“If it crunches, I like it.” READ MORE...

Because pitas are so much more fun than your regular sandwich bread. READ MORE...

  To modern eyes, ancient Greek writing looks like an impenetrable code—an unbroken wall of capital letters across stone or parchment without a single space or discernible punctuation mark.   This format is called scriptio continua, Latin for “continuous script.” There is no spacing, no punctuation, and no lowercase letters in scriptio continua. This was no mistake—it was the standard way of writing in the ancient Greek world. Stone inscriptions, papyrus scrolls, and sacred texts followed this format for centuries.   But why did the ancient Greeks write like this? And how did they manage to understand the text?   Why Ancient Greeks Wrote in Scriptio Continua A close-up of Codex Sinaiticus, a 4th-century Greek manuscript of the Bible written in scriptio continua—without spaces, punctuation, or lowercase letters. Source: Wikimedia Commons.   The reasons behind scriptio continua were practical, linguistic, and cultural.   First, writing materials like papyrus and parchment were expensive in ancient Greece. A manuscript written in continuous script was significantly shorter and cheaper than one with visual breaks between words.   Second, the structure of the Greek language facilitated the scriptio continua method. With its rich system of inflections—changes to word endings and prefixes—the Greek language naturally included grammatical clues that helped readers identify where one word ends and another begins.   Finally, the act of reading itself was different in the ancient world compared to today. Reading was typically done aloud, either in private or to an audience. In this context, visual spacing was less critical. Trained readers relied on sound—including intonation, rhythm, and phrasing—to bring clarity to the continuous stream of text.   How Ancient Readers Navigated the Continuous Stream A Reading from Homer by Lawrence Alma-Tadema (1885) depicts the tradition of reading aloud in ancient Greece—a context in which scriptio continua was common. Source: Philadelphia Museum of Art.   Parsing scriptio continua was an expert skill developed over years of practice. And it was less about visual scanning and more about rhythm, memory, and flow. In ancient Greece, reading was a physical, performative act. Texts were typically read aloud, whether to an audience or in a hushed voice alone. This vocal engagement helped bring meaning to the stream of letters. Familiar phrases, poetic meters, and grammatical cues all guided the voice and the ear toward comprehension.   From a young age, students practiced reading scriptio continua through repetition and recitation. Over time, trained readers developed an intuitive sense of where words began and ended, even in complex passages. Expert readers, especially scribes, priests, and rhetoricians, became so adept that they could scan and interpret these texts with seeming effortlessness. On rare occasions, scribes inserted aids into the written text, such as the hypodiastole, a small mark used to clarify ambiguous boundaries between letters.  But “punctuation” primarily came from the reader’s own cadence, honed through experience.   The Transition Away from Scriptio Continua A Byzantine-era Greek manuscript, written in minuscule script, features word separation and lowercase letters. These developments eventually replaced scriptio continua. Source: Wikimedia Commons.   Naturally, writing practices evolved over the centuries. Around the 7th to 8th centuries CE, Irish and Anglo-Saxon scribes began experimenting with spacing between Greek words to support the emerging practice of silent reading. In the Byzantine world, a major shift occurred in the 9th century with the rise of minuscule script—a new handwriting style that introduced lowercase letters, punctuation, and eventually word separation. These innovations made texts easier to navigate at a glance.   So why did scriptio continua fall out of favor? The change was driven not just by scribes, but by readers. Literacy began to expand beyond the elite, and silent, individual reading became more common. Unlike trained performers reading aloud, silent readers needed visual cues—spaces, punctuation, and structure—to interpret the text internally. The format that had once suited the rhythms of speech no longer supported the cognitive demands of silent comprehension.   As reading shifted from a communal, oral activity to a private, visual one, the demands of silent literacy rendered scriptio continua increasingly impractical, prompting the gradual adoption of more reader-friendly formats.

