their home of origin, and the Native Indian graves would no longer be desecrated. Need help with your assignment ? Reach out to us. We offer excellent services.

However, ‘Who Owns the Past’ tested these claims as it focused on the controversy that came to light. When the 9,000-year-old skeleton was discovered in Kennewick, Washington, at the banks of the Columbia River, a new conflict was reignited between Native Americans and anthropologists over the human remains control found on the ancestral lands of the Indians. Anthropologists asserted that archaeological remains are the gateway to knowledge on the past of America and, therefore, should be studied for man’s benefit. On the other hand, the Native Indians believe that exhuming the said remains is a desecration to their ancestors. The Kennewick Man became a case to test NAGPRA and all that it stands for as regards the rights of the Native Indians. To a certain degree, the outcome of the case would determine the sovereignty of the Native Indians over their future and their past as well. ‘Who Owns the Past?’ looks at how the world views history, traditionally versus scientifically.

The Issues Arising From the Documentary

Grave goods and skeletons perched up in museums were now allowed to go home to their ancestral land following the NAGPRA. The Native Indians had not gained a voice and the moral links they had over their ancestral remains and on their past but were now protected by the law. The discovery of the 9,000-year-old skeleton set a new case for testing the claims that the law was made to respect the Native Indians (Thornton, 2016). In the document, the anthropologist claimed that the remains of the skeleton were essential for studying and benefitting the Americas in gaining knowledge. Native Americans, on the other hand, argued that the exhuming of their ancestors’ remains and subjecting them to studying was a direct violation of their traditions, culture, and religion, as well as a desecration of the remains of their ancestors (Townsend, 2018).

At the core of the conflict are belief systems that appear irreconcilable and which are very diverse. The Kennewick Man case is used in the article as a frame for exploring the conflict roots which have deep entrenchment in American history. Through the historical events’ exploration, which eventually birthed the NAGPRA, and the controversy of the Kennewick Man, the documentary offers a clear context in gaining insights on the issues that are rife in the history of the US and archeology as a whole. Of more importance, the documentary illuminates the diverse global views that inform the said controversy and which have the potential to continue having a tremendous impact on the Native Americans as well as on the American people well into the future.

Archaeology and Federal Law

Archaeology is affected by several US laws, both indirectly and directly. Archaeology is addressed most often in the context of environmental laws and historic preservation, which is more general. According to Aroney (2020), detailed regulations are often included in the Federal Laws, and these prescribe how the same are implemented. In some cases, the publishing of standards is done to guide the involvement of the federal government in historic preservation and archaeology. There are different laws in states that relate to historic preservation and archeology. Additionally, many Native Indian tribes have regulations and laws which are designed for the protection of archeological sites on their tribal lands and also in the access regulations. Most archaeologists are employed by state or federal agencies, private consulting, and Indian tribes to carry out archaeology in cultural resource management. The work is done in compliance with tribal, state, and federal laws. There are several laws that are important in archeology practice, and these include the Antiques Act of 1906 and the NAGPRA of 1990, with others being the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 and Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (ARPA) among others.

The Antiquities Act of 1906 is the first of these legislations. The main provisions of the legislation include the illegality of excavating, collecting from, or damaging archaeological sites on land belonging to the federal government without getting a permit with failure to comply, attracting fines and/or jail time. Permits are also given to colleges, universities, museums, and other scientific and educational institutions that are deemed to be reputable for purposes of increasing information and knowledge. The collections that are made with such permits in place should be preserved in public-owned museums. Lastly, the President may designate specific areas of lands belonging to the federal government as national monuments. The monument is also established to protect prehistoric and historic structures, historic landmarks, as well as other scientific and historical interests.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) recognizes the tribes and individual Native Americans and organizations of Native Hawaiian origin to possess the cultural items and human remains. Among these items are objects of cultural patrimony, sacred objects, and funerary objects, as the law defines. Graham & Murphy (2010) asserts that the NAGPRA’s original intention was the facilitation of the return of the sacred objects and bones of Native Americans to culturally affiliated groups and descendants. NAGPRA’s aim was to balance the Native Americans’ rights in reclaiming the ancestral remains with the society’s rights as a whole in learning about their collective past.

Who Should Own the Remains?

The NAGPRA is a specific example of an attempt by the government to regulate who ‘owns the past.’ The program returns ceremonial or sacred objects, human remains, or cultural patrimony objects to the Native Indians. Given, this was a burdensome requirement as regards the limitation in resources and time-on the tribes and institutions, but in my opinion, this was something that needed to be done. The culture of Native Americans comprises several ceremonial and spiritual rituals, and when a person dies, it is expected that some formalities need to be completed. For a museum to have the remains of Native Americans in their possession and to prevent the Natives from performing certain ceremonies and rituals is something that is worth rethinking. It is respectful to return the important objects and remains to the tribes as it shows a reverence for their heritage and culture.

Museums are an ideal place to display objects as well as educate the public as they inform on the past as well as on different cultures. However, I believe some of the objects are better placed and stored with the rightful owner rather than being hidden in glass casings and accumulating dust. Indeed, hundreds and even thousands of years have gone past; nonetheless, if such artifacts have spiritual, ceremonial, and sentimental value to a group of persons or even individuals, then this should supersede educational purposes.

I do understand the emotional turmoil that accompanies anthropologists as regards compliance with NAGPRA requirements. Curators and anthropologists may feel like they are being punished for actions they did in the past and feel as though they are losing objects that have been in possession of museums for years and are now being taken away. It is hard for persons who have devoted their time through years in school and in their profession to a specific archaeological area and who may also feel threatened. Overall, I think that objects from the past need to be given to their rightful place. It is the duty of the NAGPRA to carry out thorough investigations to determine the rightful owners.

References

Aroney, N. (2020). Federalism: A Legal, Political and Religious Archeology. Political and Religious Archeology (March 6, 2020).

Graham, M., & Murphy, N. (2010). NAGPRA at 20: Museum collections and reconnections. Museum Anthropology, 33(2), 105-124.

Thornton, R. (2016). Who owns our past? The repatriation of Native American human remains and cultural objects. Native American Voices, 311.

Townsend, K. (2018). First Americans: A History of Native Peoples, Combined Volume: A History of Native Peoples, PowerPoints. Routledge.

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

---

While numerous remains and artefacts are housed in museums, universities, historical societies, and private collections, who should these remains and artefacts actually belong to?

Based on the readings in your text and the article “Who Owns the Past?” https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/who-owns-the-past/, write an essay describing the issues and who you believe should own these remains and why.