This article examines the way property rights can be applied to DNA from ancient sources. In particular, it examines the ways in which the legal classification of a source as a “cultural artifact” can influence the assignment of property rights over genetic information. I explore the discrepancy between the legal ability to own ancient dead bodies but not nonancient dead bodies, illustrating how dead bodies with a perceived cultural value are legally distinct from those which are not considered to have cultural value. Second, I address the way such cultural preservation laws fail to influence ownership rights over genetic information. Finally, I propose a model for the best way to deal with genetic information from ancient sources, based on the policies of the International Ancient Egyptian Mummy Tissue Bank.

Recent controversies surrounding the Genographic Project, sponsored by the National Geographic Society and IBM, and its predecessors call attention to a need to better understand the broader ethical and practical implications of uses of ancient and contemporary human genetic information, which is today a form of cultural property. Although technological advances continue to facilitate the kinds of information available to researchers, concerns about appropriation and the potential misuse or commodification of human genetic material and the data extracted from it have been raised by a number of stakeholders. Misconceptions and apprehensions about the topic also abound. These issues were addressed in a forum, “Decoding Implications of the Genographic Project,” which we convened at the 39th Annual Chacmool Conference in 2006, “Decolonizing Archaeology.” The purpose of the panel was to explore and discuss some of the salient issues from a range of perspectives, in the hope of moving beyond a polarized debate to generate productive dialogue and delineate further questions about intellectual property, cultural identity, and research ethics. We later solicited seven commentaries on the transcript from a range of scholars, which are included here. Some of the issues addressed by the panelists and commentators include access to samples, permissions for research and analysis, ownership and dissemination of data, and potential consequences of archaeological or historical interpretation of results. The event was co-sponsored by the Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage Project (IPinCH) and the World Archaeological Congress.

In November 2006, a discussion thread erupted on the online discussion list of the World Archaeological Congress (WAC) concerning the National Geographic Society's Genographic Project (which is also sponsored by IBM and the Waitt Family Foundation). Initiated in 2005, the Genographic Project is designed to study human population movements in the past based on the analysis of DNA samples voluntarily contributed from people around the world. This project was also designed to move beyond the kinds of ethical and other concerns relating to indigenous rights, appropriation, and group consent (to name a few) that led to the demise of its predecessor, the Human Genome Diversity Project, which began in 1991 and continued until the late 1990s. Such projects owe their origins to significant advancements in biomolecular research and technology studies, which have not only resulted in a genetic revolution in archaeology and related studies but also witnessed growing public interest in ancestry tracing through genetic means.

The panel began with an acknowledgment that we were assembled in the traditional territory of the Blood Nation. The panelists were then introduced and, in alphabetical order, gave their initial opening comments.

In spring 2007, the transcript of the forum discussion was sent to all of the panelists for their review and approval. That summer we invited a number of people—several of them individuals who had been invited to attend the Chacmool Conference but were unable to do so—to contribute essays to be published as commentaries on the forum proceedings or the topic of the forum itself. We made a concerted effort to seek people from a wide range of backgrounds and perspectives; however, not everyone responded to the invitation. It took another full year, until late summer 2008, to gather and edit the commentaries, with several glitches along the way. But, as a result, this special section includes seven stimulating essays from scholars who are passionate about the topic and the issues it raises.

In May 2007, I gave a talk at the Institute for Public Health Genetics (IPHG) at the University of Washington (UW), Seattle. My topic was the Genographic Project, specifically the colonial history and racial narratives that I see as shaping the work of the project. I left IPHG encouraged by my conversations with UW researchers, including native researchers and program administrators who organize collaborative and ethically rigorous research. The individuals I met work in multiple native communities, especially those in the Pacific Northwest.

Many molecular anthropologists no longer incorporate a field component into their research; rather, they rely on analyzing existing data sets and/or on collaborating with field researchers to obtain samples for analysis. This trend in molecular anthropology, combined with the aggressive agenda of the Genographic Project, has an important implication for the future of the discipline. If Native American communities are exposed to genetic ancestry research largely through the Genographic Project, they are less likely to see that there are multiple ways for Native American communities to interact with genetic researchers. Molecular anthropologists are in a position to offer an alternative approach to research by pursuing enduring and mutually beneficial collaborative projects with Native American communities.

The Genographic Project is a fantasy of an idea. It represents the instinct of humankind to seek to understand ourselves, right down to the smallest pieces of our essential being. To follow this longing for knowledge is to be in the company of every great explorer that has ever been, from the first hominid moving beyond the boundaries of African Eden to the intrepid women, men, and children who sailed the seas beyond the mainland of Southeast Asia to become the first occupants of the continent of Australia, to the men and women perhaps not yet born who will seek to land on and inhabit planets other than this one. Such journeys reveal ways of relating to new worlds and, in that process, instruct us in new ways of being human. As another great journey of exploration, this search within ourselves may teach us equally as much. To be certain, none of our journeys thus far have been without hardship, and it is naive to think that this or any exploration is free from challenges.

Anthropological genetics is an oddly liminal field—not quite anthropology, yet not quite genetics either. Anthropologists are trained to be attuned to the people they work with; without the goodwill of its objects, the profession cannot exist—but one does not have to secure the goodwill of the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster, to study its DNA haplotypes in depth. Geneticists, however, are more prestigious and better funded—and what scientist doesn't aspire to that?

I want to commend the organizers of the Chacmool Conference panel. All too often attempts to discuss the broader social and cultural dimensions of genetic studies of ancient human migrations devolve into simplistic celebrations or condemnations. It is heartening to find here an example of a conference session that managed to avoid these dangerous poles, and to grapple instead with the hard task of discerning the issues raised and not raised by genomic studies of human migrations and history. I would like to devote my commentary to exploring what might be learned from the discussions at Chacmool.

First, I would like to thank George Nicholas and Julie Hollowell for inviting me to comment on this important panel discussion. Second, I would like to thank all the panelists for their articulate and highly stimulating discussion, which deftly illustrates the range of cultural, historical, and political complexities that inform not only the Genographic Project but also research conducted with Indigenous peoples and indigenous communities more generally.