Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-g7gxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T04:18:28.217Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Concept of “Cultural Affiliation” in NAGPRA: Its Potential and Limits in the Global Protection of Indigenous Cultural Property Rights

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 April 2012

Karolina Kuprecht
Karolina Kuprecht
Affiliation:
i-call research centre, Faculty of Law, University of Lucerne, Switzerland. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In the debate about indigenous cultural property, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of the United States has developed and implemented an unorthodox concept of “cultural affiliation.” The act entitles Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations to claim repatriation of their cultural property—comprising human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony—upon the establishment of a specific shared group identity and a cultural affiliation to an object. The concept of cultural affiliation in the act replaces proof of ownership, or proof that an object was stolen or illicitly removed. It thereby amends traditional standards saturated in notions of property and ownership that have perpetuated since Roman law and allows the evolution of a control regime over cultural property that takes into account the cultural aspects of the objects. On an international level, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) of 2007 stipulates a similar emancipation of indigenous peoples' cultural property claims from notions of property and ownership. This article explores NAGPRA's cultural affiliation concept as it stands between private property and human rights law and brings into focus the concept's elements that go beyond traditional property law. It ultimately looks at the potential and limits of the concept from an international perspective as a standard for other countries that consider implementation of UNDRIP's provisions on indigenous, tangible, movable cultural property.

Type
Research Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , February 2012 , pp. 33 - 63
Copyright
Copyright © International Cultural Property Society 2012