  The Roman Empire was vast and may have contained more than 100 million people at its height in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE. To monitor this expansive territory, enforce policy, exact taxes, and spy on prominent personages, the emperors developed what has been called a “Roman Secret Service,” initially out of specific units that were attached to the military. Although the frumentarii originated as distributors of grain and ancient postal workers, throughout the empire, they were increasingly used as secret agents to carry out the emperor’s bidding.   The Origins of the Secret Service and the Frumentarii The Frumentarii, who began as grain collectors and distributors, depicted on Trajan’s column, 113 CE. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The frumentarii as a distinct unit, seemed to derive in part from earlier Republican military intelligence groups, especially the scouts (exploratores) and spies (specuatores) attached to different Roman legions. They also developed as part of the postal service set up by the first emperor, Augustus, as their initial role was oriented around communications and grain distribution (frumentum).   Since it was the role of the emperor to be the ultimate provider to the Empire, including the soldiers who defended it, Augustus was compelled to establish a unit of individuals who he could rely on to distribute grain across the provinces.   Augustus of Prima Porta, c. 1st century CE. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Evidence shows that they were recruited locally, from the different provinces, and taken from all classes of individuals. Each legion would send frumentarii to Rome, which would then be distributed across the Empire at key locations, such as provincial capitals.   Thus, they were perfectly situated to inform the emperor or his governors of any key events throughout the Empire. While they always retained their responsibility as grain distributors, it seems that the emperors increasingly began to rely on them as military intelligence agents.   Reforms Under Domitian Bust of the Emperor Domitian, Rome, c. 81-96 CE. Source: Albani Collection   The emperor who was pivotal in establishing the frumentarii as gatherers of intelligence and imperial agents was Domitian. This emperor, the last of the Flavian Dynasty, has traditionally gone down in history as a cruel and malicious tyrant who sought to monopolize power and was paranoid about betrayal.   Whilst this image was colored by ancient biases, the fact that frumentarii begin to appear in the record under Domitian does lend some credibility to this impression. However, he has also been seen as an efficient and insightful administrator by more modern commentators, so either association could help explain the development of the frumentarii under Domitian.   Nonetheless, he established headquarters for the unit in Rome, at the Castra Peregrina (fort of foreigners) on top of the Caelian Hill. The camp could fit around 400 men, about 12 or 13 from each of the Empire’s legions. It is believed that roughly the same number would have been dotted around the empire and in the provincial capitals.   Whilst they were still nominally registered with their respective legions, especially in Rome, they now made up a more distinct unit, answerable to the emperor and his central administration. They were also placed under the direction of a senior legionary centurion, now named the princeps peregrinorum (Chief of the Foreigners).   Consolidation as Secret Service Agents Bust of the emperor Hadrian, Rome, 117-138 CE. Source: Capitoline Museum   Although we can detect these centralizing changes under Domitian, it is not until Hadrian that we have the first explicit written evidence of using frumentarii for intelligence activities. Like Domitian, Hadrian suffered from senatorial censure for his heavy-handed approach to ruling the Empire, and for executing several senators, just as he has also been established in historiography as a master-administrator.   The Historia Augusta tells us that Hadrian utilized the frumentarii to spy on his friends in the imperial court, ever suspicious of those around him. Like Domitian, Hadrian was another emperor who aimed to centralize power more tightly around the position of the emperor, ensuring a smooth running of affairs managed by him and his staff.   Again, it makes complete sense that such a power-hungry figure would want to utilize and adapt a unit of soldiers to carry out clandestine activities to assure the stable continuation of centralized power. Through his frumentarii, Hadrian was able to keep informed of his friends’ activities and behavior, reportedly on one occasion chiding one of them for spending too much time at the baths.   These agents could, of course, be used for more nefarious purposes and soon were. From Commodus onward, we have written evidence of their use as political assassins, spies, and enforcers. If, as was the case during the reign of Commodus, one of the emperor’s confidants or favorites lost the emperor’s favor, they could be hunted down and assassinated by a frumentarius.   Bust of emperor Septimius Severus, Roman, c. 193-211 CE. Source: Glypothek Munich   More importantly, they could also be used by the emperors to assassinate rival claimants to power. Septimius Severus tried to have his opponent Albinus murdered by frumentarii. For such exploits, the imperial agents could, on occasion, be rewarded with senatorial office or the praetorian prefecture.   Aside from this, they were also used to spy over the general populace in Rome or the provinces, often sharing close links with the city police in the capital. As Christianity continued to spread throughout the Empire, they also became tools of religious persecution and torture. Notably, it was a frumentarius who watched over Saint Paul when he was awaiting his trial in Rome.   