Hall 1

Lacey Hall
Professor Melissa Schaefer
Anthropology 1020-002
09 October 2014
Ethics of the Repatriation of Human Remains
Introduction
This paper is focused on a critical analysis of the ethics of the repatriation of human
remains, specifically the remains of the ancient Native Americans. Repatriation is the returning
of remains to their homelands. Native Americans are requesting remains of their peoples to be
returned to them for burial purposes and those whom remove remains from burial sites to be
considered performing desecration and thereby punished in doing so. However, anthropologists,
archaeologists, scientists, researchers, and museums find these remains to be a requirement in
discovering both cultural practices and personal histories of our Nations past. The past needs to
be known to those whom seek the knowledge of our ancestors and the only way in doing so is
revisiting what remains of the past; skeletal remains and ancient artifacts are the doors to these
past worlds. Without them, the past could potentially never be completely understood nor will
their secrets be revealed. Due to these issues, the impact of either could effect the entire
population as well as the generations to come. As science and technology further, we dont have
an accurate idea as to how much more can be learned from these remains. Thus giving them back
to the indigenous people could possibly prevent further knowledge into the past. Although, its
emotional and spiritual effects on the Native Americans is unknown, it is said to be
heartbreaking and difficult for those whose belief lies with proper burial being the only means of

Hall 2
peace in an afterlife. Despite these things, I believe the knowledge of the past carries more
significance than returning the remains to their peoples.
Viewpoint One
The indigenous population of the United States is the Native American Indians. They are
avidly for the repatriation of their human ancestral remains. In reference to the Native American
beliefs according to Chief, Piscataway Indian Nation, Billy Redwing Tayac states that A remain
is . . . every time that you moved your lips, you blinked your eyes, you moved your legs, you
said a word, you turned your head . . . whatever you did in your entire life, from the day you
were born . . . until the day you died and were put into the earth: thats what a remain is this
publication was part of The Pluralism Project by Harvard University. With Billys words in
mind, it is easy to see the significance of skeletal remains to those of the Indian Nation.
Many Native Americans regard remains the same as Billy does, due to this popular
belief the creation of the Native American Graves and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was needed.
Upon this Act it requires peoples and agencies that obtain cultural and human remains to
essentially follow the requests associated with these remains from the affiliated tribes and
descendants of the original tribes. In correlation to this, it has to be proven that there is cultural
affiliation to each tribe in question, once this is done it is also in agreement that the affiliated
tribe by law, owns these items and can recall them at any time. The Act also states that it is
against the law to excavate Native American sacred sites if unauthorized. Thus creating a
contract between museums and Tribe governments to keep these remains safe in their holdings
till the Tribe deems it otherwise. This act was created with good intentions and somewhat
appealed to the Native Americans whom were distraught, however, it posses difficulty in
recognizing what is deemed to be a cultural affiliation as well as a sacred item. At times

Hall 3
disputes occur between different Native Tribes in regards to claiming artifacts; multiple tribes
have been known to claim a single artifact. With these issues it is brought through a NAGPRA
Committee comprised of Tribe leaders, government, museum officials, etc., who thereby
determine where the artifact in question shall go.
Billy further states in the same publication previously mentioned that, When . . .
archaeologists come here and steal the ancestors, theyve stolen these peoples souls. They're
holding their souls captive. This belief among the Native American people has assisted in laws
and acts being created such as NAGPRA that forces museums, archaeologists, anthropologists,
etc. to take more care in the examination and research of Native American remains. In doing so,
it has also caused difficulties for the scientific and historical communities in viewing, displaying,
and further evaluating these remains.
Viewpoint Two
Due to the difficulties presented to the scientific community through NAGPRA many
researchers were outraged. In the Archive Archaeology publication Native Americans and
Archaeologists: Debating NAGPRASs Effects anthropology professor Clement Meighan states
the reburying of these artifacts as the equivalent of the historian burning documents after he has
studied them. Thus, repatriation is not merely an inconvenience but makes it impossible for
scientists to carry out a genuinely scientific study of American Indian prehistory. With such
strong words it is easy to see the difficulties in which science faces due to the negative reaction
from the Native American people in regards to the research and holding of human remains.
However the laws and acts in place protect the indigenous people to a degree and
inconvenience scientists to a degree; it seems as though it is the best middle ground in which
they were able to come up with for the time being. The debate is best summarized through the

