As we leave the noughties and enter the 2010's, I have been thinking about the future of museums philosophically and conceptually-How has NAGPRA progressed and changed in 20 years and how will museums change to keep up with current cultural and societal needs?
First, a little history of NAGPRA:
NAGPRA requires federal agencies and federally funded museums to have a dialogue with federally recognized tribes about their collections. The tribes have the right to claim human remains and associated funerary objects, cultural patrimony, and sacred items. In addition to museums collections, the act also applies to cultural items excavated after November 16th, 1990.
First, a little history of NAGPRA:
The NAGPRA act of 1990 provides the opportunity under a federal nexus for Native Americans and museum professionals to consult and proceed with repatriation of cultural resources. According to Martha Graham, it also encompasses a broader scope than just repatriation of objects; it includes being conscious of social attitudes and communication between tribes and museum professionals/social scientists.
NAGPRA requires federal agencies and federally funded museums to have a dialogue with federally recognized tribes about their collections. The tribes have the right to claim human remains and associated funerary objects, cultural patrimony, and sacred items. In addition to museums collections, the act also applies to cultural items excavated after November 16th, 1990.
Difficulties faced with the instigation of NAGPRA in the early years included tribes’ inexperience in museum practice and the seemingly daunting task of inventorying older collections that had to comply with the act. It is often implemented on a case-by-case, one object at a time, which makes it a slow, detailed process.
Conceptually, in terms of Native American artifacts, public museums will probably incorporate less authentic Native American artifacts and more education collections which consist of artistic representations and modern reproductions of artifacts. Tribal museums are gaining ground and are employing more trained tribe members as staff. The continuing cultural revitalization in tribal culture will make cultural heritage items all the more sensitive to tribe members, probably finding homes in tribal museum/cultural center collections as opposed to public history museums.
Pros: Recent advances in 3-D printing bring up lots of useful options for “copying and printing” artifacts to metrically exact reproductions of the original, with the option of taking measurements during printing. This would be a possible opportunity for museums and repositories dealing with NAGPRA compliance (or other litigation in which items cannot be kept) to keep representations of artifacts for research or comparative collections.
Cons: A trend toward local, tribal run native heritage museums and repositories has the potential to exclude the public from viewing collections that were once available to research and see, especially culturally sacred collections and items.
On the upshot, everything accessioned and
displayed in modern museums is collected for the purpose of education, which avoids
collecting superfluous, redundant, or curiosity items. This selectivity ensures that items are representative of the current public, and incorporates a holistic element into collecting.
On the other hand, museums may not be inclined to accession items that would be important to archive but do not translate well to public outreach. State and national archives may see more collection of items that do not fit the public education model.
I think museums will continue to focus on public education for some time. As the core to museum's service to the public, educational representation and interpretation of collections plays a vital role in public awareness and critical thinking about past as well as current cultures and society. Study, observation, and exploration of past and present people and the way they choose to live in the world is important to our individual and collective growth.
