There is an amount of respect for the dead that is commonly acknowledged in almost all cultures yet the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was just enacted in 1990 to recognize the importance of protecting and repatriating the Native American human remains and cultural items that are the products and remnants of a living culture. NAGPRA did not bestow new or special rights; rather it codified rights that should have extended to Native Americans, Alaskan Villages, and Native Hawaiians long ago.1 At NAGPRA's passage, an estimated 100,000 to 200,000 Native American human remains considered to be ancestors of living descendants were held in museums or museum-like institutions, as were approximately 10-15 million cultural items, which were removed from the sites of burials.2 Under the law, all Federal agencies, as well as public and private institutions that receive Federal funds, are subject to NAGPRA. In passing and enacting NAGPRA, the US Federal Government hoped to end the centuries-old practices of removing human remains and cultural items from the graves, lands, and communities of Native peoples and of treating them as collectibles to be stored, studied, or displayed in the name of education and scientific study.3 As then Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii stated,

"In light of the important role that death and burial rites play in Native American cultures, it is all the more offensive that the civil rights of America's first citizens have been so flagrantly violated for the past century. [NAGPRA] is not about the validity of museums or the value of scientific inquiry. Rather, it is about human rights."4

While the law has been successful in many ways, challenges have also arisen, particularly regarding its implementation and enforcement. Many of these have been driven by the dynamic intersection of institutions of science and education with federally recognized tribe, which has led to an atmosphere of competition for the sacred objects and human remains.

National Museum of the American Indian

A long history lies behind the passing of NAGPRA. The Antiquities Act of 1906, which was the first U.S. law to govern cultural property and natural resources, grew out of concerns to preserve America's land as well as cultural sites and resources.5 Subsequently, in 1979, the Archeological Resources Protection Act aimed to better protect archeological resources by developing clear descriptions of prohibited activities and enacting harsher penalties. It was not until the 1980's that Congress realized no national museum was dedicated solely to cultures indigenous to the Americas. In 1989, the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) Act was passed establishing the NMAI as part of the Smithsonian Institution. This Act, instead of NAGPRA, governs how Native American human remains and objects in the Smithsonian Institution are protected and, if necessary, repatriated. In 1990, NAGPRA finally provided a process for museums and other Federal agencies to return certain Native American cultural items while authorizing Federal grants to Indian tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and museums to support the creation and publication of inventories and the repatriation of NAGPRA-protected property.6

However well-intentioned the U.S. Federal Government was in developing and implementing laws regarding Native American land, human remains, and other forms of cultural objects, the small amount of people left to comply with the laws were often times underfunded and unknowledgeable of the facts unrelated to their best interest. When NAGPRA went into effect, many underestimated the range of practical and theoretical challenges that would result from the legislation's implementation. Over the past 27 years, the investment of significant resources - money, time, materials, training, travel, human resources in the form of museum and tribal experts, etc. – has failed to even come close to fulfilling the law's goals.7 Native Americans have experienced a long history of other groups defining who they are as a culture and people; NAGPRA was no exception.8 The language of NAGPRA allows non-Native people to assert that they are more knowledgeable about Native history and culture than tribal members. The U.S. Federal government seeks to place Native Americans into categories that can be easily explained and grouped, even though the history of Native American communities is one of separation, disruption, and destruction, all of which had a negative effect that continues to this day. Throughout NAGPRA it is clear that the laws of protection and repatriation are only applicable to the 556 federally recognized tribes. 9

Although the law provides the framework and legal standards for protection and repatriation, it also requires that tribes must seek out what is rightfully theirs and request repatriation. Senator Inouye eloquently states that "when human remains are displayed in museums or historical societies, it is never the bones of white soldiers or the first European settlers that came to this continent that are lying in glass cases. It is Indian remains."10 Inouye's statement explains why many members of Congress, as well as the general public, start with the presumption that Native human remains and related cultural items are just collectibles and objects of study rather than sacred objects of a living culture.11 It is clear that Congress did not realize how many Native American objects and remains were in the possession of museums and federal agencies. It is also evident that Congress remains unfamiliar with the context essential to the implementation of the act. Suzan Shown Hario, a key architect of NAGPRA, recalls that the language of the original law included terms like "societies, clans, longhouses, and other moieties as well as Native families and next of kin, unfamiliar with the intricacies of American Indian identity and even repatriation itself, congressional staffers omitted the important terms."12 Although native contributors to NAGPRA and some congressional sponsors intended the bill to include tribes that were not federally recognized tribes, the final version limited repatriation to those groups recognized by the U.S. Government, once again, allowing non-Natives to define history, leaving Native Americans to comply.13

