NAGPRA AFTER TWO DECADES
NAGPRA AFTER TWO DECADES
复制标题
二十年后的纳格拉
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2010
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
C. Colwell
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. Nash;C. Colwell
2010年11月16日是《美洲原住民坟墓保护与遣返法》通过20周年纪念日。这是美国影响联邦资助的博物馆及其与联邦承认的部落关系的最重要的立法。去年晚些时候，我们发布了一项征集论文的呼吁，聚焦于NAGPRA，以审查该法律的所有惊人的复杂性。NAGPRA是一项联邦法律，它规定了联邦机构和博物馆将美洲原住民文化物品（包括人类遗骸、随葬品、圣物和文化遗产）归还给直系后裔、附属印第安部落和夏威夷原住民组织的程序。该立法还载有关于在联邦土地上有意或无意发现文化物品、文化上无法辨认和无人认领的文化物品以及对不遵守规定和贩运的处罚的规定。NAGPRA授权向部落、夏威夷土著组织和博物馆提供联邦拨款，以协助记录和遣返，并设立NAGPRA审查委员会，监督法律程序并促进争端解决。NAGPRA对许多博物馆人类学家来说意义重大。对一些人来说，这是一种滋扰，一种威胁，一项没有资金支持的任务，一项未完成的事业。对另一些人来说，这与他们的学术抱负根本无关。对另一些人来说，这是一个令人兴奋的机会，也是实现历史赔偿和恢复正义的手段。对另一些人来说，这是一个艰难而尴尬的妥协。对印第安人来说，NAGPRA也许同样令人不安。对许多印第安人社区来说，《全国居民权利法案》是一个巨大的经济和精神负担，是强加给他们的工作，帮助他们解决一个不是他们造成的问题。文物的归还也会产生新的问题，比如对文物所有权的内部争论，以及如何以及在哪里重新埋葬遗骸。许多部落代表继续表达对遣返的失望。博物馆不愿咨询不同联邦机构的不同政策。在NAGPRA之后的20年里，只有27%的人类遗骸被收藏，这一事实激怒了部落；一些被遣返的文物和祖先很久以前就被杀虫剂污染了，包括砷和氰化物，几乎不可能被清除；NAGPRA提供了法律上的，而不是精神上的或宇宙学上的，对困难的，如果不是棘手的问题的求助。尽管如此，许多印第安人确实将NAGPRA视为最终了解博物馆藏品的开端，收回传统生存所需的物品，并重新埋葬那些在博物馆架子上坐了太久的祖先。对我们来说，NAGPRA已经彻底影响了我们的集体工作。我们通过不同的途径参与了遣返工作：纳什在nagpra之前的时代接受了培训，而科尔韦尔-查塔蓬在法律实施的过程中达到了职业年龄。但是，当我们到达丹佛自然与科学博物馆时，我们俩（以及我们在人类学系和行政部门的同事）都把NAGPRA视为当务之急，并努力将该机构从违规的悬崖上拉回来。我们开始主动与部落协商，重启停滞不前的遣返工作，并对人类遗骸的文化归属做出决定。我们还决心解决与文化无关的人类遗骸问题，现在已经收到了国家公园管理局NAGPRA的三笔拨款，用于与超过125个部落就落基山脉、大平原和东海岸的遗骸进行磋商。这一努力使我们卷入了最近关于非附属遗骸新规定的公开争论（Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2010a, 2010b）。此外，几个月前，Colwell-Chanthaphonh获得了温纳-格伦（Wenner-Gren）的研究资助，研究美国的文物遣返如何改变了美国原住民和博物馆专业人员的道德承诺，以及法律如何重新安排了部落和博物馆之间的道德关系。遣返是我们职业生涯中不可或缺的一部分，就像现在对许多博物馆专业人员来说一样。博物馆人类学
November 16, 2010, marks the 20th anniversary of the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)Fthe single most important piece of legislation in the United States affecting federally funded museums and their relationship to federally recognized tribes. Late last year, we issued a call for papers focusing on NAGPRA to examine the law in all its wondrous complexity. NAGPRA is a federal law that establishes a process for federal agencies and museums to return Native American cultural itemsFhuman remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimonyFto lineal descendants, and affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. The legislation also contains provisions for the intentional and inadvertent discovery of cultural items on federal lands, culturally unidentifiable and unclaimed cultural items, and penalties for noncompliance and trafficking. NAGPRA authorizes federal grants to tribes, Native Hawaiian organizations, and museums to assist with documentation and repatriation, and establishes the NAGPRA Review Committee to monitor the legal process and facilitate dispute resolution. NAGPRA is many things to many museum anthropologists. For some, it is a nuisance, a threat, an unfunded mandate, and unfinished business. For others, it is simply irrelevant to their academic aspirations. For still others, it is an exciting opportunity and a means toward historical reparations and restorative justice. And for still others, it is a difficult and awkward compromise. For Native Americans, NAGPRA has been perhaps equally disquieting. For many Native American communities, NAGPRA is an enormous financial and spiritual burdenFwork foisted on them to help solve a problem they did not create. The return of cultural items can also generate new kinds of problems, such as internal disputes over ownership and how and where to rebury remains. Many tribal representatives continue to express frustration with repatriationFthe museum that is reticent to consult, the disparate policies of different federal agencies. Tribes are exasperated by the fact that 20 years after NAGPRA only some 27 percent of human remains in collections have been affiliated; that some of the objects and ancestors subject to repatriation were long ago tainted by pesticides, including arsenic and cyanide, that are nearly impossible to remove; and that NAGPRA provides legal, but not spiritual or cosmological, recourse to difficult, if not intractable, problems. Still, many Native Americans do see NAGPRA as the opening to finally learn what museums have in their collections, to reclaim objects needed for the survival of traditions, and to rebury ancestors who have sat on museum shelves for too long. For us, NAGPRA has thoroughly affected our collective work. We arrived at the work of repatriation through different routes: Nash was trained in the pre-NAGPRA era, while Colwell-Chanthaphonh came of professional age in the law’s midst. But, when we arrived at the Denver Museum of Nature & Science, we both (joined by our colleagues in the Department of Anthropology and the administration) saw NAGPRA as a top priority, and worked to bring the institution back from the precipice of noncompliance. We began proactively consulting with tribes, revived stalled repatriations, and made decisions about the cultural affiliation of human remains. We also resolved to address the problem of culturally unaffiliated human remains, and have now received three National Park Service NAGPRA grants to consult with more than 125 tribes on remains from the Rocky Mountains, Great Plains, and the East Coast. This effort has embroiled us in the recent public arguments over the new regulations on unaffiliated remains (Colwell-Chanthaphonh 2010a, 2010b). Additionally, several months ago, Colwell-Chanthaphonh received a Wenner-Gren research grant to examine how repatriation in the United States has transformed the ethical commitments of Native Americans and museum professionalsFhow the law has rearranged the moral relationship between tribes and museums. Repatriation is an integral part of our professional livesFas it is, now, for so many museum professionals. museum anthropology