Anonymous Comment

While I do believe that the changes for NAGPRA have been positive overall, I do have an issue with the definition of research. According to the current regulations that I have taken from the Federal Register, “Research can include any activity to generate new or additional information beyond the information that is already available. For example, osteological analysis of human remains, physical inspection or review of collections, examination or segregation of comingled material (such as soil or faunal remains), or rehousing of collections”. The problem I have with this definition is “physical inspection or review of collections”. Now I know to counteract this issue, the regulations say that institutions should use the information that they already have gathered. While I do believe this sounds nice on paper, it doesn’t mean every institution can do this. There is an assumption that every single institution has proper documentation of its collection and enough information that guarantees what and where everything is. Unfortunately, there have been collections that have been neglected in the past by their institutions and/or the people in charge of the collections. For example, I have personally worked on multiple collections in my region that have been strongly affected by past archaeologists who have also worked on these said collections and I can confidently tell you that they did a terrible job. So horrible to the point where when I do have information from past collection caretakers, which I typically don’t even know if I can trust them, its quality of information, sometimes just regarding simple numbers, it’s still inaccurate or just flat out makes no sense. So, what would happen if the wrong objects or remains ended up with the wrong tribe due to not us checking the boxes or bags that the objects are in? Does the institution get penalized, even though they may have not had any proper information prior to the NAGPRA work that had been done? To me this is something that doesn’t improve NAGPRA, but rather a lazy solution for a realistic problem that many people are dealing with. I am aware that an institution can get consent from a tribe to do this type of work, but what if the documentation of the collection was not up to par and a tribe says no? I do think consent is required for any additional research on the collection; however, I still think that institutions should at least be able to look through and make simple inventories of said collection. I am personally terrified of giving a tribe’s ancestors to another tribe on accident. In addition, I truly don’t see how a “physical inventory” could be considered research as what information is gathered other than a number. I am also aware that this could be used as an excuse by some in museums and universities to do an inventory, but they may be doing potential in depth analysis, while saying that they are doing just inventory. I personally argue for the sake of accuracy and to know what is in a collection that a physical inventory is needed for this work and should not be considered research. To anyone who may have a better solution or idea, I am open to anything. Finally, to anyone who is reading this, especially anyone indigenous, I truly want it to be know that I want the ancestors and their belongings to be returned to the earth so they can rest. As you know we are humans, and this type of work can be complex, and humans make errors. Please, don’t make this process more confusing or difficult for us.