Federal Repatriation Legislation and the Role of Physical Anthropology in Repatriation

Abstract

Two laws governing the disposition of Native American human remains in museums and institutions have had a profound impact on anthropology, and especially physical anthropology. In contrast to the perception of constant conflict between Native Americans and physical anthropologists, the repatriation process based on these laws has been in large part harmonious between institutions and Native peoples in the US. Despite misconceptions, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAPGRA; 25 United States Code (U.S.C.) 3001-3013) was not intended to halt further research on Native American remains in museums. In fact, court decisions have affirmed that the documentation of human remains produces information no other methods can provide, and provides necessary evidence to be incorporated and weighed, along with other evidence, in evaluating \cultural affiliation," the legal term for the required connection from federally recognized Native American groups to their ancestors. The wide variety of osteological data collected at the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH), Smithsonian Institution, have proven indispensable when evaluating cultural affiliation, especially when other information sources are unhelpful or ambiguous, and provide an empirical basis for determining the ancestry of individuals whose remains will be discovered in the future. To date, the claim-driven process at the NMNH has resulted in the affiliation and repatriation of more Native American remains than any other institution in the country. Repatriation experiences at the NMNH demonstrate the changing relationships between museums and Native peoples, the continuing important contributions that physical anthropology makes to the repatriation process, and the importance of physical anthropology in understanding the recent and ancient history of North America. Yrbk Phys Anthropol 48:2-32, 2005.

Chinese immigrant population history in North America based on craniometric diversity

“…Hrdlicka never tested these assumptions. Ousley et al (2005) confirmed their biological ancestry by applying a discriminant function analysis on the Karluk sample and compared them to other known East Asian groups (Chinese and Japanese) and Native Alaskan samples. These authors found the majority of Kodiak Island individuals (95%) clustered closest to other Chinese and Japanese rather than Native Alaskan individuals.…”

“…The cemetery dates from 1885 to 1923 according to historical records and artifacts recovered with the burials (Owsley et al, 1997;Schmidt, 2006). These skeletal remains are currently being stored at the (Jones, 1931;Ousley et al, 2005). The amateur archaeologist assumed these individuals to be Chinese based on the presence of a 'pig tail' on one of the men (Jones, 1931).…”

“…It is these skeletal remains that have the potential to provide insight into migration origins of at least some of the earliest Chinese immigrants to this country. This study involves the analysis of skeletal remains from Carlin, Nevada, a small cemetery excavated in 1996, and the analysis of a craniometric sample from Kodiak Island, Alaska that was excavated in 1931 and is now curated at the Smithsonian Institution (Ousley et al, 2005;Schmidt, 2006). The Carlin and Kodiak Island samples are assumed to be individuals of Chinese ancestry.…”

A Review of Codes of Ethics in the United States and Ethical Dilemmas Surrounding the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)

“…Skeletal remains also provide insights into adaptive successes in response to new environmental stresses. While the authenticity and reliability of historical documents and other cultural artifacts may be dubious, skeletal analyses offer an objective, independent source of information that is less subject to cultural manipulation and historical revision [3].…”

A bioarchaeological study of mid-Holocene communities in the Eastern Cape, South Africa: the interface between foraging and pastoralism

“…Human Skeletal Remains (1994) (Ousley et al 2005). Buikstra and Ubelaker devised their approach to the collection of skeletal data in response to the need to develop a standardized data collection protocol that would satisfy the needs of archaeologists, biological anthropologists, researchers, and descendent aboriginal groups involved with NAGPRA and the repatriation process for standardized, comprehensive and directly comparable data.…”