The Concept of “Cultural Affiliation” in NAGPRA: Its Potential and Limits in the Global Protection of Indigenous Cultural Property Rights

Abstract

In the debate about indigenous cultural property, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of the United States has developed and implemented an unorthodox concept of “cultural affiliation.” The act entitles Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations to claim repatriation of their cultural property—comprising human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony—upon the establishment of a specific shared group identity and a cultural affiliation to an object. The concept of cultural affiliation in the act replaces proof of ownership, or proof that an object was stolen or illicitly removed. It thereby amends traditional standards saturated in notions of property and ownership that have perpetuated since Roman law and allows the evolution of a control regime over cultural property that takes into account the cultural aspects of the objects. On an international level, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) of 2007 stipulates a similar emancipation of indigenous peoples' cultural property claims from notions of property and ownership. This article explores NAGPRA's cultural affiliation concept as it stands between private property and human rights law and brings into focus the concept's elements that go beyond traditional property law. It ultimately looks at the potential and limits of the concept from an international perspective as a standard for other countries that consider implementation of UNDRIP's provisions on indigenous, tangible, movable cultural property.

The Bangwa Queen: Artifact or Heritage?

“…57 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 16 November 1990, 25 USC, § § 3001-13 (NAGPRA). On "cultural affiliation," see Kuprecht 2012. which this section ends with some words on specific problems relating to colonial takings as a sui generis category.…”

Politics of Repatriation: Formalizing Indigenous Repatriation Policy

“…74 Jenkins 2016. 75 Harding 1997;Kuprecht 2012Kuprecht , 2014; NAGPRA. 76 Harding 1997; NAGPRA 77 Kuprecht 2014;NAGPRA. This delegitimizes some communities on a national level through the denial of Indigenous sovereignty.…”

“…Cultural property nationalism does have some overlap with cultural property indigenism's affiliation to the past. However, I view cultural property indigenism as distinct since it also involves cultural patrimony in its affiliation component Kuprecht 2012Kuprecht , 2014. Kuprecht 2012, 37-38.7 Prott 2005, 226 (emphasis original).8 Prott 2005, 226-28.…”

Análisis comparado sobre patrimonio cultural indígena y currículo: Australia, Chile y Sudáfrica

“…En efecto, para Coombe (2001) este incluye las herencias generadas en el pasado, historias y mitos que terminan por direccionar el destino de la comunidad. Kuprecht (2012) señala que el patrimonio cultural crea memoria colectiva y sentido de pertenencia en y para un grupo social determinado. Asimismo, Mcmillan (2013) enfatiza que el patrimonio cultural se hace cargo de la identidad del pueblo, puesto que entrega la posibilidad de conservar y alimentar memorias colectivas a través del entendimiento de un mundo compartido.…”