Magistrate John Jelderks’ opinion in August 2002, that Kennewick Man is not Native American under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), will likely have farreaching impacts on the relationship between American Indians and American archaeologists. More than a legal decision, the opinion also points to the inadequacies of NAGPRA. The following article looks at some of the political implications of the judge’s decision and the most recent crack in the fragile peace between archaeologists and North America’s indigenous people and discusses some of the shortcomings and ambiguities of NAGPRA.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anonymous (1970) ‘ Indian Skeleton ’, Akwesasne Notes2(6): 12 .
2.
Anonymous (1971) ‘ Don’t Exploit Our Dead or Our Ceremonies or Our Dances ’, Akwesasne Notes3(6): 1 .
3.
Antone, C. (1996) Statement to the Committee. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, an oversight hearing on Public Law 101–601, to provide the authority and mechanism for the repatriation of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. 6 December, 1995. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents.
4.
Begley, S. and A. Murr (1999) ‘ The First Americans ’, Newsweek 26 April: 50–57 .
5.
Bettinger, R. (1991) Hunter/Gatherers: Archaeological and Evolutionary Theory. New York: Plenum .
6.
Champagne, D. (1996) Statement to the Committee. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, an oversight hearing on Public Law 101–601, to provide the authority and mechanism for the repatriation of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. 6 December, 1995. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents.
7.
Chatters, J. (2001) Ancient Encounters: Kennewick Man and the First Americans. New York: Simon and Schuster .
Columbia Broadcasting System (1998) ‘ Kennewick Man ’, Leslie Stahl, producer. Sixty Minutes.
10.
Deloria, V. Jr. (1969) Custer Died for Your Sins: An Indian Manifesto. London: Macmillan .
11.
Downey, R. (2000) The Riddle of the Bones: Politics. Science, Race and the Story of Kennewick Man. New York: Copernicus .
12.
Hall, L. (1971) ‘ Archaeologists and the Indians ’, Akwesasne Notes3(6): 10 .
13.
Horn, A.L. (1997) ‘ The Kennewick Man Loses Sleep over NAGPRA: Native Americans and Scientists Wrestle over Cultural Remains ’, Sovereignty Symposium X: 501–524 . Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Bar Association.
14.
Hutt, S. (1992) ‘ Illegal Trafficking in Native American Human Remains and Cultural Items: A New Protection Tool ’, Arizona State Law Journal24(1): 135–150 .
15.
Hutt, S., E.W. Jones and M.E. McAllister (1992) Archaeological Resource Protection. Washington, DC: The Preservation Press .
Keepers of the Treasures-Alaska (1996) Statement to the Committee. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, an oversight hearing on Public Law 101–601, to provide the authority and mechanism for the repatriation of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. 6 December, 1995. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents.
18.
Kehoe, A.B. (1998) The Land of Prehistory: A Critical History of American Archaeology. New York: Routledge .
19.
Knudson, R. (1991) ‘The Archaeological Public Trust in Context’, in G. Smith and J. Ehrenhard (eds) Protecting the Past, pp. 3–8. Boca Raton: CRC .
20.
Kuznar, L. (1997) Reclaiming a Scientific Anthropology. Walnut Creek: AltaMira .
Lurie, N. (1988) ‘Relations Between Indians and Anthropologists’, in W. Washburn (vol. ed.) History of Indian-White Relations, pp. 548–556, in W.C. Sturdevant (series ed.) Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 4. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press .
23.
McGuire, R. (1992) ‘ Archaeology and the First Americans ’, American Anthropologist94(4): 816–836 .
24.
McManamon, F. (1999) ‘Chapter 1: The Initial Scientific Examination, Description and Analysis of the Kennewick Human Remains’, Report on the Nondestructive Examination, Description and Analysis of the Human Remains from Columbia Park, Kennewick, Washington. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior .
25.
Meltzer, D. (1983) ‘The Antiquity of Man and the Development of American Archaeology’, in M. Schiffer (ed.) Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Vol. 6, pp. 1–51. New York: Academic Press .
Monroe, D. (1996) Statement to the Committee. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, an oversight hearing on Public Law 101–601, to provide the authority and mechanism for the repatriation of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. 6 December, 1995. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents.
Naranjo, T. (1996) Statement to the Committee. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, an oversight hearing on Public Law 101–601, to provide the authority and mechanism for the repatriation of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. 6 December, 1995. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents.
