NAGPRA and the Penn Museum: Reconciling Science and the Sacred*

The passing of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was a turning point in museum practices, and in the empowerment of Native peoples. Its goal was to reunite artifacts classified as “cultural items” with their respective tribes. While demonstrating respect toward indi...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Format: Article in Journal/Newspaper
Language:English
Published: CONCEPT 2014
Subjects:
Online Access:https://concept.journals.villanova.edu/index.php/concept/article/view/1718
id ftjconceptvu:oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/1718
record_format openpolar
spelling ftjconceptvu:oai:ojs.pkp.sfu.ca:article/1718 2023-05-15T18:33:20+02:00 NAGPRA and the Penn Museum: Reconciling Science and the Sacred* 2014-04-30 application/pdf https://concept.journals.villanova.edu/index.php/concept/article/view/1718 eng eng CONCEPT https://concept.journals.villanova.edu/index.php/concept/article/view/1718/1589 https://concept.journals.villanova.edu/index.php/concept/article/view/1718 Copyright (c) 2018 CONCEPT CONCEPT; Vol. 37 (2014) info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion 2014 ftjconceptvu 2023-04-12T06:19:33Z The passing of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was a turning point in museum practices, and in the empowerment of Native peoples. Its goal was to reunite artifacts classified as “cultural items” with their respective tribes. While demonstrating respect toward indigenous cultures, the act has resulted in a loss of valuable scientific information as cultural objects and human remains are removed from study. Museums receiving federal funding were required to return artifacts in their collections to tribes, sometimes leading to debate over whether or not said items fell into the categories set forth by the act. One such controversy arose between the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Penn Museum) and the Tlingit people of southeast Alaska. Penn Museum was willing to return eight of thirty-nine contested artifacts in their collections to the Tlingit, citing that the terms of NAGPRA did not apply to the remaining items in question. Dissatisfied, the Hoonah Indian Association and the Huna Totem Corporation brought the conflict in front of a NAGPRA Review Committee in 2010, which ruled unanimously that the Penn Museum must return all thirty-nine artifacts to the Tlingit people.The conflict over these artifacts was rare, and efforts to repatriate items in museum collections are usually carried out without incident. Recent years have seen concerted efforts to ensure the survival of indigenous tribes and their heritage, as well as increased communication between museums and Native peoples. The sharing of cultural practices allows museums to place artifacts in proper context through their exhibitions, and expresses to Native communities that their traditions are being respected. Technological advances, such as digital archives and 3D imaging, have been utilized to reach a compromise between scientists and indigenous cultures. The passing of NAGPRA in itself underscores the continuation of the conflicts between science and the sacred, as well as the ... Article in Journal/Newspaper tlingit Alaska CONCEPT (E-Journal, Villanova University) Indian
institution Open Polar
collection CONCEPT (E-Journal, Villanova University)
op_collection_id ftjconceptvu
language English
description The passing of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was a turning point in museum practices, and in the empowerment of Native peoples. Its goal was to reunite artifacts classified as “cultural items” with their respective tribes. While demonstrating respect toward indigenous cultures, the act has resulted in a loss of valuable scientific information as cultural objects and human remains are removed from study. Museums receiving federal funding were required to return artifacts in their collections to tribes, sometimes leading to debate over whether or not said items fell into the categories set forth by the act. One such controversy arose between the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology (Penn Museum) and the Tlingit people of southeast Alaska. Penn Museum was willing to return eight of thirty-nine contested artifacts in their collections to the Tlingit, citing that the terms of NAGPRA did not apply to the remaining items in question. Dissatisfied, the Hoonah Indian Association and the Huna Totem Corporation brought the conflict in front of a NAGPRA Review Committee in 2010, which ruled unanimously that the Penn Museum must return all thirty-nine artifacts to the Tlingit people.The conflict over these artifacts was rare, and efforts to repatriate items in museum collections are usually carried out without incident. Recent years have seen concerted efforts to ensure the survival of indigenous tribes and their heritage, as well as increased communication between museums and Native peoples. The sharing of cultural practices allows museums to place artifacts in proper context through their exhibitions, and expresses to Native communities that their traditions are being respected. Technological advances, such as digital archives and 3D imaging, have been utilized to reach a compromise between scientists and indigenous cultures. The passing of NAGPRA in itself underscores the continuation of the conflicts between science and the sacred, as well as the ...
format Article in Journal/Newspaper
title NAGPRA and the Penn Museum: Reconciling Science and the Sacred*
spellingShingle NAGPRA and the Penn Museum: Reconciling Science and the Sacred*
title_short NAGPRA and the Penn Museum: Reconciling Science and the Sacred*
title_full NAGPRA and the Penn Museum: Reconciling Science and the Sacred*
title_fullStr NAGPRA and the Penn Museum: Reconciling Science and the Sacred*
title_full_unstemmed NAGPRA and the Penn Museum: Reconciling Science and the Sacred*
title_sort nagpra and the penn museum: reconciling science and the sacred*
publisher CONCEPT
publishDate 2014
url https://concept.journals.villanova.edu/index.php/concept/article/view/1718
geographic Indian
geographic_facet Indian
genre tlingit
Alaska
genre_facet tlingit
Alaska
op_source CONCEPT; Vol. 37 (2014)
op_relation https://concept.journals.villanova.edu/index.php/concept/article/view/1718/1589
https://concept.journals.villanova.edu/index.php/concept/article/view/1718
op_rights Copyright (c) 2018 CONCEPT
_version_ 1766217920886603776