Suchergebnisse

The calls to repatriate human remains and cultural items from museums and research collections back to their source communities started out as an activist movement in the 1960s among disenfranchised minorities and indigenous peoples. Today, half a century later repatriation has risen to the surface of the international cultural debate and is embraced by the establishment in many parts of the world. This movement from the marginal to the mainstream has shifted the field of archaeology and museum practices toward engaging with the public and descending communities. But this newly gained influence also invites us to reflect more critically than before over the values and ideas that underlie debates and legislations. Through the example of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act , and with a particular focus on the Kennewick case, this chapter critically examines the underlying values and cultural concerns that frame the repatriation debate in the United States, including a contested relationship between faith and science, the role of race in identity production and the value placed on private ownership. It is argued that these cultural values and beliefs align the repatriation movement with the American mainstream, and while they have been critically examined elsewhere in archaeological and anthropological theory, this critique has taken place predominantly in academic contexts that are completely separate from the repatriation debate.

There is a general consensus today within archaeology and anthropology that we need to reach outside of the disciplinary boundaries and make archaeology and anthropology relevant for people outside o f the profession. Multivocality - whether as an abstract theoretical concept, or a practical reality- isbecomingmorethanabuzz-word,andisprogressivelyinfluencing policies and practices. This situation is especially evident in parts of the world where archaeology and anthropology historically were associated with colonial powers and colonial strategies. In several instances it is also in these parts of the world that we today see the most far-reaching changes in new policies, and where legislation is used to provide a process for multivocality involving especially indigenous peoples in order to fundamentally change the way archaeology and anthropology are practiced. As these issues are becoming increasingly global, it is reasonable to assume that all archaeologists, anthropologists, museum professionals etc, will need to discuss the possible strategies available in dialogue with each other and with other stakeholders. As we continue this discussion we can draw on the experiences in other parts of the world in order to formulate our strategies. This article critically examines an example of one such legislative effort, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) passed in the United States in 1990.