NAGPRA -- A Blessing or a Curse?

NAGPRA
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

This research paper was prepared for Anthropology Senior Seminar at Kutztown University.

The opinions stated herein are soley those of this author and are not intended to represent the opinions of any professor at the University.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)
A Blessing or a Curse?

Introduction NAGPRA Background Navajo Background

Hopi Perspective Rulings & Ironies Conclusion

Works Cited

Introduction
Terms such as “cliff dwellings of the Southwest,” “ancient ruins,” and “Chaco Canyon” conjure up images of a long-ago complex culture known to us as the Anasazi and their descendents, the Hopi, Zuni and Acoma as well as 17 others living on their tribal lands in New Mexico. Now, thanks to a fairly recent ruling on the part of the NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) committee whose meetings culminated in 1999, we can add Navajo to the list of authentic Anasazi descendents (Smith 1999).

While it is the belief of most anthropologists and archaeologists that the Navajo did not arrive in the Southwest until well after the Anasazi disbursed, leaving their cliff dwellings at such places as Chaco Canyon in New Mexico, Mesa Verde in Colorado and Canyon de Chelly in Arizona, it is contended by members of the Navajo tribe that they did, indeed, live alongside the Anasazi (Sanghani 2000). Some contend that their relationship with the former went beyond trade and borrowing of culture: they intermarried and therefore the Navajo can claim the Anasazi as direct ancestors. This claim is in dispute between the Navajo, the various Pueblo descendents as well as anthropologists, who believe that the Navajo had no contact, in fact were not even this far south until shortly before the Pueblo Revolt of 1680 (Smith 1996).

Further complicating matters are the Navajo legends and myths regarding their origins, not just in the Southwest, but in this, the Fourth World. Many Navajo, while believing that their ancestors did cross a land bridge and that they are related to the Khanty (pronounced "han-tee") of Siberia, also retain much of their mythology stating that they emerged from the underworlds through series of mishaps which caused them to appear in the Four Corners area they referred to as Dinetah (Smith & Warren 1997).

Although the Navajo do share certain mythical beliefs as well as material objects with the Hopi descendents of the Anasazi, much of this culture was borrowed over time. It is interesting to note that even the word Anasazi is a Navajo word which means, literally, “the ancestors of our enemies,” referring to the Hopi, with whom the Navajo share several long-term legal disputes and a mutual dislike and distrust (Smith 1997).

Regardless of the current age of “political correctness,” one has to question the decision of the NAGPRA committee in giving the Navajo ancestral rights to Chaco Canyon. But before we can even begin to explore this conundrum, we need to have an understanding of NAGPRA, its origins, other implications of this Act and its ironies, along with more historical content of Navajo and Hopi interactions. [top]

NAGPRA Background
More than one hundred years before NAGPRA became law, Indians were killed in the name of “Manifest Destiny,” the self-described God-given right of Anglo-Americans to push further and further west, to claim all the land from sea to shining sea. Places like the Little Big Horn and Wounded Knee became relevant parts of the American obsession, justifiable killings of Indians out of greed and fear. Terms such as “The Long Walk” (Navajo) and “Trail of Tears” (Cherokee, among many others) came into the common language. Grave goods, cultural artifacts, along with human remains, were to be exhibited in museums and anthropology departments at universities. Enterprising businessmen and collectors traded goods at such places as World's Fairs (Fine-Dare 2002).

The Native American became to some an emblem. From anthropologists wanting to learn more about their cultures to sports teams using caricatures as team logos (Fine-Dare 2002), the Indian began to feel as if he, himself, were a museum piece. As DeLoria so eloquently puts it, “…Indians have been cursed above all other people in history. Indians have anthropologists” (DeLoria 1988). Much exploitation of the Indians occurred and the American Indian Movement sought, sometimes violently, to reclaim their heritage. Through their actions over a long period of time, NAGPRA was enacted in 1990.

The reasons are many why one would want to own an Indian artifact. Museums draw paying guests, anthropologists can study cultures and cultural affiliations, a collector might enjoy decorating his home, businessmen like the money that such trading brings. In 1975, the Museum of Modern Art let it be known to the world that “primitive” art such as that produced by ancient as well as living Indians was valuable (Mihesuah 2000).