Yet most of all, except for still retaining their role as grain distributors, they seem to have become infamous as tax collectors and enforcers across the Empire.   Growing Infamy and Dissolution Funeral inscription honoring a frumentarius from Hispania Terraconensis. Source: Wikimedia Commons   As just noted, the frumentarii became particularly infamous for their activities in the provinces, away from the restraining view of the emperor and his court. In particular, it was their role as tax collectors that seemed to have irked ancient citizens more than anything. Many complaints about their activities were sent to the emperor and his secretariat.   From their complaints, we get the impression that the frumentarii evolved, in some places, into a disorderly and rapacious mob of thieves who used their position to extract wealth from the places they were sent. Under the Severans, peasants throughout the province of Asia Minor accused them of arbitrary arrests and exactions.   It became so common that honorary funerary epigraphs sometimes celebrated the fact that frumentarii agents did not abuse their position. All of this got worse as the Empire experienced recurrent problems, especially in the frontier provinces. Money was badly needed to fund wars and maintain some stability, and the frumentarii were chosen to ensure taxes were properly paid.   This all meant that by the end of the 3rd century CE, they were seen as a plague across the Empire, hated by all. As a result, the emperor Diocletian, unsurprisingly, another great administrator of the Empire who split its administration into four, decided to disband the unit after he became increasingly frustrated by the endless complaints concerning them.   A Greater Evil? The Agentes in Rebus Gold medallion of Diocletian with Jupiter Conservator on the reverse, Roman, 294 CE. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Although Diocletian dissolved the frumentarii, he was not willing to deprive himself of such a useful resource that could carry out intelligence activities. Therefore, whilst the populace may have been temporarily appeased by the removal of the frumentarii, Diocletian soon established the Agentes in Rebus, or “general agents,” who would prove to be far more notorious than the frumentarii had ever been.   Importantly, these general agents were no longer attached to the military and instead were recruited within civilian infrastructure and administered more directly by the imperial court. Specifically, they were put under the oversight of the new Magister Officiorum (“Master of Offices”), who was appointed by the emperor. This role, in effect, became the “master of information” across the Empire.   Moreover, the general agents were much more numerous than the frumentarii, with 1,200 men in total. They were initially distributed to the provinces and attached to each region’s postal infrastructure. In 357 CE, a law was passed that mandated sending two agents to each province every year, although the limit was removed in 412 CE.   Their primary duty was conveying information, unlike the frumentarii, who at least nominally retained their use as grain distributors. The general agents, however, as their name suggests, were also used for various activities, including assassination, spying, enforcing, and, of course, tax collection.   Like the frumentarii, they soon became infamous for their corruption and greed, earning them the modern reputation of being “corrupt minions of a police state.” Ironically, they also became the minions of a Christian state, persecuting and murdering heretics throughout the Empire who would not conform to the new imperial religion.   Unlike the frumentarii, they were not really disbanded and remained in operation, in some form or another, even after the Empire in the West had fallen. This fact undoubtedly indicates how successive rulers saw such secret and centralized agents as an indispensable resource to properly manage their vast territory.   Indeed, as with so many familiar aspects of the Roman Empire, their long yet ambiguous and changing existence shows many parallels with more modern “secret service” entities, like the KGB, FBI, and MI5.

  The Middle Ages is often unfairly characterized as a time of stagnation, with little in the way of cultural achievement. Far from being true, this was an era of cultural advances that still leave modern minds in awe. The most enduring art form of the era was architecture. Towering cathedrals and stout castles made from stone still stand as a testament to the prowess of the medieval craftsman. Three distinct architectural styles emerged over time, each building on the lessons of previous generations to create ever-greater wonders.   Pre-Romanesque Architecture Phase Church of Santa Maria del Naranco, Northern Spain, c. 9th century. Source: Wikimedia Commons   The earliest and easily the broadest category of European architecture during the Middle Ages was the  Pre-Romanesque Phase. After the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 CE, large, monumental architecture, for the most part, fell by the wayside as lands once administered by the Romans were forced to deal with the chaos of the collapse of central authority. Migrations of Germanic peoples into these lands changed the ethnic and cultural landscape of the continent. One of these groups, the Franks, played a pivotal role not only in Europe’s political history but its artistic and architectural foundation.   The exact start of the Pre-Romanesque phase is hard to pin down, beginning either in the 6th century under the Merovingian dynasty, or in the late 8th century under the Carolingian dynasty. In either case, the start of the movement began with the consolidation of the Frankish tribes under a single dynastic ruler, bringing some political stability to the tumultuous era. The conversion of King Clovis and the Franks to Christianity in the early 6th century led to the building of churches and monasteries with government approval and funding. Similar processes happened in other regions, such as in Anglo-Saxon England and the Visagothic Iberian peninsula. Each region developed its own architectural style based on local customs, those of the Germanic invaders, the influence of Latin Christianity, and available building methods and materials.   