The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: A New Beginning, Not the End, for Osteological Analysis--A Hopi Perspective

Abstract

Before and after passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act by the United States Congress in November of 1990, many archaeologists' and physical anthropologists2 lamented that the act and its mandate to consult with Native Americans about the treatment and disposition of human remains recovered from archaeological sites would have dramatically negative effects on the science of archaeology and on paleodemographic, paleopathological, and paleogenetic research. Since NAGPRA was passed, the Hopi Tribe has been involved in consultations concerning the human remains identified in four large developmental projects within the Southwest. These projects include the Transwestern Pipeline, El Paso Gas Pipeline, the Roosevelt Dam Platform Mound Study, and the proposed Fence Lake Coal Mine and Transportation Corridor. To date, more than 1,000 burials have been recovered or disturbed by these projects and the possibility of doubling that number in the near future is very real. The tribe's involvement has caused the Hopi people to evaluate the benefits that analysis of prehistoric human remains can offer them. This has generated perspicacious dialogue between the Hopi Tribe and members of the archaeological and physical anthropological communities. This dialogue results in a research agenda beneficial for all parties. With NAGPRA's passage the furiously debated scientific and ethical issue of repatriation and reburial became a legal mandate. Consequently, physical anthropologists and archaeologists, both in academic settings and in federal agencies, are compelled to work in an environment that is far from the ways they conducted research before NAGPRA. Some archaeologists and physical anthropologists find the changes implemented by NAGPRA hard to swallow. They assert that the treatment of human remains and associated funerary objects recovered from an archaeological context should revert to the conventional method ofcuration without consultation. Some of these arguments are based on the perceived necessity to maintain permanent collections for future study in the advent that new techniques of analyses are developed., Others acrimoniously assert that this