31.
Nihipali, K. (1996) Statement to the Committee. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, an oversight hearing on Public Law 101–601, to provide the authority and mechanism for the repatriation of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. 6 December, 1995. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents.
32.
O’Hagan, M. (1998) ‘Bones of Contention: The Agendas That Have Brought a 9,300-Year-Old Skeleton to Life’, Willamette Week (consulted July 2000): http://www.wweek.com/html/cover042298.html
33.
Owsley, D. and R. Jantz (2001) ‘ Archaeological Politics and Public Interest in Paleoamerican Studies: Lessons from Gordon Creek Woman and Kennewick Man ’, American Antiquity66(4): 565–575 .
34.
Petit, C. (1998) ‘ Rediscovering America ’, U.S. News and World Report, 12 October, 56–64 .
35.
Powell, J. and J. Rose (1999) ‘Chapter 2: Report on the Osteological Assessment of the “Kennewick Man” Skeleton (CENWW.97.Kennewick)’, Report on the Nondestructive Examination, Description and Analysis of the Human Remains from Columbia Park, Kennewick, Washington. Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior . (On-line version consulted May 2003): http://www.cr.nps.gov/aad/Kennewick/powell_rose.htm
36.
Preston, D. (1997) ‘ The Lost Man ’, The New Yorker, 19 June: 70–81 .
Spector, J. (2000) ‘Collaboration at Inyan Ceyaka Atonwan (Village at the Rapids)’, in K. Dongoske, M. Aldenderfer and K. Doehner (eds) Working Together: Native Americans and Archaeologists, pp. 133–138. Washington, DC: Society for American Archaeology .
39.
Taken Alive, J. (1996) Statement to the Committee. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: hearing before the Committee on Indian Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, an oversight hearing on Public Law 101–601, to provide the authority and mechanism for the repatriation of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony. 6 December, 1995. Washington, DC: Superintendent of Documents.
40.
Thomas, D. (2000) Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology and the Battle for Native American Identity. New York: Basic Books .
41.
Trigger, B. (1980) ‘ Archaeology and the Image of the American Indian ’, American Antiquity45(4): 662–676 .
42.
Trigger, B. (1986) ‘Prehistoric Archaeology and American Society: An Historical Perspective’, in D.J. Meltzer, D.D. Fowler and J.A. Sabloff (eds) American Archaeology Past and Future, pp. 187–215. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press .
43.
Trigger, B. (1989) A History of Archaeological Thought. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
44.
Trope, J. and W. Echo-Hawk (1992) ‘ The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Background and Legislative History ’, Arizona State Law Journal24(1): 35–77 .
45.
Tsosie, R. (1997) ‘Indigenous Rights and Archaeology’, in N. Swidler, K. Dongoske, R. Anyon and A. Downer (eds) Native Americans and Archaeologists: Stepping Stones to Common Ground, pp. 64–76. Walnut Creek: AltaMira .
46.
Watkins, J. (1994) ‘Ethics and Value Conflicts: Analysis of Archaeologists’ Responses to Questionnaire Scenarios Concerning the Relationship between American Indians and Archaeologists’, PhD dissertation, Dept of Anthropology, Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas.
47.
Watkins, J. (2000) Indigenous Archaeology: American Indian Values and Scientific Practice. Walnut Creek: AltaMira .
48.
Welsh, P. (1992) ‘ Repatriation and Cultural Preservation: Potent Objects, Potent Pasts ’, University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform25(3,4): 837–865 .
49.
Willey, G. and J. Sabloff (1993) A History of American Archaeology, 3rd edn. New York: W. H. Freeman and Co .
50.
Winter, J. (1980) ‘ Indian Heritage Preservation and Archaeologists ’, American Antiquity45(1): 121–131 .
51.
Wobst, M. (2001) ‘Matter over Mind: Perishables and the Glorification of Materiality in Archaeology’, in P. Drooker (ed.) Fleeting Identities: Perishable Material Culture in Archaeological Research, pp. 43–57. Carbondale, IL: Center for Archaeological Investigations .
52.
Wright, K. (1999) ‘ First Americans ’, Discover, February: 53–63 .
53.
Zeder, M. (1997) The American Archaeologist: A Profile. Walnut Creek: AltaMira .