In 1990, many in Congress, much like members of the public, believed that museums and like institutions were the appropriate custodians for Native American remains and objects. These items were not, however, primarily collected to preserve native culture. Instead, they were used to either advance certain scientific theories about races and human development, or as part of a dysfunctional competition in which institution strived to collect more objects or remains than their competitors.14 Today, many of these institutions lack financial resources, proper staffing, and the other resources needed to properly comply with NAGPRA, which limits repatriation efforts.15 Even when NAGPRA is effectively executed the act is structured so the power to determine cultural affiliation is given to the institution; and without a clear affiliation, objects or remains cannot be repatriated. In addition, many institutions fail to recognize oral history as evidence, a practice that is both disrespectful and a violation of the law, which gives merit to the oral tradition.16 Although progress has been made in the twenty-seven years since NAGPRA was enacted, the repatriation process is considered by many to be difficult for all involved to navigate. Sites sacred to Native American communities remain unprotected and thousands, if not millions, of human remains and objects linger in collection storage rooms around the country.

New England institutions are not immune to the challenges and controversies surrounding NAGPRA. In 2015, the proposed sale of 80 Native American objects by the Andover Newton Theological School (ANTS) was stopped with the help of a museum director and a coalition of Native leaders.17 Although ANTS has a collection of approximately 1,100 Native American objects, many of these, including the 80, have been housed since the 1940s at the Peabody Essex Museum (PEM) in Salem Massachusetts. After hearing of the sale, the PEM's director, Dan Monroe, took action knowing that many of the items in the ANTS collection would be considered sacred and should need to be returned to their tribes. Monroe had served two terms on the NAGPRA Review Committee and knew that although his museum did not own the items his staff could notify more than 200 tribal leaders across the country. Museum fellow Ashley Tsosie-Mahieu, a Navaho scholar, wrote,

"We searched the national NAGPRA database for hours trying to locate all of the tribal nations who may be affiliated with particular items, and who would be interested in having their ancestral belongings protected and/or repatriated."18

Sacred Tlingit Halibut

Among the previously unreported sacred objects was a Tlingit Halibut Hook carved in the form of a wolf. Clan leaders from the Sealaska Heritage Institute Council of Traditional Scholars determined the hook belonged to the Tlingit Kaagwaantaan.19 A hundred years ago, what is now titled Halibut Hook with Wolf Spirit would have been known by its Tlingit name, Gooch Kuyéik Náxw and would have been used in a ceremony to help fishermen honor the fish's sacrifice of the halibut they caught. David Katzeek, a Chilkat Eagle Tlingit, recalled, "they would be warning and letting the halibut know that it was coming to do battle with them."20 He also explained meaning behind the fishermen's words: "'You're going to fight with this, it's going to fight with you.'"21 ANTS staff apparently thought that NAGPRA did not apply to the institution, others in the museum community fortunately acted to address the situation, albeit several decades later. The story of the Halibut Hook with Wolf Spirit exemplifies how, when followed, NAGPRA provides the opportunity for tribes to reclaim objects that define who they are spiritually.

Dr. Eleanor Bridge Kilham,
Class of 1876

Even closer to home is the case of the Native North American baskets held in the Wheaton College Permanent Collection. In 1924, Wheaton College received a gift of 60 baskets from Dr. Eleanor Bridge Kilham. In a letter to the college dated November 5, 1924, Kilham wrote "The genuine old baskets are getting quite rare and are difficult to obtain. Many of the marks have been lost as I have had them in storage for ten years."22 Overall, Kilham's gift contained objects from more than 20 Native American tribes.23 In 2008, Professor Leah Niederstadt, Curator of the Permanent Collection, received a letter from The Hydaburg Cooperative Association, a federally recognized tribe on Prince of Wales Island in southeast Alaska. The letter requests inventory listings of "all human remains, associated and unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, objects of cultural patrimony and digital images that you have on the Alaskan Haida."24 After receiving the request, Niederstadt responded that only two objects in the collection - a hat and wallet - had been identified as belonging to the broader Haida culture group; however, she then went on to explain that they had been purchased by Dr. Kilham in tourist shops in British Columbia.25 This meant, of course, that they were not NAGPRA eligible. Although Wheaton is a small institution with limited human and financial resources, the college initially complied with NAGPRA in a timely manner, and has since demonstrated proper NAGPRA compliance.

