Cultural and Archaeological - Ownership

Cultural and Archaeological ANTH 2301 Ownership The topic of who owns the items kept in material collections is one that is being posed by both anthropologists and study subjects nowadays. Previously, whatever that anthropologists or their host institutions acquired was considered their property, and they also had the authority to publish photos of the materials and transfer ownership of the items to collections repositories. Over the past few decades, study participants and indigenous peoples have started to debate whether these things belong in these collections or not. Many of these artefacts were donated or sold by collectors, some of whom had taken the artefacts out of grave sites, rather than by scientists themselves. at certain countries, like Peru, where numerous people dig at Inca ruins to uncover artefacts to sell, artefact hunting is a prevalent cultural activity. When the things in dispute are human remains, ownership issues become very urgent. Tribal peoples in the United States had little to no authority to bring their ancestors back to their homeland until the 1960s. The practice of returning human remains and/or items with significant religious or cultural value to their original peoples is known as repatriation. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), enacted in 1990, governs repatriation in the United States. Before 1990, there was no lawful way for Native Americans to demand the repatriation of any of the millions of human remains that had been gathered and stored in archaeological sites and museums since the 1800s. The 1966 National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) is another significant legislative act. The purpose of the legislation was to guarantee that federal authorities would recognise and safeguard the historic monuments and locales across the country. It had a particular effect on Indigenous communities' historical and cultural riches. Before beginning any kind of development project, federal agencies must adhere to a formal review procedure as mandated by Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR 800). Identifying the true undertaking—such as the construction of a road or other significant capital project—is one step in this process. Following this discovery, the agency is required to work diligently to locate any historic resources (those 50 years of age or older) in the region and ascertain if they qualify for NHPA protection. Following the completion of this identification process, the agency is required to begin consulting with interested parties and the state or tribal historic preservation officers (SHPO) or THPO. This phase may involve a range of gatherings and events as well as an announcement that a project will start and that the main government agency will be seeking input throughout that time. Public gatherings may be arranged, with invited speakers providing an overview and description of the initiative. Any letters or comments from tribes, organisations, or people who are concerned are welcome during the consultation time. It is necessary to engage tribes and other community organisations that may have an interest in any cultural artefacts that may be discovered on the property. Effective consultation frequently occurs in the project's early planning phases. Failure to identify historic treasures of cultural and religious significance may result from a lack of early engagement. The government agency is tasked with assessing the project's possible consequences based on three predetermined categories: no potential to effect, no unfavourable effect, and detrimental effect. After that, the agency needs to ask the relevant THPOs, SHPOs, and maybe other consultative parties for their approval. In order to guarantee that the agreedupon mitigation steps are completed in the event of an adverse consequence, the agency, the SHPO, THPO, and other consultative parties will establish mitigation conditions and formalise them into a memorandum of understanding. While each community has its own idea of what constitutes a good mitigation approach, most Native communities do not think that archaeological digs alone are a suitable mitigation method. Because Native American cultural sites are likely to be encountered in practically every place in the United States, section 106 reviews of construction projects are often required before any roads or buildings are developed. The status and eventual disposal of any cultural artefacts retrieved from cultural sites are decided upon through collaboration and consultation between THPOs and SHPOs. Tribes generally support the repatriation of cultural artefacts to the relevant tribes and the non-disturbance of human remains. The NHPA is not without flaws, though; for example, it does not apply to collections stored in repositories prior to 1966 and does not entirely stop building that will harm a cultural site. The American Antiquities Act (1906) forbade nonscientists from removing artefacts from archaeological sites on federal property at the beginning of the 20th century. More recently, NAGPRA allowed tribes to return items covered by the statute, including burial goods and human remains. As of 2010, almost 20,000 sets of remains had been returned to their original owners under this law; nonetheless, millions of artefacts and further sets of bones remain in repositories. Furthermore, there are funerary artefacts and human remains from the United States in collections all over the world that are not covered by NAGPRA repatriation. One issue with repatriation is the fact that a lot of artefacts and bones are missing their precise provenance, or comprehensive information about their location. Researchers are also less able to exploit an object if its provenance is unclear. Many times, the provenance of an artefact is described as spanning large geographic areas, leaving it unclear to which particular tribal culture it belongs. Items that bear the name "New York," for instance, might have been made by individuals belonging to many tribes or groups of related tribes. Broadly speaking, a provenance that is more detailed is preferable. Restricting an object to Buffalo, New York narrows down its potential tribal origins to a small number. Because repatriation is meant to restore an object or human remains to the originating tribe, it is very difficult to return objects with too broad of a context. 2010 saw the expansion of NAGPRA to permit tribes to return artefacts with broad regional significance to a pre-arranged site for reburial or repatriation. More artefacts and human remains will be allowed to be returned to their communities under this amended version of the law. Ownership issues have also been brought up in relation to the ethnographic and anthropological research that has been gathered into millions of papers across hundreds of study collections worldwide. There have been concerns expressed by certain indigenous peoples that this material is their intellectual heritage and that it was taken from them without full disclosure of its intended purpose. Based on such research, several anthropologists gained tenure at their institutions, produced books, or both. Little was done with the knowledge to assist the indigenous peoples it depicted, who were facing assimilation pressure from the political and legal arenas. Using these manuscript collections, indigenous peoples have in certain instances carried out research initiatives with the express purpose of assisting their people in their quest to regain their cultural heritage. The Coquille Indian Tribe of Oregon is one instance of an Indigenous people using archive materials to their advantage. The tribe was declared "terminated" by the federal government in 1954, but in 1989, they were able to successfully regain federal recognition through the use of archival documents. Their attempt at restoration was complicated by the fact that their tribal culture's documents were gathered in distant archives. George Wasson Jr., the son of the aforementioned George Wasson, and Leonard Frachtenberg were crucial to the tribe's prosperity. Wasson Jr. organised and carried out a project to get from the Smithsonian Institution duplicates of anthropological texts relevant to the Coquille tribe. The Southwest Oregon Research Project, which was started by the Coquille Indian Tribe, University of Oregon anthropologists, and students from western Oregon tribes, gathered 150,000 pages of National Archives and Smithsonian Institution records about the western Oregon tribes in 1995, 1997, and 2006. Since then, these documents have grown to constitute a significant collection in the University of Oregon's special collections section, Knight Library Archives, and additional copies have been sent to seventeen nearby tribes. These initiatives serve as illustrations of how intellectual property might be returned to the tribes from whom it was gathered. Policies in place at many libraries now permit concerned tribes to return their intellectual expertise in the form of low-cost or free copies of collection resources. For many indigenous people, song recordings are an especially delicate and unique kind of cultural artefact. Historically, archives have not given much thought to tribes' concerns over their holdings. Refer to the Protocols for Native American Archival Materials for further details.