The repatriation of culturally unidentifiable human remains

Colwell–Chanthaphonh, Chip; Maxson, Rachel; Powell, Jami

doi:10.1080/09647775.2011.540125

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead, a very much larger burden is placed on a tribe to challenge the museum’s finding and to show that a preponderance of the evidence supports its affiliation. (Kintigh, 1999)Under NAGPRA, this designation can have important consequences because ancestral remains and cultural items that are found to be “culturally unaffiliated” can stay in the possession of federal agencies and museums, and are subject to another part of the law (43 CFR 10.11), titled “Disposition of culturally unidentifiable human remains,” that is even more nebulous (Colwell-Chanthaphonh et al., 2011). Furthermore, NAGPRA does not explicitly prohibit research on “culturally unaffiliated” ancestral remains and cultural items.…”

Section: The Chaco Canyon Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%

An ethical crisis in ancient DNA research: Insights from the Chaco Canyon controversy as a case study

Cortez

Bolnick

Nicholas

et al. 2021

Journal of Social Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In recent years, the field of paleogenomics has grown into an exciting and rapidly advancing area of scientific inquiry. However, scientific work in this field has far outpaced the discipline’s dialogue about research ethics. In particular, Indigenous peoples have argued that the paleogenomics revolution has produced a “vampire science” that perpetuates biocolonialist traditions of extracting Indigenous bodies and heritage without the consent of, or benefits to, the communities who are most affected by this research. In this article, we explore these ethical issues through the case study of a project that sequenced the ancient DNA (aDNA) of nine Ancestral Puebloan people from Chaco Canyon, New Mexico. By providing a “thick description” of this controversy, we are able to analyze its metanarratives, periodization, path dependency, and historical contingencies. We conclude that the paleogenomics revolution needs to include an ethical revolution that remakes the field’s values, relationships, forms of accountability, and practices.

show abstract

Section: The Chaco Canyon Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%

An ethical crisis in ancient DNA research: Insights from the Chaco Canyon controversy as a case study

Cortez

Bolnick

Nicholas

et al. 2021

Journal of Social Archaeology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…NAGPRA does provide provisions for the return of culturally unaffiliated remains, and this categorization might change with new information or further consultation. 113 NAGPRA does not explicitly state that no further research can be conducted on remains or items in museums placed in this category, but the law states that the documentation provisions ''shall not be construed to be an authorization for the initiation of new scientific studies of such remains and associated funerary objects or other means of acquiring or preserving additional scientific information from such remains and objects''. 114 In practice, many institutions have permitted research-including destructive aDNA analyses-on ''culturally unaffiliated'' individuals without any consultation with local or other stakeholder communities.…”

Section: Indigenous Concerns Accompanying Adna Research and Initial Responsesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fostering Responsible Research on Ancient DNA

Wagner

Colwell

Claw

et al. 2020

The American Journal of Human Genetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Anticipating and addressing the social implications of scientific work is a fundamental responsibility of all scientists. However, expectations for ethically sound practices can evolve over time as the implications of science come to be better understood. Contemporary researchers who work with ancient human remains, including those who conduct ancient DNA research, face precisely this challenge as it becomes clear that practices such as community engagement are needed to address the important social implications of this work. To foster and promote ethical engagement between researchers and communities, we offer five practical recommendations for ancient DNA researchers: (1) formally consult with communities; (2) address cultural and ethical considerations; (3) engage communities and support capacity building; (4) develop plans to report results and manage data; and (5) develop plans for long-term responsibility and stewardship. Ultimately, every member of a research team has an important role in fostering ethical research on ancient DNA.

show abstract

“…This official policy created the categories of ‘unaffiliated’ or ‘unidentifiable’ remains, although material heritage of the remains could have been traced to state-recognised or unrecognised groups (McKeown 2010; Kakaliouras 2012: S215). Another issue has been ‘who can claim unaffiliated remains [and] under what conditions they would be returned’ (Colwell-Chanthaphonh and others 2011: 28; also see Thomas 2000 for the 9,000-year-old Kennewick man). Furthermore, identifying ways of resolving multiple or competing claims has been difficult, and it is unclear whether or not associated funerary objects must also be returned (Colwell-Chanthaphonh and others 2011; Schillaci and Bustard 2012).…”

Section: Negotiations For Repatriationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another issue has been ‘who can claim unaffiliated remains [and] under what conditions they would be returned’ (Colwell-Chanthaphonh and others 2011: 28; also see Thomas 2000 for the 9,000-year-old Kennewick man). Furthermore, identifying ways of resolving multiple or competing claims has been difficult, and it is unclear whether or not associated funerary objects must also be returned (Colwell-Chanthaphonh and others 2011; Schillaci and Bustard 2012). Despite a number of unresolved issues, NAGPRA has obviously stimulated nationwide discussions (Kakaliouras 2012: S212) and contributions to the discussions have been observed both from the institution and Native American sides (Erdrich 2010; Ferguson 2010; Hemenway 2010).…”

Section: Negotiations For Repatriationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cultural affiliation is not enough: the repatriation of Ainu human remains

Nakamura¹

2017

Polar Record

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The challenges faced by indigenous peoples in repatriation negotiations vary across the globe. In 2012, three Ainu individuals launched a legal case against Hokkaido University, demanding the return of the human remains of nine individuals and a formal apology for having conducted intentional excavations of Ainu graveyards, stolen the remains and infringed upon their rights to perform ceremonies of worship. This action marked the first of such legal cases in Japan. The Ainu experienced both legal and ethical challenges during negotiations with the university; for example, while the claimants applied the Ainu concept kotan as a legal argument for collective ownership of the remains, Hokkaido University claimed the lack of assumption of rights relating to worship under the Civil Code of Japan. There has been significant progress recently on repatriation, mainly due to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in the US, and several meaningful recommendations have been made to ease the repatriation process. However, such recommendations are often case specific and variations in the experiences of indigenous peoples from country to country have not been widely documented. This article discusses the challenges faced by the Ainu in repatriation negotiations in Japan, with a particular focus on the difficulties of applying indigenous customs and philosophies within legal frameworks.

show abstract

The repatriation of culturally unidentifiable human remains

Cited by 17 publications

References 6 publications

An ethical crisis in ancient DNA research: Insights from the Chaco Canyon controversy as a case study

An ethical crisis in ancient DNA research: Insights from the Chaco Canyon controversy as a case study

Fostering Responsible Research on Ancient DNA

Cultural affiliation is not enough: the repatriation of Ainu human remains

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About