Each of us has a natural curiosity about ourselves as well as others: their cultures, their arts, their religious beliefs; but none so much as our obsession with our own museum-worthy Indians. We want to know from where they came, how many waves of immigration occurred over what period of time, with whom they traded, how they lived their lives. We Americans are fascinated by the Native Americans, those who inhabited “our” land long before we arrived. But does that make our collecting and viewing of artifacts in museums our “right”? Does it justify the desecration of the ancestors’ by physical anthropologists?

The Indians themselves are not fascinated with our heritage; conversely they are not fascinated with the scientific study of their own, as they have their own stories and myths of their arrival in what is now America. Unfortunately, many anthropologists do not lend any credence to the aboriginal myths and stories, choosing their own scenarios instead (DeLoria 1988, Locke 1992). If anthropologists were to listen intently to the stories and myths, some may come to understand why the Navajo peoples, for the most part, believe that they did inhabit Chaco Canyon alongside the Anasazi; the Navajo, according to their legend, were brought to the fourth world by Changing Man and Changing Woman in an area just bordering the Canyon. The Navajo refer to this original habitation as Dinetah (Locke 1992). Anthropologists have dated the Navajo appearance in the New Mexico/Arizona area as occurring long after the Anasazi abandoned the canyon.

NAGPRA’s intent was to return cultural goods and human remains to the affiliated tribes once their rights to claims were established. According to NAGPRA, a regional affiliation of any tribe currently residing in an area where an artifact originated could claim legal right without regard to cultural ownership (Dongoske 2002). This seemingly innocent clause explains part of the current Navajo-Anasazi/Hopi problem. [top]

Navajo Background
The Navajo represent the second wave of Asian immigration into the Americas, arriving here sometime between the 1400s and the early 1600s, long after the Anasazi left their mesa-top cliff dwellings and became the Hopi, Zuni, and Acoma Pueblos of modern times. Originally settling in northern Canada, a small group broke from the main and traveled into what is now known as the Four Corners area: Northwest New Mexico, Northeast Arizona, Southeast Utah and Southwest Colorado. They were a hunter-gatherer group who did not have any agricultural experience. Inhabiting long abandoned areas such as Aztec and Chaco Canyon in New Mexico, they avoided the structures we refer to as ruins. This can be attributed to their long-standing fear of death. The Navajo believe that the spirit remains to cause troubles such as illness and death to those who look upon a deceased body (Locke 1992).

During times of upheaval in the lives of the various Pueblo tribes, the Navajo encountered and sometimes harbored, even fought on behalf of the people who would later become their enemies (hence the “Anasazi” attribute). During these times, the Navajo learned agriculture, to paint pottery, and weaving from the Hopi. They learned silver-smithing and became proficient traders of their wares upon the arrival of the Spanish and later the Anglos (Iverson 1990).

They also “borrowed” the cultural/religious beliefs of Hopi people, adopting what they needed or wanted to suit their own lifestyles (Noble 2000). This angered the Hopi especially when the National Park Service, under the auspices of NAGPRA determined that the Navajo have a cultural affiliation (with the Anasazi and Hopi) with regard to remains from Chaco Canyon. “It is important we remember that cultural borrowing is not cultural affiliation,” stated Tessie Nuranjo, a NAGPRA Review Committee member who is also a member of the Santa Clara of New Mexico, another Pueblo descendent group of the Anasazi (Smith 1999).

Resentment on the part of the Pueblo people also stems from the Navajo story of acquisition. According to Navajo legend, “the Great Gambler won all the Four Corners peoples (the Anasazi) as slaves in Chaco Canyon before a Navajo hero beat the gambler and freed them.” The “holy ones” then banished the Anasazi because “they became too proud” (Smith 1997). [top]

A Hopi Perspective
The Hopi, having direct ancestral ties to the Anasazi, are angered over the National Park Service’s ruling that gives the Navajo cultural as well as descendant rights to not only Chaco Canyon, but Mesa Verde as well. “‘This gets down to Navajos usurping Hopi and Puebloan traditions as their own, from pottery and weaving to social and religious views,’ says Hopi Kuwanwisiwma, whose reservation is surrounded by the Navajo Nation. ‘They are not Puebloan, they are Athabascan, a completely different language, and through their migration they encountered ancient Puebloan sites. Just simply encountering a site does not prove cultural affiliation’” (Smith 1997).