Hall 4
title of the article, Repatriation: A Clash of World Views by Tamara Bray; it is just that, A clash
of world views. Some may wonder why it is needed to see the past and those in the science
community view it as a required technique to get a view into the past. Patricia Landau states in
her article Why Anthropologists Study Human Remains, Although no simple statement can
explain all the reasons why some physical anthropologists study human remains, one very
fundamental reason is that human remains offer direct, tangible evidence of our history, how we
have become biologically suited to the many environments in which we live, and how we
behave. This description therefore accurately tells one the need for such a practice. Evidence of
our history, more simply put, allows us to relate to and understand past cultures.
Museums are one of the biggest holders of cultural and human remains of the indigenous
populations. Museums put artifacts on display for the general public to obtain knowledge and
insight of other cultures, past and present as well as their own nations histories. They rarely
display all of the artifacts and remains in which they carry though. Many museums have more
items in storage than on display at any given time. Thus, museums could be considered as a way
of preserving information, artifacts, and remains for future research and knowledge. As stated by
Meighan, In my view, archaeologists have a responsibility to the people they study. They are
defining the culture of an extinct group and in presenting their research they are writing a chapter
of human history that cannot be written except from archaeological investigation. If the
archaeology is not done, the ancient people remain without a history. With that in mind, how
can you disagree? Without knowledge of the past, is there truly a past?
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Native American peoples feel as though their ancestors have been
disrespected, had their souls stolen, are not at peace, and many of their cultural histories have

Hall 5
been taken from them through the research and study of Native American remains. The Science
community feels it necessary to use these remains as a means to uncovering the past and writing
histories of those whod otherwise be forgotten. Both of which play into an appeal to emotion;
with the Indians fighting for repatriation being directly correlated to their belief, lineage, and
cultural practices and the science community against it for the ability to further reconstruct the
past. Thus both are emotionally charged and are conflicting worldviews. However, my feelings
have not changed. If it is considered desecration to excavate human remains from burial sites, if
the burial site has already been desecrated and the remains excavated, is it possible to further
desecrate the remains by researching them? I think not. I completely agree that upon the
hundreds of thousands of artifacts in which are currently in the scientific community remaining
there for future and further research of the past. Although, any further excavating of these sacred
burial sites I do not see as needed. The returning of the remains in which have already been
thoroughly examined, I see being a scientific set back in which our world cannot afford.

Hall 6

Works Cited
Bray, Tamara L. "Repatriation - Arctic Studies Center." Repatriation - Arctic Studies Center.
Arctic Studies Center, 1995. Web. 09 Oct. 2014. National Museum of Natural History
Smithsonian Institution
Landau, Patricia M. and D. Gentry Steele. Why Anthropologists Study Human Remains. N.p.:
n.p., n.d. Academic Evergreen. 04 Nov. 1983. Web. 09 Oct. 2014.
Meighan, Clement W. "Native Americans and Archaeologists: Debating NAGPRAS's Effects Archaeology Magazine Archive." Native Americans and Archaeologists: Debating
NAGPRAS's Effects - Archaeology Magazine Archive. Archive Archaeology, 26 Feb. 1999.
Web. 09 Oct. 2014.
Schrag, Brian. "Resources." News Rss. OEC, 16 Feb. 2006. Web. 09 Oct. 2014.
United States. National Park Service. "National NAGPRA FAQ." National Parks Service. U.S.
Department of the Interior, n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2014.
"Caught in the Middle. An Archaeological Perspective on Repatriation and Reburial."
Academia.edu. Ed. Mille Gabriel. The Greenland National Museum, 2007. Web. 09 Oct.
2014.
"Human Remains." Cultural Property Advice -. N.p., n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2014.
"The Pluralism Project." Essays. Harvard University, n.d. Web. 09 Oct. 2014.