Interior of the Church of São Pedro da Lourosa in Lourosa, Portugal, c. 10th century. Source: Wikimedia Commons   While there is no single style of Pre-Romanesque architecture, they do share some common traits. Compared to the later styles, these were simple, usually rectangular structures made from stone. They were made with thick, stout walls and simple flat roofs as opposed to the large vaulted ceilings that would become a hallmark of later eras. The roof was often supported by timber rather than masonry. Openings for windows were difficult to make without undermining the structural integrity of the walls, so these openings were small and let in very little light. The structure was made from so-called rubble walls. These were made from undressed, or unshaped, stone that would be piled on top of one another and held in place with mortar, giving the surface a distinctive uneven appearance. In short, the Pre-Romanesque style is anything that came before the development of the Romanesque style.   Romanesque Architectural Phase Durham Cathedral, c. early 12th century. Source: Durham World Heritage Site   Like the previous era, it is difficult to pin down when the Romanesque phase started, though most scholars place the era’s beginning around the mid-11th century. During this time, Europe saw an explosion in monastic tradition as well as an increase in pilgrimages, which spurred the construction of larger churches and monasteries. As the name implies, the Romanesque period is heavily inspired by the architecture of the Roman Empire, but also incorporates elements from Byzantine, Germanic, Carolingian, and local traditions.   As was the case in the previous era, Romanesque buildings were initially made with thick walls that had small windows in order to preserve the structural integrity of the building. These windows could be in numerous shapes, but were often semicircular arches. This era also saw the start of what would later become known as “rose windows,” which are circular openings that would be divided into segments, though this would not gain much popularity until the later Gothic style.   The nave of Marie Madeleine in Vézelay, France, photo by Navin75, 12th century, via Flickr   The primary building material was dressed stone, or stone that had been shaped into regular-sized blocks, which were held together with mortar. Common types of stone used were limestone, flint, or granite, though brick made from clay was used on occasion as well. As the era continued, new methods allowed for higher walls and ceilings, and one of the most profound differences with the prior era was the use of stone supports for the roof rather than timber, which made the building more resistant to fires.   The roof was held up using a rediscovered ancient technology, the barrel vault. This is a series of arches placed next to one another or, more accurately, a single arch that extends over a given space. Though this technique was used in one way or another as far back in time as ancient Egypt, it was the Romans who popularized their use.   Because of the immense weight of the stone, the lateral forces on the arch push the walls outward, causing the walls to give way and the ceiling to collapse. There are several solutions to this problem. The first is to make the walls thicker, which, while inelegant, is the most practical. Another way is to build two or more barrel vaults next to one another, the inner walls supporting each other while the outer walls were reinforced either by thicker walls or buttresses. Another solution to the issue was the creation of groin vaults, which are two barrel vaults that intersect at right angles. This was a popular way to construct churches and cathedrals because the final structure resembles a cross.   Notre Dame la Grande, Poitiers, France, c. 12th century. Source: UNESCO   Another hallmark of the Romanesque period was the use of columns, which mimic the columns that were found in the ancient world. These were placed at regular intervals and were thick, untapered, and load-bearing structures that supported the roof. Arcades or rows of arches were also common and could be one, two, three, or even more stories in height. The arches in the arcades, just like the windows, were semicircular in form and could be used to improve the structural integrity of the building or could be used as decoration, or both. The carvings on the stonework were usually unsophisticated with simple geometric patterns such as chevrons or lozenges.   Gothic Architectural Phase Canterbury Cathedral, England, c. late 14th century. Source: Wikimedia Commons   If one thinks about medieval buildings, most people’s imaginations conjure up images of the third and final style of architecture, the Gothic phase. There is no hard delineation between the Romanesque and the Gothic phases, with one era blending seamlessly into the other. Nevertheless, it is generally accepted that the era began in the late 12th century and continued for the remainder of the Middle Ages and into the 16th century. The name Gothic was an insult cast by people from later centuries who thought that the style was brutal and barbaric. They named it after the Goths, a Germanic tribe that overran segments of the Roman Empire, hastening its downfall.   