The Navajo and Hopi have had a long-standing dispute over land which had been divided up by the federal government. Navajo people live on land that is supposed to be a part of the Hopi reservation but for political reasons, no government efforts have been enacted to remove the Navajo (Winson 2002). In addition, an Anasazi site which sits at the northern end of the Navajo Reservation near Kayenta was named Navajo National Monument by the National Park Service. This site is clearly Anasazi and, the Hopi contend, should be called Hopi National Monument (Smith 1997). This argument speaks to the cultural differences in approach not just between the various Indian tribes, but with Anglos as well. [top]

Rulings and Ironies
The Hopi and Navajo groups have come to odds over human remains, burial artifacts, medicinal pouches and land-use rights. NAGPRA feels that it has settled at least some of the first three in question by granting the Navajo ancestral rights to Anasazi sites while having no jurisdiction in the land-use argument. In some respects, their ruling has produced more problems than it has solved. Before NAGPRA, the Navajo had to await the arrival of Hopi or Zuni had they found anything related to the Anasazi on their reservation. Now the Navajo could make that decision themselves, which is a point of contention to the Puebloans (Sanghani 2000).

And yet, on the other hand, the committee may have taken the first step toward cultural healing. NAGPRA forces communication between tribes should they find artifacts belonging to another on their lands. Although the committee ruled that the Navajo have ancestral rights to the Anasazi, the Navajo reported finds on their land to the Hopi in 1993. The Hopi requested black and white photographs and worked closely with the Navajo Nation Archaeology Department. A total of 31 individuals were reburied with traditional Hopi ceremonialism (Dongoske 2002).

While doing research for this paper, I came across a listing by the National Park Service entitled “NAGPRA Notices of Intent to Repatriate” and discovered that the Navajo Nation has been served with an action to repatriate a ceremonial mask housed in their Tribal Museum at Window Rock, AZ which belongs to the Oneida Tribe of Wisconsin (National Park Service 1995). What is also interesting to note is that the Park Service has served notice on its own holdings, especially at Hubble Trading Post (AZ), El Morro (NM), and Bandelier (NM). [top]

Conclusion
While NAGPRA makes an attempt to right four hundred years of wrongs perpetrated upon the Native Americans by the Spaniards, Anglos as well as private looters, the law cannot touch the private collectors or the people who dig on private lands, the very people who are more apt to exploit such finds. Furthermore, the law hurts those of us who want to learn about the various groups who occupied this land before we did.

Although I see a need for control over human remains and cultural artifacts, it worries me that these objects will not be around for my children and grandchildren to study. Further, I fear that scientific study and the field of New World Archaeology may eventually cease to exist, except where it pertains to American history.

In an attempt to control grave robbing, NAGPRA has also put constraints on the study of human remains that are found accidentally, such as the famed Kennewick Man of Washington state (Fine-Dare 2002). In an ongoing attempt to date the populating of the western hemisphere, studies need to be done on his remains, as well as others which may come to us in the future.

It is a very real concern that some day in the near future our museums will be devoid of anything other than the occasional drawing (some tribes do not even permit sketching) or a sign proclaiming, “here once was exhibited the medicine pouch used by … of the … tribe…” Of course, cultural awareness comes with the price of cultural sensitiveness.

As it so obviously stands now, based on the Navajo Museum having to return an Oneida artifact, the only places we will be able to see anything pertaining to a particular tribe is in their own tribal museum. No longer will I be able to go to the U of P in Philadelphia. I better start saving my money; it’s expensive to have to travel all the way to Wisconsin to visit a museum! [top]

Works Cited

Webrings

Other anthro4n6 online research papers:

Comments and questions may be addressed to Terrie
© 2005 W³WebDesign
All Rights Reserved

This site designed and maintained by
W³WebDesign

Introduction	NAGPRA Background	Navajo Background
Hopi Perspective	Rulings & Ironies	Conclusion