The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act history is a complex and profound narrative of justice, reconciliation, and the enduring fight for cultural sovereignty. Enacted in 1990, NAGPRA fundamentally reshaped the relationship between federally funded institutions—such as museums, universities, and federal agencies—and Native American, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian communities regarding the treatment and disposition of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. To truly understand its significance, one must delve into the historical context of dispossession and exploitation that necessitated such groundbreaking legislation.
Before NAGPRA, a vast number of Native American human remains and cultural objects were amassed by institutions across the United States. This collection began centuries ago, often through grave desecration, battlefield looting, and archaeological excavations conducted without the consent or knowledge of tribal communities. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, the prevailing scientific and societal attitudes often viewed Native Americans as a "dying race" or as subjects for anthropological study rather than as living cultures with inherent rights. Scientists, particularly physical anthropologists, sought to collect human remains to "prove" theories of racial difference, while archaeologists often prioritized scientific discovery over the cultural sensitivities of Indigenous peoples. This era saw hundreds of thousands of ancestral remains and millions of cultural items enter museum and university collections, where they were often stored in drawers, displayed as curiosities, or used for research, effectively denying Native communities their spiritual and cultural connection to their ancestors and heritage.
The ethical implications of these collections became increasingly apparent to Native American communities, who for decades had been advocating for the return of their ancestors and sacred objects. This advocacy was rooted in deeply held spiritual beliefs about the sanctity of human remains and the importance of ceremonial objects for the continuation of cultural practices. The presence of their ancestors in museum basements was not merely an academic issue; it was a profound spiritual grievance, a continuation of the historical trauma inflicted by colonization. Early calls for repatriation often met with resistance from institutions that cited scientific value, collection ethics, or simply a lack of understanding of tribal spiritual beliefs. However, the growing civil rights movement and increased self-determination efforts by Native American tribes in the mid-20th century provided a stronger platform for these demands. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act history is intrinsically linked to this broader movement for Indigenous rights.
The push for federal legislation gained significant momentum in the 1980s. Key events and legislative precursors paved the way. For instance, the National Museum of the American Indian Act, passed in 1989, mandated the repatriation of human remains and funerary objects held by the Smithsonian Institution. While a separate act, it set a crucial precedent and demonstrated that repatriation was legislatively feasible and ethically necessary. This provided a powerful impetus for a broader law that would apply to all federally funded institutions. The efforts were spearheaded by a coalition of Native American tribal leaders, spiritual practitioners, legal advocates, and sympathetic members of Congress, most notably Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, who championed the bill. The process involved extensive negotiations and compromises between Native American tribes, museums, and scientific communities, all of whom had differing perspectives on ownership, scientific inquiry, and cultural sensitivity.
On November 16, 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act into law. This marked a monumental shift in policy and represented a significant victory for Native American self-determination and human rights. The core provisions of NAGPRA are designed to achieve several key objectives:
- Protection of Graves: It makes it a federal crime to traffic in Native American human remains or cultural items removed from federal or tribal lands after the act’s passage.
- Inventory and Summary Requirements: Museums and federal agencies receiving federal funds must compile inventories of Native American human remains and associated funerary objects in their collections and summaries of unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. These inventories and summaries must be shared with culturally affiliated Native American tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations.
- Repatriation: Upon request, and once cultural affiliation is established, institutions are required to repatriate human remains and cultural items to lineal descendants, culturally affiliated tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations.
- Consultation: Institutions are mandated to consult with tribal governments and Native Hawaiian organizations regarding the identification, cultural affiliation, and disposition of Native American cultural items.
- Grants: NAGPRA established a grant program to assist museums and tribes in the repatriation process.
- Review Committee: An independent Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Review Committee was established to monitor the implementation of the act and mediate disputes.
The implementation of NAGPRA, however, was not without its challenges. Museums and federal agencies, many of whom had held these collections for over a century, faced the daunting task of identifying, inventorying, and determining the cultural affiliation of millions of items. Issues arose concerning the definition of "cultural affiliation," especially for ancient remains where direct lineal descent was difficult to prove ("culturally unidentifiable remains"). Funding for both institutions and tribes to carry out the necessary research and repatriation efforts was often insufficient. Legal interpretations and disputes, such as the high-profile Kennewick Man case, tested the boundaries and definitions within the act, highlighting the complexities of applying a modern law to ancient remains and archaeological practices. Despite these hurdles, the unfolding Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act history has seen significant progress.
Over the past three decades, NAGPRA has facilitated the repatriation of tens of thousands of ancestral remains and hundreds of thousands of funerary and sacred objects. This has allowed Native communities to rebury their ancestors with dignity, reclaim their sacred items for ceremonial use, and revitalize their cultural practices. The act has fostered unprecedented dialogue and collaboration between Indigenous communities, museums, and archaeologists, leading to a more ethical and respectful approach to the study and preservation of cultural heritage. It has also significantly influenced museum ethics globally, prompting institutions worldwide to re-evaluate their collections and engage in similar repatriation efforts. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act history is thus a testament to the power of legislative action in addressing historical injustices and promoting reconciliation.
Beyond the numbers, NAGPRA’s impact is deeply symbolic. It represents a fundamental shift in power dynamics, acknowledging the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples over their cultural heritage and ancestral remains. It moves away from a colonial paradigm of possession and control by dominant institutions towards one of respect, self-determination, and partnership. While the work is far from complete—many remains and objects still await repatriation, and new challenges continually emerge—NAGPRA has irrevocably changed the landscape of cultural heritage management in the United States.
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act history continues to be written. Ongoing efforts focus on streamlining the repatriation process, addressing the complexities of culturally unidentifiable remains, and ensuring adequate resources for both tribal nations and institutions. Its legacy is not just about returning bones and artifacts; it is about restoring dignity, healing historical trauma, and fostering a more equitable and respectful future for all. It stands as a powerful example of how legal frameworks can serve as instruments of social justice, recognizing Indigenous sovereignty and enabling the vital work of cultural revitalization and spiritual healing.