As an outgrowth of the Romanesque phase, the Gothic phase took the basic principles of the previous era and magnified them. Arches were still a primary design feature but were changed based on new innovations and engineering discoveries. Instead of the round barrel vault, medieval builders made pointed arches that had less lateral pressure than the round Romanesque arches. The ceilings were supported by ribbed vaults, or stone support, which led to piers and columns. These innovations enabled the building of taller structures that were able to stand with thinner walls. Perhaps the most important innovation was the use of flying buttresses. These are supports on the outside of the building that press against the outer walls, keeping them from collapsing outward.   Because the walls were thinner yet more structurally sound, the outside walls could contain larger windows. The Rose Windows of the Romanesque era were enlarged, and openings were added to the design. These allowed light to fill the buildings, which were mostly churches and cathedrals. These larger windows were covered with stained glass, which gave the incoming light a dazzling array of hues to amaze onlookers.   Gallery of Kings, Cathedral of St. Jacques, Reims, France, c. 14th century. Source: Reims Cathedral   The stone itself was also used as a decoration. Unlike the earlier eras, where the stone was either undressed or, at most, decorated with simple geometric patterns, Gothic architecture fully embraced stone carving as an artistic medium in its own right. This is the era that created gargoyles, the small statues usually of hideous monsters that are a mainstay of Gothic cathedrals and have continued to be used even into the present day. Columns and other portions of the stone were carved into decorative shapes like flowers and other plant life, statues and reliefs of saints or historic figures, and much more complex geometric patterns. These were decorations for decoration’s sake, and Gothic buildings were designed with aesthetics in mind as much as practicality.   Construction Methods Manuscript image of a Treadmill Crane, c. 13th century. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Monumental buildings such as cathedrals were extremely labor-intensive to construct and required workers who possessed incredible skill and dedication. These were often guild members who were held to a high standard of quality. The construction was overseen by a master builder, who delegated the labor to a number of foremen who led the various lower-skilled workers. These included carpenters, mortar makers, blacksmiths, and stone masons. They received their instructions from the foremen and used an array of tools, such as compasses and plumb bobs, to check on their work. Plans were wooden or plaster models that were presented to the local bishop or other Church officials before construction began. Diagrams were drawn or inscribed on the ground, often in the crypt under the structure, as a reference during the building phase.   The stone for the buildings was quarried off-site and transported, often down rivers on barges or overland using oxen wagons. The stone was roughly cut at the quarry and then dressed or finished on-site. Stonemasons cut the individual stones one at a time based on the stage of the construction. Workers then hauled the dressed stone into place, using ropes, pulleys, and ingenious devices such as the treadmill crane to lift the blocks to the appropriate height. Carpenters constructed the ladders and scaffolding needed for the masons, and in some cases, large sections of forest were cleared to keep up with the demand.   Manuscript image of a stone cutter, Germany, 1425. Source: Wikimedia Commons   Construction was slow and expensive. To ease the financial burden, many cathedrals were built using donated funds from wealthy parishioners. The less wealthy donated their time and effort as common laborers, lending out their draft animals or providing some other service. Relics of saints attracted pilgrims, whose donations contributed to the cost of building a larger or more elaborate building. Even under the best of circumstances, the process was slow, and construction, from the breaking of ground to the finished building, could take decades. It was not uncommon for a cathedral to be started by one generation of workers only to be completed by their children or grandchildren.   The Gothic phase, along with the Middle Ages, would fade away after the start of the Renaissance, which saw ancient techniques rediscovered and a whole new design philosophy created. As new buildings were constructed, the design elements of the previous eras were seen as quaint or primitive, a relic of the past best abandoned. Still, the towering cathedrals and stout monasteries still stand today as a striking visual reminder of the achievements of the medieval era.

  Fascination with people of the past has been a common theme of Western civilizations throughout history, with Americans proving to be no exception. The disinterment of Indigenous people began not long after the arrival of European settlers. Not only were people removed from what was expected to be their final resting place, but cultural objects were taken from areas of importance. The Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed in 1990 with the intent of stopping this practice and returning previously stolen Indigenous remains and objects to those to whom they belonged. Has this legality been a success?   A Sad History The First Thanksgiving 1621 by Jean Leon Gerome Ferris. Source: Milwaukee Journal Sentinel   Some of the earliest permanent European immigrants to the future United States were the English who settled in New England, known commonly as “the Pilgrims.” They would have a difficult relationship with Indigenous peoples from the start, and it was not uncommon for them, with yet unestablished farming practices, to steal from Native food stores.   One of the earliest recorded violations of an Indigenous grave occurred during one of these thefts. While searching for a food cache, a group of Pilgrims found the corpse of an Indigenous child. They re-interred the body, but not before they removed the necklaces and bracelets the child was wearing, as the beads had potential trade value (Thornton, 1998).   