Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act NAGPRA Insights

NEGPRA

Insights on Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)

What it is

One of the crucial issues that Messenger and Bender (2019) highlight relate to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). From the onset, it would be prudent to note that this happens to be an instrumental federal law in efforts to ensure that fairness, respect, and dignity is observed in the treatment of any ancestry’s human remains and various cultural items. Indeed, as the National Park Service –NPS (2019) points out, one instrumental/pivotal aspect of this particular statute happens to be the acknowledgement “that human remains and other cultural items removed from Federal or tribal lands belong, in the first instance, to lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations.”

Relevance

According to the NPS (2019), one of the greatest benefits of this particular federal law is that it facilitates respectful return. This, as the NPR further points out, enhances understanding and promotes dialogue between native organizations and tribes and museums. This is the very same benefit of NAGPRA that Messenger and Bender (2019) advance. Indeed, in the words of the authors, “the ability to form respectful relationships through consultation opens the door for tribes and institutions both to build trust and to consider permissible research” (Messenger and Bender, 2019, p. 98). The authors are of the opinion that in this context, NAGPRA comes in handy in the establishment of the relevant protocols to govern relations between the relevant institutions and tribes.

Downsides

It should, however, be noted that there are some who have in the past questioned the relevance of this particular federal law. For instance, according to Messenger and Bender (2019), one participant in a symposium christened ‘NAGPRA at 20’ felt that the federal law was harmful to the future of scientific inquiry – specifically with regard to studies focused on persons who have inhabited North America in the past. Another participant was largely in support of this perspective; observing that the federal law stood in the way of proper future inquiry and gathering of crucial data on human evolution. It would be prudent to note that although Messenger and Bender (2019) point out that some of the concerns raised in this case are not rooted in fact, I am of the opinion that to some extent, returning some Native American cultural items could get in the way of future scientific inquiry on past cultural beliefs, world climate, etc. This is more so the case given that human remains and funerary objects may not be available for future assessment using superior technology. However, NAGPRA is progressive to the extent that it lists the procedures to be followed in excavation efforts, and builds trust between the relevant institutions and tribes.

Need for NAGPRA Awareness

The relevance of awareness about the various NAGPRA provisions cannot be overstated. This is more so the case amongst students (both graduate and undergraduate). For instance, as Messenger and Bender (2019) point out, familiarization with NAGPRA could serve as a basis for better understanding of not only research ethics, but also indigenous people rights. Further, awareness of the federal law could come in handy in efforts to further explore Native American history. When it comes to graduate students, Messenger and Bender (2019) are categorical that students at this level “are more likely to become practitioners who will actively encounter repatriation or NAGPRA-related work” (100). For this reason, the authors are convinced that this particular group ought to develop better comprehension of NAGPRA compliance processes. They also need to be skilled in matters relating to gathering insights from a wide range of stakeholders including, but not limited to, cultural specialists, professionals in museum and tribal repatriation efforts, etc.