-
2. Tradition, Sovereignty, Recognition: NAGPRA Consultations with the Iroquois Confederacy of Sovereign Nations of New York
- University of Nebraska Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
2. Tradition, Sovereignty, Recognition nagpra Consultations with the Iroquois Confederacy of Sovereign Nations of New York nina m. versaggi T he Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (nagpra ) has been described as a statute that halts the unethical acquisition of Native American human remains and sacred objects, and as a course of action to “reverse the historic pattern of one-way property transfers” (Echo-Hawk 1996:1; Hill 1996:93). The law has been characterized as human rights legislation that corrects historical wrongs (Hutt 1994:2) and as a process that centers on the “humanization of Native Peoples ” (Harjo 1996:3). An important aspect of nagpra is the federal directive that archaeologists and curators of collections collaborate with Native Americans to reach decisions leading to the repatriation of human remains and objects covered by the law. While phrased as a mandate or requirement, the instructions to consult offer a unique opportunity for archaeologists and Native peoples to share information, to have a meaningful dialogue, and to repair a past of mutual mistrust. When applied in a good faith, “the law and regulations encourage a spirit of cooperative engagement” (Echo-Hawk 2002:17). However, it is often tempting to lapse into a compliance mode in which consultation is treated as a task to be checked on the to-do list rather than as ongoing dialogue. As King (1998:116) notes, “when people get too fo- Nina M. Versaggi cused on the process of consultation . . . what gets lost is the recognition that consultation has a purpose.” There is no cookbook approach to consultation , and archaeologists are beginning to realize that the process is often complex and the purpose multifaceted (Stapp and Burney 2002:119). Within this context, King (1998:114) discusses two forms of consultation, the formal, regulated process (Consultation with a capital “C”), and the less formal, everyday conversations (consultation with a small “c”) that often serve as the prelude to formal decisions. In my experiences with compliance with nagpra and with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, it is the noncompliance interactions that are the most fruitful, paving the way to building mutual respect and trust and thus facilitating the negotiation of formal decisions. Native Americans also have stressed that “frequent communication can lead to effective communication ” and that ongoing communication is critical for reaching consensus decisions (White Deer 2000:13). This paper focuses on Binghamton University’s nagpra consultations with the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy as an example of collaboration between Native Americans and archaeologists in the federal compliance arena. Some of the principles I have found to be of importance include tradition, sovereignty, and recognition. I see these as major factors in the successful completion of consultation under nagpra, but I also view these as sources of tension that can make the whole process dif- ficult to navigate. Binghamton University and nagpra After nagpra was signed into law in 1990, I notified our university of its responsibilities regarding collections and repatriation. The Public Archaeology Facility (paf), a research center at Binghamton University (bu), had been working with Native Americans on issues pertaining to burials and sacred places before nagpra was enacted. bu, part of the State University of New York, has always been very supportive of our archaeological initiatives as well as our work with the Six Nations of the Iroquois Confederacy . As noted by Hill (this volume), the Iroquois Confederacy, known as Haudenosaunee, consists of the Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, Oneida, Mohawk, and Tuscarora nations. When the administration asked me to [54.87.90.21] Project MUSE (2024-03-29 09:36 GMT) Tradition, Sovereignty, Recognition be the nagpra coordinator for our campus, I readily agreed and enrolled in a University of Nevada course on nagpra compliance (Hutt 1994). The course offered step-by-step instructions for compliance, including indepth discussions of the very important step of consultation. Since about half the class identified themselves as Native peoples, including federally recognized tribal representatives, these discussions were lively, and they enhanced the sometimes dry facts of the statute. My notes from that class include a direct quotation from one of the presenters: “Do not get involved in tribal politics!” I recall that many Native American participants vehemently agreed and stated that they did not want or need interference from non-Indians when there were disagreements. That made a distinct impression on me, and I vowed to remain neutral in all matters that involved inter - or intra-nation politics. However, as the realities...