NAGPRA logo by the National Park Service. Source: Utah Public Radio   Over time, Native Americans were continuously viewed as “lesser than” by many Americans as the genocide of Indigenous culture persisted over the following centuries and the Manifest Destiny era. Stealing, owning, and collecting Indigenous remains was not seen as unethical and, sometimes, was even en vogue. Some even offered money to grave robbers, seeking remains for scientific research or collection (Daehnke & Lonetree, 2011).   In the nineteenth century, the US Army even received orders to send all Native remains to the Smithsonian for research. Museums and universities began seeking Native American cultural objects as relics of days gone by as the Indigenous way of life was wiped off the map. Religious items were confiscated, historical objects removed, and other symbols of culture were forced into public display and sometimes, eventually, storage.   The Antiquities Act The Antiquities Act was signed into law under “conservation president” Theodore Roosevelt. Source: CBS News   Upon reading its description, a scholar might assume that the passage of the Antiquities Act of 1906 was the first step in reversing this trend and putting a stop to the desecration of Indigenous culture. The act established several requirements to protect archaeological resources on public lands. This included a need to get permission before removing objects and penalties for unauthorized excavation.   However, this act made no differentiation between Native American remains that were hundreds of years old and those that were contemporary; many traditional tribal cemeteries existed on federal lands. Indigenous people were allowed no agency over their material culture, but these materials became the property of the federal government.   At the same time, assimilation policies were in high gear, and people of Indigenous heritage were being pushed to abandon their traditions more than ever. From this time until 1990, it is estimated that anywhere from 300,000 to 2.5 million Indigenous bodies and millions of cultural objects were taken into the possession of museums, private collectors, and the federal government (Daehnke & Lonetree, 2011).   Increasing Activism An AIM protest at the office of Overton James, State Indian Education Director, in 1972. Oklahoma Publishing Company photo. Source: Oklahoma Historical Society   Eventually, Indigenous voices began to be heard. Influential groups such as the American Indian Movement (AIM) began organizing and protesting loudly during the mid-twentieth century, culminating during the rebellious years of American change in the 1960s and 1970s. In 1989, legislation was passed that applied exclusively to the Smithsonian, requiring the repatriation of Indigenous remains to tribes. The following year, repatriation rules would become universal and more extensive, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was born.   Digging Up the Details Consultations are an essential part of NAGPRA. Source: The National Park Service   NAGPRA was approved by Congress on November 16, 1990 and was intended to address the rights of lineal descendants, Native American tribes, and Native Hawaiians. In particular, the act focuses on the rights of these groups to certain Indigenous “remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony.”   The goal was to reunite these objects, in the possession of any institution receiving federal funding, with those to whom they held meaning. NAGPRA was set to be effective one year from its enactment, giving these organizations time to compile and report inventories of such items and identify their cultural affiliation. Once an item was identified, it was required to be “expeditiously” returned. After identification, organizations are instructed to consult with the associated tribe or cultural group to discuss repatriation or appropriate disposal of the objects.   Members of the Saginaw Chippewa Indian Tribe hold a reburial ceremony for remains returned to them in 2014 by the University of Michigan, Marcella Hadden Photo. Source: The New York Times   Under NAGPRA, human remains must be returned to a direct descendant or culturally affiliated organization, such as a tribe. A “reasonable connection” between the remains and the organization is required, as outlined by NAGPRA (Daehnke & Lonetree, 2011).   Once remains are identified, under NAGPRA, an institution must publish a list of tribes eligible to make a claim on them. The remains are then considered “available for return,” and tribes can make claims. After identification, consultations between these organizations and the possessing entity are the first step in the repatriation process, with resources for these offered by a number of entities, including the National Park Service.   The review committee meets in Alaska in 2019. Source: National Park Service   NAGPRA created a Federal Advisory Review Committee to monitor the implementation of the law. The members were appointed by the Secretary of the Interior, whose oversight includes the Bureau of Indian Affairs. This committee monitors the identification process, resolves disputes, and recommends actions for any items that are “culturally unidentifiable.” NAGPRA also applies to current or future archaeological excavations on both private and state land, though the depth at which it is relevant depends on local laws and other factors.   Ramifications Institutions that do not comply with NAGPRA can lose their federal funding. Source: Rockefeller Institute of Government   The complete details of what institutions must do to maintain their collections as NAGPRA compliant are outlined in the law. The Smithsonian is the only federally funded museum, agency, or department exempt from NAGPRA, as it is governed by its own previously mandated and specific law. Stakeholders that fail to comply with the act may face a number of consequences, including criminal prosecution, civil penalties, and reduced or eliminated funding.   