Histarchers,
There are two clear errors in the message below. First, contrary to the assertion that the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) has opposed this amendment, I point your attention to the testimony of the SAA in support of this amendment from July 28th 2005. http://www.saa.org/repatriation/SAA_TESTIMONY_NAGPRA_HEARING_2005.pdf In the testimony, Keith W. Kintigh stated “Consistent with SAA’s long-standing position on the meaning of ‘Native American,’ SAA supports the proposed amendment. Our analysis of its predictable effects suggests that the amendment would serve to maintain NAGPRA’s balance of interests, in combination with responsible and balanced regulations that are consistent with the letter and the spirit of the law.” Keith Kintigh is the former president of the SAA and was involved in the legislative formulation of NAGPRA before Congress.
Secondly, the article spends an inordinate amount of time alluding to a “sneaky” two word change to the definition of NAPGRA and overlooks that the amendment is actually 13 words, changing the definition from
“Native American” means of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States.
To
“Native American” means of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is or was indigenous to any geographic area that is now located within the boundaries of the United States.
See S. 2087, Sec. 4. on thomas.loc.gov
By the end of the message, it appears the author has confused the proposed amendments to NAGPRA with the recently released Department of the Interior regulations for the disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains issued in the Federal Register on October 16th, 2007. The two issues are entirely separate, and blurring the distinction between the two is evidence of a clear lack of understanding. The legislation has not passed out of Congress, and until it passes both the Senate and House and is signed by the president, it can not be implemented by the Department of the Interior.
I agree with Leslie Mead that treating remains with respect is the best way to start a conversation with affected tribes.
-Catherine Dickson
> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:00:26 -0600> From: [log in to unmask]> Subject: NAGPRA: sneaky Senate shenanigans> To: [log in to unmask]> > Two Word Change in NAGPRA Sneaks In> In October of last year, the United States Senate Indian Affairs Committee sneaked a controversial wording change into the Native American Graves Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) as part of a technical corrections bill, a wording change that caused a great outcry among scientists and their allies when it was first suggested in 2004. That wording change has yet to be adopted by the Department of the Interior, but may be in the near future. > The Native American Graves Repatriation Act is one of the most important pieces of American legislation affecting archaeologists. Enacted into law in 1990 by George H.W. Bush, NAGPRA provides a process by which museums and other federal agencies use to return certain Native American human remains and grave goods to lineal descendants, and culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, if they can be determined. It was assembled with a great deal of anguish balancing both scientific and Native American needs. > > In 2004, the US Senate bill S.2843 proposed that the NAGPRA definition of Native American be reworded from: > > 'Native American' means of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is indigenous to the United States> to > 'Native American' means of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture that is or was indigenous to the United States > While on the surface this change may seem minor, the implications may be very great indeed. Truly ancient human remains and grave goods found on the American continents (such as Kennewick) cannot be identified to a specific tribe or set of tribes, and under NAGPRA as it currently stands, those found on US federal properties may be closely studied and kept in repositories. Those ancient remains are very rare, and represent an important part of understanding how the Americas became populated, questions scientists have yet to answer. > > Archaeologists are concerned because the addition of the two words 'or was' means that very ancient remains which cannot be identified to a specific tribe (such as Kennewick Man), may be repatriated to the tribes which have historic connections to the properties on which the remains were found, rather than kept for future study. As Kate Riley writes in the Seattle Times "Tribes no longer would have to prove a connection to the remains beyond the coincidence the remains were found on their ancestral lands, despite prolific evidence of the widespread migration of early people." > > Objections to the wording have been made by several professional associations including the Society for American Archaeology and the American Association of Physical Anthropologists. > > This is a touchy problem at the very heart of archaeological research in the Americas, which must constantly respect both the past and the present, to work towards understanding and reporting what our collective past might have been, and at the same time respect the rights of the modern day indigenous peoples. > > The wording change has yet to adopted by the Department of Interior and U.S. Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Pasco is asking Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to delay adoption of the proposed regulation. > > Commentary> a.. Shed a light on prehistory, Kate Riley in the Seattle Times > b.. SAA statement: Comments on 2007 Proposed Rule Relating to Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains Under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act [79 Federal Register 58582, Published Tuesday October 16, 2007] > c.. AAPA statement: Position Statement on the Department of the Interior’s Proposed Rule for the Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains > d.. Comments on the NAGPRA Word Change, Friends of the Past > Background on the Issue> a.. Two Word Change to NAGPRA (September 2004) > b.. Working Together, NAGPRA and archaeology, opposing viewpoints on NAGPRA from archaeologists Joe Watkins and Geoffrey A. Clark, from 1998 > c.. Kennewick Man and the New World Entrada > d.. The Roots of NAGPRA, historical background of the law from Steve Russell > lifted from Kris Hirst's Archaeology Blog on About.com:> > http://archaeology.about.com/b/2008/01/28/two-word-change-in-nagpra-sneaks-in.htm?nl=1
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts! Play the word scramble challenge with star power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=starshuffle_wlmailtextlink_jan
|