Abstract

This Note argues for the amendment of NAGPRA to require deference to Indigenous oral tradition and other forms of traditional historical knowledge[1] where conventional means of establishing cultural affiliation, as provided in the statutory language, prove inadequate to illuminate connections through the deep past.[3] Such revisions are both consistent with the fundamental nature of NAGPRA as human rights legislation and conducive to serving another chief aim of the statute—mending deep-seated wounds between the United States and Indigenous groups in both a historical-moral context and for the discipline of archaeology specifically.

Part I of this Note provides an expansive overview of NAGPRA and its application to the question of effectively repatriating culturally unidentifiable human remains, focusing on the statute’s historical context and application to two high-profile repatriations. Part II of this Note argues for an understanding of NAGPRA as human rights legislation dedicated to the promotion of Indigenous self-determination, for which the strong consideration of oral tradition as evidence of cultural affiliation is morally required. Part III argues for the amendment of NAGPRA to require deference to oral tradition and traditional historical knowledge as a particularly compelling form of evidence. Under this proposal, oral and historical knowledge would determine cultural affiliation for culturally unidentifiable human remains where the Western epistemological methods provided in the statute have proven inadequate.

Keywords

NAGPRA Repatriation, Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains, Indigenous Oral Tradition, Cultural Affiliation Standard, Repatriation Ethics, Human Rights Framework for NAGPRA