Loopholes & Failure The National Preservation Institute offers NAGPRA consultations. Source: National Preservation Institute   While NAGPRA may have been well-intentioned, its application over the last thirty-plus years has demonstrated ineffectiveness and challenges that leave much to be desired. When the law was passed, Congress estimated that it would take ten years for NAGPRA to demonstrate the effectiveness and for all covered objects and remains to be repatriated to the proper hands.   Yet, it is estimated that at least another 70 years are necessary. The biggest issue that has caused NAGPRA to fall flat is the inability to identify the cultural affiliation of many objects and remains. Limited provenance of items that have been in institutional possession for decades and even centuries makes identification slow and, in some cases, has proven impossible. There have also been accusations of institutions claiming that evidence of cultural links is inadequate and taking advantage of loopholes in the law.   If a tribe is not federally recognized, like the Little Shell Tribe of Chippewa just became in 2020, issues arise with NAGPRA. The Little Shell Tribe’s recognition was being celebrated in this Tailyr Irvine photo. Source: High Country News   Another challenge lies with the fact that a tribe must be federally recognized to bring a repatriation claim under NAGPRA. This eliminates the rights of hundreds of established groups that are awaiting or have been denied federal recognition, regardless of how long they have existed within the current borders of the United States.   As of 2018, there were approximately 400 non-federally recognized tribal entities in the US. Some of these groups had recognition in the past and lost it as a result of government action in the mid-twentieth century or have been unable to meet federal recognition requirements, which are often a challenge due to the amount of required documentation. Perhaps ironically, the assimilation tactics perpetrated by US entities over the last centuries made the continuous tribal documentation required to satisfy regulations an impossible task in many cases.   Cogstone is one of several companies that offers NAGPRA services, such as inventorying and transfer, to both institutions and tribal entities. Source: Cogstone   A lack of penalty enforcement has been observed over NAGPRA’s active years as well. Though the law requires consequences upon agencies who fail to comply, these are rarely administered. Penalties are frequently avoided with simple explanations from institutions about why they failed to meet requirements. Tribes are left with little recourse in these situations.   The Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, photo by Ryan Gajarawala. Source: The Harvard Crimson   Some of the nation’s most prestigious museums are among the offenders. For example, the American Museum of Natural History in New York has made 46% of its possessed Indigenous human remains “available for return.” However, the remains of at least 1,900 Native people are still in the museum’s possession and not available for return. In the case of Harvard University, the remains of at least 5,600 people are not available for return (the third largest collection of unrepatriated remains in the country).   Ethical Consequences Remains being repatriated in Michigan in 2013, Marcella Hadden Holder photo. Source: The Art Newspaper   The consequences of institutions failing to uphold NAGPRA are not only legal, but have ethical and moral fallout as well. The value of these remains and funerary objects cannot be plainly defined by law. It is a common belief across several Native American cultures that the disturbance of the dead forces the spirits of the deceased to wander and be unable to rest. Treating human remains as specimens or commodities is viewed as crude and simply wrong across cultures and religions, regardless of whether one is Indigenous or not.   Anthropology often relies on the study of human remains, leading some scientists to become “anti-NAGPRA.” Source: University of Alaska Anchorage   Science has stepped in with additional opinions. Some anthropologists feel that certain remains hold unique value to the world of human science and should be retained by institutions for research and future testing; they feel that this value outweighs the cultural value. The practice of archaeology has a strong commitment to holding artifacts in perpetuity for future inquiry.   What’s Next for NAGPRA? Senator Brian Schatz of Hawaii at a hearing regarding NAGPRA in 2022, US Senate photo. Source: ProPublica   Though NAGPRA has suffered many barriers preventing its complete realization, it has had some achievements. A number of successful reparations have occurred since the introduction of the law, bringing healing and comfort to some in the Indigenous communities around the country.   In 2023, the US Senate Committee on Indian Affairs singled out five institutions for their lack of compliance and sent letters calling their reparation rates “unacceptable.” However, this progress is minute when compared to the vast strides that institutions must make in order to be fully compliant with the law and the needs and wishes of thousands of Indigenous people and communities.   Works Cited   Daehnke, Jon and Amy Lonetree, “Repatriation in the United States: The Current State of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.” American Indian Culture and Research Journal 35, no. 1 (2011): 87-97.   Russell Thornton, “Who Owns Our Past? The Repatriation of Native American Human Remains and Cultural Objects,” in Studying Native America: Problems and Prospects, ed. (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1998), 387–88.

