Thanks for posting this, I guess, because it seems to have been a major
example of foot in mouth disease for me to have posted in the first place,
without giving more thought to it. In retrospect I think it's weird that I
did it, because I myself am torn about the issue.
I've posted an additional clarification.
http://archaeology.about.com/b/2008/01/29/more-on-or-was-and-nagpra.htm
I think it's important to talk about the issue, anyway, even if I do have to
look like an idiot in the process. Up to nine comments so far.
Kris
K. Kris Hirst
Guide to Archaeology
About.com
archaeology.about.com
www.About.com
Become an About.com Guide: beaguide.about.com
About.com is part of the New York Times Company
-----Original Message-----
From: HISTORICAL ARCHAEOLOGY [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of HISTARCH
automatic digest system
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:01 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: HISTARCH Digest - 28 Jan 2008 to 29 Jan 2008 (#2008-27)
There is 1 message totalling 109 lines in this issue.
Topics of the day:
1. NAGPRA: sneaky Senate shenanigans
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2008 15:45:48 -0800
From: Catherine Dickson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: NAGPRA: sneaky Senate shenanigans
Histarchers,
There are two clear errors in the message below. First, contrary to the as=
sertion that the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) has opposed this am=
endment, I point your attention to the testimony of the SAA in support of t=
his amendment from July 28th 2005. http://www.saa.org/repatriation/SAA_TES=
TIMONY_NAGPRA_HEARING_2005.pdf In the testimony, Keith W. Kintigh stated =
=93Consistent with SAA=92s long-standing position on the meaning of =91Nati=
ve American,=92 SAA supports the proposed amendment. Our analysis of its pr=
edictable effects suggests that the amendment would serve to maintain NAGPR=
A=92s balance of interests, in combination with responsible and balanced re=
gulations that are consistent with the letter and the spirit of the law.=94=
Keith Kintigh is the former president of the SAA and was involved in the =
legislative formulation of NAGPRA before Congress. =20 Secondly, the article
spends an inordinate amount of time alluding to a =93=
sneaky=94 two word change to the definition of NAPGRA and overlooks that th=
e amendment is actually 13 words, changing the definition from =93Native
American=94 means of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture= that is
indigenous to the United States.
To
=93Native American=94 means of, or relating to, a tribe, people, or culture=
that is or was indigenous to any geographic area that is now located withi=
n the boundaries of the United States. =20 See S. 2087, Sec. 4. on
thomas.loc.gov =20 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 e= ntirely separate, and blurring the
distinction between the two is evidence = of a clear lack of understanding.
The legislation has not passed out of Co= ngress, 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
=20
> Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2008 17:00:26 -0600> From: [log in to unmask]>
> Subj=
ect: NAGPRA: sneaky Senate shenanigans> To: [log in to unmask]> > Two Word Ch=
ange in NAGPRA Sneaks In> In October of last year, the United States Senate=
Indian Affairs Committee sneaked a controversial wording change into the N=
ative American Graves Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) as part of a technical corr=
ections bill, a wording change that caused a great outcry among scientists =
and their allies when it was first suggested in 2004. That wording change h=
as yet to be adopted by the Department of the Interior, but may be in the n=
ear future. > The Native American Graves Repatriation Act is one of the mos=
t important pieces of American legislation affecting archaeologists. Enacte=
d 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 hu=
man remains and grave goods to lineal descendants, and culturally affiliate=
d Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, if they can be determine=
d. 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 in=
digenous 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 St=
ates > While on the surface this change may seem minor, the implications ma=
y be very great indeed. Truly ancient human remains and grave goods found o=
n the American continents (such as Kennewick) cannot be identified to a spe=
cific tribe or set of tribes, and under NAGPRA as it currently stands, thos=
e found on US federal properties may be closely studied and kept in reposit=
ories. Those ancient remains are very rare, and represent an important part=
of understanding how the Americas became populated, questions scientists h=
ave yet to answer. > > Archaeologists are concerned because the addition of=
the two words 'or was' means that very ancient remains which cannot be ide=
ntified to a specific tribe (such as Kennewick Man), may be repatriated to =
the tribes which have historic connections to the properties on which the r=
emains 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 ancestra=
l lands, despite prolific evidence of the widespread migration of early peo=
ple." > > Objections to the wording have been made by several professional =
associations including the Society for American Archaeology and the America=
n Association of Physical Anthropologists. > > This is a touchy problem at =
the very heart of archaeological research in the Americas, which must const=
antly respect both the past and the present, to work towards understanding =
and reporting what our collective past might have been, and at the same tim=
e 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 H=
astings, R-Pasco is asking Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne to delay adop=
tion of the proposed regulation. > > Commentary> a.. Shed a light on prehis=
tory, Kate Riley in the Seattle Times > b.. SAA statement: Comments on 2007=
Proposed Rule Relating to Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains Under th=
e Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act [79 Federal Regist=
er 58582, Published Tuesday October 16, 2007] > c.. AAPA statement: Positio=
n Statement on the Department of the Interior=92s Proposed Rule for the Dis=
position of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains > d.. Comments on the N=
AGPRA Word Change, Friends of the Past > Background on the Issue> a.. Two W=
ord Change to NAGPRA (September 2004) > b.. Working Together, NAGPRA and ar=
chaeology, opposing viewpoints on NAGPRA from archaeologists Joe Watkins an=
d Geoffrey A. Clark, from 1998 > c.. Kennewick Man and the New World Entrad=
a > d.. The Roots of NAGPRA, historical background of the law from Steve Ru=
ssell > lifted from Kris Hirst's Archaeology Blog on About.com:> > http://a=
rchaeology.about.com/b/2008/01/28/two-word-change-in-nagpra-sneaks-in.htm?n=
l=3D1
_________________________________________________________________
Climb to the top of the charts!=A0Play the word scramble challenge with sta=
r power.
http://club.live.com/star_shuffle.aspx?icid=3Dstarshuffle_wlmailtextlink_ja=
n=
------------------------------
End of HISTARCH Digest - 28 Jan 2008 to 29 Jan 2008 (#2008-27)
**************************************************************
|
