NAGPRA: Before and After Notes

NAGPRA Overview

  • Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)
  • Enacted in 1990.
  • Federal law requiring federal agencies to provide opportunities for federally recognized tribes to reclaim culturally affiliated remains and artifacts.
  • Focuses on human remains and funerary objects with cultural affiliations.

Views on Repatriation

  • Most anthropologists support repatriation of culturally affiliated remains.
  • Examples of supportive views:
    • Rose et al. (1996): Proposed repatriation could:
    • Close knowledge gaps in osteological studies.
    • Lead to improved methodologies.
    • Enhance comprehensive osteological analyses.
    • Buikstra & Ubelaker (1994): Published standards for uniform skeletal examination.
  • American Association of Physical Anthropologists (AAPA) position:
  • Supports claims of human remains by Native Americans when cultural affiliation is established.
  • Claims without cultural affiliation lack a moral foundation.

NAGPRA's Impact on Research

  • Study analysis from American Journal of Physical Anthropology (1975-2005):
  • Investigation of osteological studies before and after NAGPRA.
  • Findings reveal:
  • Significant decrease in studies using Native American remains post-NAGPRA.
  • Fewer sites and geographic locations examined post-NAGPRA.
  • Only  of studies post-1994 used standardized practices from Buikstra and Ubelaker.
  • Statistically significant decreases observed (P < 0.05) in:
    • Osteological studies.
    • Diversity of study sites.
    • Number of geographic states involved.

Methodology

  • Journal articles coding included:
  1. Total number of studies per year (excluding reviews, etc.).
  2. Number of studies using Native American remains.
  3. Count of distinct Native American sites referenced.
  4. Count of different states where studies originated.
  5. Type of methodologies used (metric, CT-scan, genetic studies, etc.).
  • Statistical analyses employed:
  • Student’s t-tests to evaluate differences before and after NAGPRA.
  • Data reported with z-scores for confirming normal distribution.

Results

  • Significant findings:
  • Decreased osteological studies utilizing Native American remains post-NAGPRA (Student’s t-value = 5.302).
  • Decreased site diversity used in studies (t-value = 3.159).
  • Geographic variance in studies also reduced (t-value = 3.141).

Discussion

  • Contradicting predictions of Rose et al. and Klesert & Powell on repatriation benefits:
  • NAGPRA appears to have negatively impacted scientific research regarding Native American human remains.
  • Repatriation laws have resulted in researchers avoiding the study of Native American remains.
  • Increased complexities result in some researchers choosing to study remains from non-US origins.
  • Broader implications:
  • Similar repatriation laws gaining traction worldwide, potentially impacting future research access.

Ethical Considerations

  • Complicated ethical landscape created:
  • Scientists must balance the need for data against the needs and rights of Native American tribes.
  • Some researchers feel NAGPRA obstructs their ability to fulfill scientific inquiries.

References

  • American Association of Physical Anthropologists (2000).
  • Buikstra, J. E., & Ubelaker, D. H. (1994).
  • Klesert, A. L., & Powell, S. (1993).
  • Rose, J. C., et al. (1996).
  • Ubelaker, D. H., & Grant, L. G. (1989).
  • Weiss, N., & Hassett, M. (1982).