Opening Archaeology: Repatriation’s Impact on Contemporary Research and Practice (review)

Opening Archaeology: Repatriation’s Impact on Contemporary Research and Practice is an anthology with eleven authors, all of whom are archaeologists, physical anthropologists, or individuals directly involved in repatriation at the institutional level. As its title suggests, the goal of the book is to assess the impact of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) on the field of archaeology in the United States. Although there is substantial diversity of opinions expressed in the chapters, the underlying consensus is that NAGPRA has been good for archaeology. This claim has three central components.

First, NAGPRA has resulted in increasing cooperation and respect between archaeologists and Native peoples. As Stephen Loring suggests, “Instead of a stance predicated on notions of authority and control, repatriation is about respect, about recognizing the legitimacy and value in other ways of thinking about the past” (185). Second, Native oral histories and ethics are value added to archaeological understandings and research practices. Thomas Killion describes this “integration of usually discrete traditions of knowledge . . . between networks of Native Americans and scientific/museum cultures” as “the foundation for new and larger communities of practice for the field of anthropological archaeology as a whole” (134). Third, archaeology is increasingly valued and practiced by Natives. “Indian people are increasingly involved in archaeological meetings and publications—not merely as ’informants’ but as participants and collaborators” (David Hurst Thomas, 73).

These are not spectacular or controversial claims and so not really under dispute. Of course, federal law requiring federally funded institutions to cooperate with the tribes has resulted in more cooperation. It follows that increasing contact with tribal elders and governments has increased scientists’ appreciation for how oral histories can aid their own understandings of North American history; and even small numbers of new Native archaeologists constitute an “increase” in interest and practice by Indians.

The far more important question is whether these occurrences really signal an “opening of archaeology.”

For instance, why is it that the text includes precious little discussion of so called “culturally unidentifiable” ancestors? Why are the infrequent paragraphs that are offered not substantive discussions of the well-being of these disinterred tribal members who now number roughly three times those that have been returned to their communities? What should Indians make of those sentiments that are expressed, which are hardly consistent with Native readings of the law emphasizing its status as human rights legislation designed to protect our dead from scientific “collecting”? How should Native readers assessing our post-NAGPRA relationship with archaeologists and physical anthropologists understand some authors’ celebration of this unfortunate legal status as unexpected bounty for their research agendas? As one physical anthropologist observes, “The perception is that repatriation has led to less research availability of Native skeletal remains; this has proven true for culturally affiliated remains but not necessarily for culturally un-identifiable ones, which make up 79 percent of all remains reported to National NAGPRA” (Ann Kakaliouras, 121).

Equally troubling, the book brags that even ancestors whose cultural affiliations are indisputable have as part of the inventory process required by NAGPRA proven an unexpected source of scientific data, what the same anthropologist calls an “ironic” but “positive development for physical anthropologists.” “[S]ince the beginning of the NAGPRA inventory process, more data collection on skeletal remains has transpired than during any other time in the twentieth century” (113). One has to wonder, did these ancestors’ home communities consent (in the course of legally mandated consultation to create the inventories) to this “data collection” or are anthropologists usurping the inventory process as a strategy for doing physical anthropology that most Indians see NAGPRA as designed to contest?

The book also fails to address, except in careful, short, and often contradictory passages, scientists’ refusal to return our most ancient ancestors. How are Indians to make sense of the claim, made by every author in the text, that Natives and scientists increasingly walk on common intellectual ground, at the same time as the majority of scientists...