Federal laws about burial remains put politics before science.
This is bound to be a controversial article and as such, we will not engage in lengthy commentary regarding its merits but simply put it out there for you to judge for yourself. The article seems to be ultimately critical of NAGPRA's application to private dealers or those objects obtained by or on private individuals or land. However, it does serve to highlight some of the core controversies surrounding NAGPRA, namely:
-- The issue of tribal affiliation. This was at the core of the Kennewick case and several of the others noted in the piece involving very old skeletal remains. For recent history this is uaully fairly clear cut, but historical ties are more difficult to demonstrate the farther back in time one goes.
-- The use of oral traditions in demonstrating cultural/ancenstral affinity, or, as Vincent uses it, for demonstrating the "sacredness" of objects. This obviously goes to the core of the modern debate on what constitutes "knowledge".
Now, this quote:
"...by relying on the subjective judgment of tribal leaders, government agencies edge closer toward a relationship with Native American spirituality that violates the constitutional separation of church and state."
brings up a topic often overlooked in debates involving NAGPRA and will surely come up in court cases in the future.