#section 106

Senate Energy and Natural Resources hearing entitled, "Hearing to Examine the Section 106 Consultation Process Under the National Historic Preservation Act."

Witnesses Include:

Andy McDonald, Environmental Compliance Manager, Montana-Dakota Utilities Co.

Christopher W. Merritt, Ph.D., State Historic Preservation Officer, State of Utah

Steven Concho, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer for the Pueblo of Acoma, New Mexico; Board Member of the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers

This is a totally reasonable concern to have, especially since, historically speaking, archaeologists have not always been very sensitive toward indigenous cultures.

Nowadays, archaeology in the U.S. is governed by laws, telling us where we can and can’t dig, who has to be notified, and what happens to any sites, artifacts, or burials we might uncover. The federal regulations are laid out in Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (usually just referred to as “Section 106″) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Some states and local jurisdictions will have their own laws in addition to these.

Archaeologist are usually hired by clients who want to build something, but need to make sure they are in compliance with relevant legislation. We work with local tribes to identify any sites which might be disturbed or destroyed by construction work, and decide how to proceed. 

For example, if a site is identified, and is deemed “significant”, the tribe might come to an agreement with the client to have the site recorded and excavated, and have any artifacts removed and curated. Sometimes, though, the client doesn’t want to be on the hook for the extra expense this involves, and will just decide to build elsewhere, at which point the whole process starts over again.

In effect, although clients pay for our work, we work for the tribes, to make sure their culture and needs are respected, and their history is preserved.

overtedification

replied to your link

“After 87 Years At The Smithsonian, Bones Of Alaska Natives Returned...”

My question is this: How have cases like this changed how archaeology is conducted? Does digging & studying just progress without the removal of remains? If no one claims the burial, can removal for study happen, on the grounds that remains will/may be returned, if later claimed? Where does archaeology "stop" and "desecration" begin? I realize this is an extremely fine line. Digging burial sites seems wrong but humans have learned a tremendous amount from this practice.

Most of the time, we try to avoid disturbing possible burial sites at all. The vast majority of archaeology in the U.S. happens because someone is planning on developing the area, and they are legally obligated to perform a cultural survey first. The developing company is on the hook for any costs involved, and the time and expense involved in dealing with burials (especially Native burials) is often prohibitive, so some developers will opt to relocate their project, rather than deal with the expense and logistics involved.

Where Native burials are concerned, local tribes are always involved in determining what will happen -- in the areas where local tribes still exist, which is sadly not everywhere. When I was excavating burials in downtown Miami, we worked with the Seminole tribe, though the burials themselves were Tequesta, who unfortunately no longer exist. Because the site was in the middle of downtown Miami, there was no option to just leave it undisturbed; the real estate there is too valuable. We came to an agreement with the Seminole that the burials would be removed, we would have two years to study the remains, and then they would be repatriated to another location.