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

Acemoglu, Daron, and Johnson, Simon. “Unbundling Institutions.” The Journal of Political Economy 113, no. 5 (2005): 949–995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anton, Michael. Rechtshandbuch Kulturgüterschutz und Kunstrestitutionsrecht. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2010.Google Scholar
Bell, Catherine. “Ownership, and Trade of Aboriginal Cultural Heritage in Canada.” In International Trade in Indigenous Cultural Heritage: Legal and Policy Issues, edited by Graber, Christoph B., Kuprecht, Karolina, and Lai, Jessica C.. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2012.Google Scholar
Blackstone, Sir William. “Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books (1753).” Reprinted in Commentaries on the Laws of England in Four Books, Vol. 1, edited by Sharswood, George. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1893.Google Scholar
Brown, Michael F. “Culture, Property, and Peoplehood: A Comment on Carpenter, Katyal, and Riley's ‘In Defense of Property.’” International Journal of Cultural Property 17, no. 3 (2010): 569–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, Kristen A., Katyal, Sonia K., and Riley, Angela R.. “In Defense of Property.” Yale Law Journal 118 (2009): 1022–1125.Google Scholar
Carpenter, Kristen A. “Clarifying Cultural Property.” International Journal of Cultural Property 17, no. 3 (2010): 581–598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Champagne, Duane. Notes from the Center of Turtle Island. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press, 2010.Google Scholar
Champagne, Duane. “Indigenous Self-government, Cultural Heritage, and International Trade: A Sociological Perspective.” In International Trade in Indigenous Cultural Heritage: Legal and Policy Issues, edited by Graber, Christoph B., Kuprecht, Karolina, and Lai, Jessica C.. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2012.Google Scholar
Coombe, Rosemary J. “The Properties of Culture and the Politics of Possessing Identity: Native Claims in the Cultural Appropriation Controversy.” Canadian Journal of Law and Jurisprudence 6, no. 2 (1993): 249–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daes, Erica-Irene. “The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples: Background and appraisal.” In Reflections on the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, edited by Allen, Stephen and Xanthaki, Alexandra, 11–40. Oxford and Portland, OR: Hart, 2011.Google Scholar
De Laveleye, Emile. Primitive Property. Translated Marriott, from the French by G.R.L.. London: Macmillan, 1878.Google Scholar
De Soto, Hernando. “Why Capitalism Works in the West but Not Elsewhere.” International Herald Tribune, January 2001, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5182.Google Scholar
De Soto, Hernando. “Push Property Rights.” Washington Post, January 2002, http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5178.Google Scholar
Eggertsson, Thráinn. “Open Access Versus Common Property.” In Property Rights: Cooperation, Conflict, and Law, edited by Anderson, Terry L. and McChesney, Fred S., 73–89. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, Daniel. “Possession, Custom and Social Order, Property Rights in a Fragile State.” 2nd Annual Meeting of the Law, Property and Society Association (ALPS). Washington DC, March 2011.Google Scholar
Fred, Morris A. “Law and Identity: Negotiating Meaning in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.” International Journal of Cultural Property 6, no. 2 (1997): 199–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, Carole. “American Indians and Preferential Treatment.” UCLA Law Review 49 (2001): 943–989.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Carole. “Individual Rights and Tribal Revitalization.” Arizona State Law Journal 35 (2003): 898–938.Google Scholar
Goldberg, Carole. “A United States Perspective on the Protection of Indigenous Cultural Knowledge and Heritage.” In International Trade in Indigenous Cultural Heritage: Legal and Policy Issues, edited by Graber, Christoph B., Kuprecht, Karolina, and Lai, Jessica C.. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2012.Google Scholar
Graber, Christoph B. “Institutionalization of Creativity in Traditional Societies and in International Trade Law.” In Creativity, Law and Entrepreneurship, edited by Ghosh, Shubha and Malloy, Robin P., 234–263. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2011.Google Scholar
Gunn, Steven J. “The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act at Twenty: Reaching the Limits of our National Consensus.” William Mitchell Law Review 36, no. 2 (2010): 503–532.Google Scholar
Hardin, Garret. “The Tragedy of the Commons.” Science 162 (1968): 1243–1248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harding, Sarah. “Bonnichsen v. United States: Time, Place, and the Search for Identity.” International Journal of Cultural Property 12 (2005): 249–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvard Project on American Indian Economic Development. The State of the Native Nations: Conditions under U.S. Policies of Self-Determination. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008.Google Scholar
Holiday, John, and McPherson, Robert S.. A Navajo Legacy: The Life and Teachings of John Holiday. Vol. 251. Civilization of the American Indian Series. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Humphrey, Caroline, and Verdery, Katherine. “Introduction: Raising Questions about Property.” In Property in Question: Value Transformation in the Global Economy, edited by Verdery, Katherine. Wenner-Gren International Symposium Series, Oxford: Berg, 2004, 1–16.Google Scholar
ILA Committee of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Draft Interim Report, The Hague Conference. The Hague, 2010.Google Scholar
Iraola, Roberto. “A Primer on the Criminal Penalty Provisions of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.” American Indian Law Review 28 (2003–2004): 431–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Ralph W., and Haensly, Sharon I.. “Fifth Amendment Takings Implications of the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.” Arizona State Law Journal 24 (1992): 151–173.Google Scholar
Kaser, Max, and Knütel, Rolf. Römisches Privatrecht: Ein Studienbuch. München: C.H. Beck, 2008.Google Scholar
Kazcorowska, Alina. Public International Law, 3rd ed.London: Old Bailey Press, 2005.Google Scholar
Kuprecht, Karolina. “Human Rights Aspects of Indigenous Cultural Property Repatriation.” In Kulturgüterschutz—Kunstrecht—Kulturrecht: Festschrift für Kurt Siehr zum 75. Geburtstag aus dem Kreise des Doktoranden- und Habilitandenseminars “Kunst und Recht,” edited by Odendahl, Kerstin and Weber, Peter Johannes, 191–226. Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2010.Google Scholar