Haida Hat

Repatriation under NAGPRA is unique to the U.S., encompassing complex issues of religion, history, law, human rights, tribal identity, burial sites, and human remains, among others. As a whole, NAGPRA extends beyond the legal sphere, offering reflection on the use and abuse of heritage in American society. For many Native American tribes their cultural traditions and beliefs are some of the only aspects of their identity they control.26 Richard Hill, Tuscarora, and coordinator of the Indigenous Knowledge Center in Six Nations Territory in Canada, used to argue against NAGPRA, until he realized that NAGPRA's key actors: Congress, museums and scientific institutions; and Native communities, all hold different beliefs about what human remains have to offer. Once we stop forcing each other to compromise those beliefs and begin discussing and collaborating, only then can we move past the complications and challenges of NAGPRA. "[If] the end goal is about making this right. Don't take things that don't belong to you, apologize, and don't do it again. We can't rest in the injury of the past. We have to move forward and do the right thing."27 Ultimately Congress must strengthen and properly enforce NAGPRA, agencies must comply with the law, courts must uphold the will of Congress, and all of us must work to raise awareness and to insure that the future of NAGPRA enforcement is more effective and productive than the previous three decades have been.

Footnotes

1 Sangita Chari and Jamie M. N. Lavallee, Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Gravers Protection and Repatriation Act, First Peoples (n.p.: Oregon State University Press, 2013), [p. 265].

2 Sangita Chari and Jamie M. N. Lavallee, Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Gravers Protection and Repatriation Act, First Peoples (n.p.: Oregon State University Press, 2013), [p.10].

3 "Frequently Asked Questions," National NAGPRA, accessed February 25, 2017, https://www.nps.gov/nagpra/FAQ/INDEX.HTM#What_is_NAGPRA?.

4 Sangita Chari and Jamie M. N. Lavallee, Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Gravers Protection and Repatriation Act, First Peoples (n.p.: Oregon State University Press, 2013), [p. 8].

5 "Antiquities Act," National Park Service, last modified March 15, 2016, accessed March 25, 2017, https://www.nps.gov/archeology/sites/antiquities/about.htm.

6 "Frequently Asked Questions," National NAGPRA, accessed February 25, 2017, https://www.nps.gov/nagpra/FAQ/INDEX.HTM#What_is_NAGPRA?.

7 Sangita Chari and Jamie M. N. Lavallee, Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Gravers Protection and Repatriation Act, First Peoples (n.p.: Oregon State University Press, 2013), [p. 12].

8 Sangita Chari and Jamie M. N. Lavallee, Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Gravers Protection and Repatriation Act, First Peoples (n.p.: Oregon State University Press, 2013), [p. 89].

9 "Federal and State Recognized Tribes," National Conference of State Legislatures, last modified 2017, accessed March 22, 2017, http://www.ncsl.org/research/state-tribal-institute/list-of-federal-and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx.

10 Sangita Chari and Jamie M. N. Lavallee, Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Gravers Protection and Repatriation Act, First Peoples (n.p.: Oregon State University Press, 2013), [p. 28].

11 Sangita Chari and Jamie M. N. Lavallee, Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Gravers Protection and Repatriation Act, First Peoples (n.p.: Oregon State University Press, 2013), [p. 26].

12 Penelope Kelsey and Cari M. Carpenter, "'In the End, Our Message Weights': Blood Run, NAGPRA, and American Indian Identity," American Indian Quarterly 35, no. 1 (Winter 2011): [p.59], JSTOR.

13 Penelope Kelsey and Cari M. Carpenter, "'In the End, Our Message Weights': Blood Run, NAGPRA, and American Indian Identity," American Indian Quarterly 35, no. 1 (Winter 2011): [p.59], JSTOR.

14 Sangita Chari and Jamie M. N. Lavallee, Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Gravers Protection and Repatriation Act, First Peoples (n.p.: Oregon State University Press, 2013), [p. 21].

15 Julia A. Cryne, "NAGPRA Revisited: A Twenty-Year Review of Repatriation Efforts," American Indian Law Review 34, no. 1 (2009-2010): [p. 106], JSTOR.

16 Sangita Chari and Jamie M. N. Lavallee, Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Gravers Protection and Repatriation Act, First Peoples (n.p.: Oregon State University Press, 2013), [p. 89].