Fresco of Vesta-Hestia, Pompeii, 1st Century BCE/AD, with Tapestry of Hestia full of Blessings, Egypt, 6th century tapestry   Almost every famous Greek God or Goddess has a Roman counterpart, many of whom were used to name the planets in our solar system, like Jupiter (Zeus) and Neptune (Poseidon). The Romans adopted much of Ancient Greek religion, renaming deities while retaining their core attributes and characteristics. Hestia and Vesta are two such goddesses, residing over the hearth and sacred fire.    Although Hestia and Vesta are counterparts, their roles within the Greek and Roman pantheons differed. Both were vital to worship, but Vesta played a more public and political role in Ancient Rome, while Hestia was associated with private worship within the home.    Hestia and Vesta: Goddesses of the Hearth The Parthenon by Frederic Edwin Church, 1871. Source: The Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York   Hestia (Greek) and Vesta (Roman) are virgin goddesses associated with the hearth, home, and family. They symbolize warmth, stability, and the sacred bond between guest and host. In both traditions, they preside over domestic life and harmony within the home, and their presence is found wherever a sacred flame is kept burning.    Yet despite these similarities, the Romans developed their own traditions around Vesta that aligned with cultural, religious, and political values that differed greatly from those of Ancient Greece.   Hestia: Heart of the Home in Ancient Greece School of the Vestals, by Hector Leroux, 1880. Source: New York Public Library   In Greek mythology, Hestia is one of the original Olympians, the eldest daughter of Cronus and Rhea. She is best known for her peaceful and selfless nature, famously giving up her seat on Mount Olympus to Dionysus to avoid conflict. Her role was deeply symbolic—every household hearth was her altar, and she received the first and last offerings at every meal and ceremony.   Worship of Hestia was largely domestic and informal in nature. While there were few public temples solely dedicated to Hestia, her sacred flame burned in every home and in communal hearths of every city-state. She represented the spiritual center of the home and family, and didn’t get involved in politics or mythological battles.   Vesta: Guardian of Rome’s Sacred Flame Giulio Romano, wall painting of the Olympian gods. Source: Palazzo del Te, Mantua   Vesta, her Roman counterpart, shares Hestia’s core attributes but plays a much more institutional and public role in Roman religion. Vesta was not just the protector of individual households but also a spiritual symbol of the Roman state itself. Her sacred fire burned within the Temple of Vesta in the Roman Forum, representing the heart of the expanding Roman Empire.    This is also where Vesta was honored and served by the Vestal Virgins, a group of highly respected priestesses who took a vow of chastity and were charged with maintaining the sacred flame at all times. Their service was considered vital to the health and safety of Rome.    Ancient Greece vs. Rome The Vestal, by Filippo Pistrucci, c. 1830. Source: The British Museum   Ancient Greece was known for its democratic ideals and fragmented city-states that would occasionally band together during wartime… but remained largely independent. Whereas, Rome developed a vast empire with a centralized government. The contrast between Hestia and Vesta highlights some of the most significant differences between Greek and Roman society. The Greeks emphasized individual homes, philosophical ideals, and personal relationships with the gods.    The Romans, by contrast, placed immense value on public service, state religion, and civic duty. Vesta was considered a guardian of the Roman people, and her centralized worship reflected Roman ideals of order, discipline, and unity under the empire’s rule.    Vesta’s Religious Servants Veiled Vestal, Rafaelle Monti, 1847. Source: The Chatsworth House, Derbyshire   Hestia had no formal priesthood in Ancient Greece, while Vesta had the Vestal Virgins. They were a prestigious group of priestesses chosen in childhood. Each priestess took a vow of chastity and was charged with keeping Rome’s sacred flame burning continuously. They were essentially responsible for the spiritual well-being of an entire empire, and their role was central to Roman religious and civic life.   If the flame ever went out, it was considered a dire omen, signaling potential disaster for the city and its people. The Vestal Virgins were held personally responsible for this task. If the flame went out due to neglect or carelessness, the consequences were severe.    And if they ever broke their vow of chastity, they were sentenced to death. However, to avoid spilling the blood of a Vestal, they would instead be locked in an underground chamber and left to die.   Domain and Worship Practices Temple of Vesta, Italian etching, date unknown. The Wellcome Collection   Maintaining the hearth and honoring Hestia within an Ancient Greek home was important for personal worship, while maintaining Vesta’s sacred flame was tied to the vitality of Ancient Rome itself. In Greece, Hestia’s worship was largely private, centered around household altars and city hearths. Every home offered her daily sacrifices, but she rarely had temples of her own. She was honored at every meal and also a conduit for worshipping the other gods.    Temple of Vesta, by Alessandro Sanquirico, 1818. Source: New York Public Library   In contrast, Vesta’s worship was highly public and institutionalized, with rituals overseen by priestesses. Vestalia, held at the beginning of June, was held in her honor as one of the most important holidays in Ancient Rome.    While Hestia and Vesta share the same domain of the home and hearth, their roles diverge across Ancient Greek and Roman traditions. Hestia was the gentle guardian of the home, and Vesta evolved into a protector of the Roman state, a sacred presence whose flame symbolically kept the empire alive.

Hulk Hogan's daughter is threatening legal action against members of his inner circle, who she says are spewing a false narrative about her and her relationship with her dad. Continue reading…