Lai, Jessica C.“Māori Culture in the Modern World: Its Creation, Appropriation and Trade.” University of Lucerne, Switzerland, i-call Working Paper No. 2 (2010), http://www.unilu.ch/files/i-call_working_paper02_lai.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lai, Jessica C.“The Protection of Māori Cultural Heritage: Post-Endorsement of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” University of Lucerne, Switzerland, i-call Working Paper No. 2 (2011), http://www.unilu.ch/files/i-call_working_paper_2011_02_lai_maori_cultural_heritage__undrip.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenzerini, Federico. “The Trail of Broken Dreams: The Status of Indigenous Peoples in International Law.” In Reparations for Indigenous Peoples: International and Comparative Perspectives, edited by Lenzerini, Federico, 73–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Locke, John. “Second Treatise of Government.” (1689). In Two Treatises of Government, 7th reprint. London: S.L., 1772.Google Scholar
Loma'Omvaya, Micah. “NAGPRA Artefact Repatriation and Pesticides Contamination: The Hopi Experience.” Collection Forum 17 (1-2) (2001): 30–37.Google Scholar
McKeown, C. T., and Hutt, Sherry. “In the Smaller Scope of Conscience: The Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act Twelve Years After.” UCLA Journal of Environmental Law & Policy 21 (2002/2003): 153–212.Google Scholar
Nafziger, James A. R. “Protection and Repatriation of Indigenous Cultural Heritage in the United States.” In Cultural Heritage Issues: The Legacy of Conquest, Colonization, and Commerce, edited by Nafziger, James A. R. and Nicgorski, Ann M., 37–79. Leiden, The Netherlands: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nafziger, James A. R., and Dobkins, Rebecca J.. “The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in Its First Decade.” International Journal of Cultural Property 8 (1999): 77–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. Federal Agency Implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. A report by the Makah Indian Tribe and the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers. 30 June 2008, http://www.nathpo.org/nagpra.html.Google Scholar
Niesel, Zoe E. “Better Late Than Never? The Effect of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act's 2010 Regulations.” Wake Forest Law Review 46 (2011): 837–865.Google Scholar
Noyes, Reinold C.The Institution of Property: A Study of the Development, Substance and Arrangement of the System of Property in Modern Anglo-American Law. New York, Toronto: Longmans, Green, 1936.Google Scholar
Prott, Lyndel V. “The International Movement of Cultural Objects.” International Journal of Cultural Property 12 (2005): 225–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Proudhon, Pierre Joseph. “Qu'est-ce que la propriété? ou Recherche sur le principe du Droit et du Gouvernment.” (1840). In What is Property, translated and edited by Kelley, Donald R. and Smith, Bonnie G.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radin, Margaret J.Reinterpreting Property. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993.Google Scholar
Radin, Margaret J.Contested Commodities. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1996.Google Scholar
Schillaci, Michael A., and Bustard, Wendy J.. “Controversy and Conflict: NAGPRA and the Role of Biological Anthropology in Determining Cultural Affiliation.” Political and Legal Anthropology Review 33 (2010): 352–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Secretary of the Interior Federal Agencies Task Force. American Indian Religious Freedom Act Report. August 1979.Google Scholar
Siehr, Kurt. “International Art Trade and the Law.” Recueil des cours/Académie de Droit International [Collected courses of the Hague Academy of International Law] 243, no. 6 (1993): 9–292.Google Scholar
Threedy, Debora L. “Claiming the Shields: Law, Anthropology, and the Role of Storytelling in a NAGPRA Repatriation Case Study.” Journal of Land, Resources & Environmental Law 29 (2009): 91–119.Google Scholar
Trope, Jack F. “Chapter 1: The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.” In Mending the Circle: A Native American Repatriation Guide: Understanding and Implementing NAGPRA and the Official Smithsonian and other Repatriation Policies, edited by American Indian Ritual Object Repatriation Foundation, 8–18. New York: American Indian Ritual Object Repatriation Foundation, 1996.Google Scholar
Trope, Jack F., and Echo-Hawk, Walter R.. “The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Background and Legislative History.” Arizona State Law Journal 24 (1992): 35–76.Google Scholar
Tsosie, Rebecca. “International Trade in Indigenous Cultural Heritage: An Argument for Indigenous Governance of Cultural Property.” In International Trade in Indigenous Cultural Heritage: Legal and Policy Issues, edited by Graber, Christoph B., Kuprecht, Karolina, and Lai, Jessica C.. Cheltenham, UK, and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar, 2012.Google Scholar
United States Government Accountability Office (U.S. GAO). Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: After Almost 20 Years, Key Federal Agencies Still Have Not Fully Complied with the Act. Report to Congressional Requesters (Doc. GAO-10-768, 2010). Washington, DC: GAO. July 2010.Google Scholar
United States Senate, Providing for the Protection of Native American Graves and the Repatriation of Native American Remains and Cultural Patrimony. Senate Report No. 473. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. September 1990.Google Scholar
van Banning, Theo R. G.The Human Right to Property. Antwerpen: Intersentia, 2002.Google Scholar
Waldron, Jeremy. “Property and Ownership.” In The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, edited by Zalta, Edward N.. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, 2004.Google Scholar
Weber, Marc. Unveräusserliches Kulturgut im nationalen und internationalen Rechtsverkehr. Schriften zum Kulturgüterschutz. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weidner, Amalie. Kulturgüter als res extra commercium im internationalen Sachenrecht. Schriften zum Kulturgüterschutz. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfrum, Rüdiger. Die Internationalisierung staatsfreier Räume: Die Entwicklung einer internationalen Verwaltung für Antarktis, Weltraum, Hohe See und Meeresboden [The internationalization of common spaces outside national jurisdiction]. Berlin: Springer, 1984.Google Scholar