Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T02:53:40.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Challenges of Dealing with Human Remains in Cultural Resource Management

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 March 2019

Patricia Powless  and
Carolyn Freiwald
Patricia Powless*
Affiliation:
Ashford University, 8620 Spectrum Center Boulevard, San Diego, CA 92123, USA
Carolyn Freiwald
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, University of Mississippi, 544 Lamar, 615 Grove Loop, University, MS 38677, USA
*
([email protected], corresponding author)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Over the past few years, the lead author has had the opportunity to excavate multiple large sites in California, working on behalf of developers to keep their projects in compliance with their permits. She also worked in conjunction with local tribes to resolve burial issues with each excavation. During these excavations, she observed the challenges that the tribes encountered when dealing with fast-paced cultural resource management (CRM) projects where burial retrieval and a shortage of resources were the norm. For many years, archaeologists have viewed CRM as only dealing with the material culture of the past; however, archaeologists also consult and work with living cultures. This article will address the endemic problem in CRM that stems from a lack of planning, preparation, resources, and training and how it affects the burial excavations that archaeologists and tribes encounter in the CRM setting. It will also look for solutions to remedy a long-broken system that continues to ignore existing laws set in place to protect resources, as well as the relationships between the Native American community, agencies, researchers, and land developers.

En los últimos años, he tenido la oportunidad de excavar en múltiples sitios de gran tamaño en California, trabajando por cuenta de empresas de desarrollo para mantener sus proyectos en conformidad con los permisos otorgados por entes gubernamentales. También he trabajado en conjunto con grupos locales de Nativos Americanos para resolver problemas relacionados con entierros humanos en cada excavación. Durante estas excavaciones, he observado los desafíos a los cuales se enfrentan estas tribus cuando se trata de proyectos acelerados de gestión de recursos culturales (CRM, por sus siglas en inglés), en los cuales la norma es recuperar los escasos recursos óseos presentes. Durante muchos años, los arqueólogos han considerado que los proyectos de CRM solo se ocupan de la cultura material del pasado; sin embargo, los arqueólogos también consultamos y trabajamos con culturas vivas. Este documento aborda un problema endémico en los proyectos de CRM que se deriva de la falta de planificación, preparación, recursos y capacitación. Este problema afecta las excavaciones funerarias a las que los arqueólogos y las tribus se enfrentan en proyectos de CRM. También se buscan soluciones para remediar un sistema roto desde hace tiempo que continúa ignorando las leyes establecidas para proteger los recursos culturales, así como las relaciones entre las comunidades de Nativos Americanos, los entes gubernamentales, los investigadores y las empresas de desarrollo.

Keywords

NAGPRAcultural resource managementbioarchaeologyCaliforniaburial actethicsley sobre protección y repatriación de sepulturas Nativas Americanas (NAGPRA)gestión de recursos culturalesbioarqueologíaCalifornialey de entierrosética
Type
How to Series
Information
Advances in Archaeological Practice , Volume 7 , Special Issue 1: The Practice and Ethics of Skeletal Conservation , February 2019 , pp. 55 - 59
Copyright
Copyright 2019 © Society for American Archaeology 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES CITED

Barker, Pat, Ellis, Cynthia, and Damadio, Stephanie 2000 Determination of Cultural Affiliation of Ancient Human Remains from Spirit Cave, Nevada. Report prepared for the US Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Nevada State Office, Reno.Google Scholar
Brown, Michael F., and Bruchac, Margaret 2006 NAGPRA from the Middle Distance: Legal Puzzles and Unintended Consequences. In Imperialism, Art and Restitution, edited by Merryman, J. H., pp. 193–217. University of Cambridge Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
Bureau of Labor Statistics, US Department of Labor 2018 Occupational Outlook Handbook. Anthropologists and Archeologists. Electronic document, https://www.bls.gov/ooh/life-physical-and-social-science/anthropologists-and-archeologists.htm.Google Scholar
Cryne, Julia A. 2009 NAGPRA Revisited: A Twenty-Year Review of Repatriation Efforts. American Indian Law Review 34(1):99–122.Google Scholar
Madeson, Frances 2016 The Excruciating Legacy of NAGPRA. Indian Country Today, March 31. Electronic document, https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/genealogy/the-excruciating-legacy-of-nagpra/, accessed May 20, 2018.Google Scholar
Nash, Stephen E., and Colwell-Chanthaphonh, Chip 2010 NAGPRA after Two Decades. Museum Anthropology 33(2):99–104.Google Scholar
Owsley, Douglas W., and Jantz, Richard L. (editors) 2014 Kennewick Man: The Scientific Investigation of an Ancient American Skeleton. Texas A&M University Press, College Station.Google Scholar
Powless, Patricia T. 2017 Data Recovery Report for Site CA-KIN-130/H for the Corcoran 2 Solar Project, Kings County, California. KP Environmental, Inc., Encinitas, California. Submitted to the Kings County Community Development Agency, Hanford, California.Google Scholar
Rasmussen, Morten, Sikora, Martin, Albrechtsen, Anders, Sand Korneliussen, Thorfinn, Moreno-Mayar, J. Víctor, David Poznik, G., Zollikofer, Christoph P. E., Ponce de León, Marcia S., Allentoft, Morten E., Moltke, Ida, Jónsson, Hákon, Valdiosera, Cristina, Malhi, Ripan S., Orlando, Ludovic, Bustamante, Carlos D., Stafford, Thomas W. Jr., Meltzer, David J., Nielsen, Rasmus, and Willerslev, Eske 2015 The Ancestry and Affiliations of Kennewick Man. Nature 523:455–458. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14625.Google Scholar
Rose, Jerome C., Green, Thomas J., and Green, Victoria D. 1996 NAGPRA Is Forever: Osteology and the Repatriation of Skeletons. Annual Review of Anthropology 25(1):81–103.Google Scholar
Sievert, April K., Powless, Patricia, and Sagebiel, Kerry 2017 NAGPRA for the CRM Professional. Learning NAGPRA: Resources for Teaching and Training. Funded by the National Science Foundation, Cultivating Cultures for Ethical Stem (#1449465, 1540447). Webinar, October 26.Google Scholar
Spude, Catherine H., and Scott, Douglas D. 2013 NAGPRA and Historical Research: Reevaluation of a Multiple Burial from Fort Union National Monument, New Mexico. Historical Archaeology 47(4):121–136.Google Scholar
Turner, Kim 2016 Improving Cal NAGPRA: Honoring Native American Rights. Master's thesis. Department of Art + Architecture, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, California.Google Scholar
Watkins, Joe 2013 NAGPRA Should Not Preclude Good History: A Response to Spude and Scott. Historical Archaeology 47(4):139–141.Google Scholar