17 Frank Hopper, "Sale of Sacred Object Stopped By Museum and Native Leaders," Indian Country Media Network, last modified September 18, 2015, accessed March 20, 2017, https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/events/sale-of-sacred-object-stopped-by-museum-and-native-leaders/.

18 Frank Hopper, "Sale of Sacred Object Stopped By Museum and Native Leaders," Indian Country Media Network, last modified September 18, 2015, accessed March 20, 2017, https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/events/sale-of-sacred-object-stopped-by-museum-and-native-leaders/.

19 Frank Hopper, "Sale of Sacred Object Stopped By Museum and Native Leaders," Indian Country Media Network, last modified September 18, 2015, accessed March 20, 2017, https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/events/sale-of-sacred-object-stopped-by-museum-and-native-leaders/.

20

21 Andrea Shea, "What A Native American Fish Hook's Journey Says About A Little-Known Repatriation Law," WBUR, last modified March 4, 2016, accessed February 25, 2017, http://www.wbur.org/artery/2016/03/04/what-a-sacred-native-american-hooks-journey-tells-us-about-a-little-known-repatriation-law.

22 Elizabeth Calil Zarur, Fiber and Feathers (Norton, MA: Wheaton College, n.d.), [p.3].

23 Elizabeth Calil Zarur, Fiber and Feathers (Norton, MA: Wheaton College, n.d.), [p.3].

24 Letter by Sid Edenshaw, September 11, 2008, Hydaburg Cooperative Association.

25 Letter by Leah Niederstadt, n.d., Wheaton College Permanent Collection, Wheaton College.

26 Sangita Chari and Jamie M. N. Lavallee, Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Gravers Protection and Repatriation Act, First Peoples (n.p.: Oregon State University Press, 2013), [p. 84].

27 Sangita Chari and Jamie M. N. Lavallee, Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Gravers Protection and Repatriation Act, First Peoples (n.p.: Oregon State University Press, 2013), [p. 228].

Works Cited

"Antiquities Act." National Park Service. Last modified March 15, 2016. Accessed March 25, 2017. https://www.nps.gov/archeology/sites/antiquities/about.htm.

Chari, Sangita, and Jamie M. N. Lavallee. Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Gravers Protection and Repatriation Act. First Peoples. N.p.: Oregon State University Press, 2013.

Cryne, Julia A. "NAGPRA Revisited: A Twenty-Year Review of Repatriation Efforts." American Indian Law Review 34, no. 1 (2009-2010): 99-122. JSTOR.

Edenshaw, Sid. Letter, September 11, 2008. Hydaburg Cooperative Association.

Eleanor Bridge Kilham Class of 1876. Photograph. Wheaton College Archives, Norton, MA.

"Federal and State Recognized Tribes." National Conference of State Legislatures. Last modified 2017. Accessed March 22, 2017. http://www.ncsl.org/research/state-tribal-institute/list-of-federal-and-state-recognized-tribes.aspx.

"Frequently Asked Questions." National NAGPRA. Accessed February 25, 2017.https://www.nps.gov/nagpra/FAQ/INDEX.HTM#What_is_NAGPRA?

Haida Hat. Photograph. Wheaton College Permanent Collection, Norton, MA.

Halibut Hook. 2016. Photograph. Peabody Essex Museum, Salem, MA.

Hopper, Frank. "Sale of Sacred Object Stopped By Museum and Native Leaders." Indian Country Media Network. Last modified September 18, 2015. Accessed March 20, 2017. https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/events/sale-of-sacred-object-stopped-by-museum-and-native-leaders/.

Kelsey, Penelope, and Cari M. Carpenter. "'In the End, Our Message Weights”: Blood Run, NAGPRA, and American Indian Identity." American Indian Quarterly 35, no. 1 (Winter 2011): 56-74. JSTOR.

Niederstadt, Leah. Fax, n.d. Wheaton College Permanent Collection. Wheaton College.

Raulbot. National Museum of the American Indian. 2005. Photograph.

Shea, Andrea. "What A Native American Fish Hook's Journey Says About A Little-Known Repatriation Law." WBUR. Last modified March 4, 2016. Accessed February 25, 2017. http://www.wbur.org/artery/2016/03/04/what-a-sacred-native-american-hooks-journey-tells-us-about-a-little-known-repatriation-law.

Zarur, Elizabeth Calil. Fiber and Feathers. Norton, MA: Wheaton College, n.d.