NAGPRA and Repatriation in the Twenty-First Century: Shifting the Discourse from Benefits to Responsibilities

Since the 1990s, in bioarchaeology we have typically learned to think of descendant communities as people who gain certain rights or benefits from being recognized as such by law (e.g., NAGPRA), by evidence of historical oppression (e.g., the African Burial Ground National Monument in New York City), or by consensual agreement (e.g., the numerous peoples around the world who live near, and identify with, sites bioarchaeologists excavate). The repatriation and reburial movements in the United States, Australia, and Canada are the touchstones by which the benefits of membership in a descendant community have been articulated for anthropology. Before these movements, and legislation that followed in their wake, indigenous groups were generally not acknowledged as proper stewards of the remains of their ancestors and cultures—whether they planned to curate or rebury them. The benefit of being able to claim one’s ancestors is, in the early twenty-first century, a key feature of successful identification as a descendant community. In this article, though, I will explore the idea that bioarchaeologists and archaeologists have participated in a benefits discourse about descendant communities that deserves revision. We have not learned enough, perhaps, about the heavy responsibility that indigenous people take on when they participate as members of a descendant community in repatriation activities. Likewise, shifting the emphasis of our perspectives on descendant communities from benefits to responsibilities may open an avenue for bioarchaeologists to consider the worth of our own engagements with both the past and the present of peoples we choose to investigate.Keywords: descendant communities; professional ethics; archaeology; bioarchaeology; physical anthropology; indigenous people Desde la época de 1990, los bio-arqueólogos hemos aprendido a considerar a las comunidades descendientes como pueblos que reciben ciertos derechos o beneficios al ser reconocidos como tales ante la ley (e.g., NAGPRA), al presentarse evidencias de opresión histórica (e.g., el Monumento Nacional a los Cementerios Africanos en Nueva York), o al llegar a un acuerdo consensual (e.g., los numerosos pueblos por todo el mundo que viven cerca de, y se identifican con, los sitios excavados por los bio-arqueólogos). Los movimientos de repatriación y re-entierro en Estados Unidos, Australia y Canadá son las piedras de toque por las que se han articulado los beneficios de membresía en una comunidad descendiente. Antes de estos movimientos, y las leyes creadas tras la formación de estos, los grupos indígenas por lo general no se aceptaban como administradores competentes de sus restos ancestrales y culturales—sin importar si los pensaban re-enterrar o conservar. El beneficio de poder reivindicar a sus ancestros es, en el temprano siglo XXI, imprescindible para poder identificarse como comunidad descendiente. En este artículo, sin embargo, exploraré la idea de que los arqueólogos y bio-arqueólogos han participado de un discurso centrado en beneficios, respecto a las comunidades descendientes, que merece revisión. Posiblemente no hemos aprendido lo suficiente sobre la fuerte responsabilidad queasumen los pueblos indígenas al participar en actividades de repatriación como miembros de una comunidad descendiente. Asimismo, el transferir el enfoque de nuestras perspectivas sobre comunidades descendientes, enfatizando las responsabilidades en vez de los beneficios, podrá facilitar que los bio-arqueólogos consideremos el valor de nuestro trabajo tanto con el pasado como con el presente de los pueblos que elegimos para nuestras investigaciones.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.