The Development of Collaborative Repatriation and Collection Management Policies by NAGPRA-Governed Institutions

In the sections that follow, repatriation practitioners from four NAGPRA-governed institutions share their experiences in the creation of collaborative repatriation and broader collections management policies at their respective institutions. These examples call attention to some of the ways in which institutions are approaching the development of repatriation and collections management policies so that they are better positioned to communicate, consult, share resources, respect authority with Tribal Nations, and amplify Tribal voices in every step of the NAGPRA process and broader collections management practices. They are presented in the form of specific questions that were derived from “In Search of Solutions: Exploring Pathways to Repatriation for NAGPRA Practitioners (Part II),” a forum at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

“With Good intention”: How Can Tribal Input Guide Policy Development and Repatriation Action at Institutions?

Dawn Marie Alapisco, Oregon State University, with input from Briece Edwards Briece, Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde Community of Oregon

One of the ways in which institutions are building living relationships and creating repatriation policies that fit the needs of Tribal Nations is by putting them at the forefront of policy development. Oregon State University (OSU) provides a recent example of creating repatriation and NAGPRA policies through a consultative and respectful process. Historically, OSU has had a subpar track record with NAGPRA compliance. This has not been out of malevolence but from a lack of institutional understanding of the complex intersectional ways NAGPRA impacts relationships with Tribes, students, and faculty. Adding to this complexity is how the university, as a land-grant institution that has benefited from institutional privilege and national doctrine, is charged with a mission of recognition and support of all Native American and Indigenous communities. Before the creation of the NAGPRA Office in 2017, the university’s regulatory compliance with the Act was addressed via an intra-institutional academic unit that was understaffed, underfunded, and reactionary to the necessity of the law. In short, to all external appearances it was an afterthought.

From my perspective then as a student working in the program, it felt as if these diligent coordinators were trying to steer a large ship from the crow’s nest with no access to the wheel. In 2016, Native American and Indigenous academic and administrative faculty, upset with the state of NAGPRA compliance, advocated for the creation of a university-level NAGPRA position with interests beyond those of one academic unit/department. As the inaugural NAGPRA coordinator for the OSU NAGPRA Office, I was given an office and desk and told to “go forth and repatriate,” with essentially no institutional guidance. I had periodically been a part of NAGPRA efforts since the 2008–2009 academic year and had developed the model of NAGPRA compliance as a culturally relativistic, competent, and responsive process, so I had a good idea where to start: with local Tribes. After introductory emails and phone calls went unanswered and unreturned, one day a deputy tribal historic preservation officer answered the phone. This call, though I did not know it at the time, was a gift. It was extremely informative and consequentially changed the trajectory of NAGPRA compliance at OSU. I was informed that the Tribe in question, on whose lands OSU’s main campus is located, had not had NAGPRA outreach in years. However, I was met with enthusiasm and support regarding the reinvigoration of NAGPRA activity (Briece Edwards, personal communication 2017). As a result of this rare and precious trust, I was given an email introduction to the director of Oregon’s Legislative Commission on Indian Services (LCIS) and invited to meet with the Cultural Resources Cluster (CRC): a group of landowning and/or managing state agencies and cultural resources and heritage staff from each of the nine Tribes in Oregon. It was at this meeting that I realized just how far behind OSU was in consultation protocol and NAGPRA efforts.

The institution had been focused on the national NAGPRA program. However, I was witnessing, in real time, that failure rather than success was rooted in the absence of meaningful and Tribally congruent consultation and Tribally preferred practices for their Ancestors and belongings. For OSU to succeed, it first had to focus on relationship-building. Lonetree (Reference Lonetree2012:170) describes this process as being “about privileging the voices, stories, history, and memory” of Indigenous peoples. This repositioned focus has become transformative for policymaking and OSU. We had already established a moratorium on access to, display of, and research involving any NAGPRA-related Ancestors or cultural items, but to move to a more Tribally led protocol we needed to shift how we engaged in consultation. I advocated for an institution-wide NAGPRA policy and associated consultation protocols. Prior consultation processes clearly demonstrated that they needed to be not just Tribally informed but Tribally led.

OSU leadership agreed, and I was given the green light to continue. As I began drafting a policy, a facilities decision was made to move a health-related, student-serving program into the building that then housed NAGPRA Ancestors and cultural items, with plans to perform extensive renovations to the building itself. I worked to clarify to higher administration that co-location of NAGPRA-related materials with a health program was incompatible with the values and protocols of the local Tribes. Information about the project trickled out to Native American and Indigenous faculty as meetings regarding the “co-location” of these programs ended in a stalemate. Counting on the trust I had built with the nine Tribes in Oregon, I went to the CRC and explained the situation. The director of the LCIS facilitated OSU leadership speaking with Tribal leadership the next morning at a full convening of the commission. I then sent letters inviting the nine Tribes to consult about the status of the university’s proposed actions. During consultation the Tribes made it clear they were uncomfortable with co-locating student health-care programs in the same physical space as Ancestors, only separated by walls or floors. Tribes also expressed distrust of a university that would casually relocate Ancestors around campus on a whim without first consulting or seeking permission from the affected Tribes.

The first Tribe that we consulted with requested that a special-purpose NAGPRA facility be built off campus, so the Ancestors might have only two more moves: to the facility and for eventual repatriation/burial. As consultation progressed, the idea was offered to OSU administration. Administration concurred, and a NAGPRA facility was completed in October 2024. The facility consists of two buildings: a building for consultation and a separate building to house Ancestors and lab space. Today, OSU has engaged in some form of NAGPRA consultation with all nine of the Tribes in the state of Oregon on this project. The university has come to realize how intersectional NAGPRA is for Tribal relations and that the process must be Tribally led.

Two important actions have emerged from the consultation process. The first is confidence in the one-to-one relationship between Tribe and institution. The second, at the request of Tribes via consultation, is that OSU is moving to provide land for NAGPRA-related burials of Ancestors and belongings of joint Tribal connection. It is also intended to be available to any Tribe in Oregon for any future reburial of repatriations from all institutions and agencies, not solely OSU. When activated, this will be one of the first instances in the United States where an academic institution has stepped forward to dedicate land for the purpose of upholding the NAGPRA interests of Tribes. We are still actively consulting to complete the repatriation of the assemblage of Ancestors and the few funerary items we have identified and will reopen consultation activities on previously consulted sites and collections at the request of any Tribe or group of Tribes. OSU’s official NAGPRA policy, as a living document, continues to be made current with Tribal interests and protocols. Through continual connection and consultation, this document can be amended as necessary to meet the needs of Tribes as a collaborative consultative process. Each of the nine Tribes in Oregon will continue to be consulted for direction to effectively inform the future of OSU’s NAGPRA activities.

How Can We Incorporate Both Tribal and Institutional Values in the Development of Repatriation Policies?

Jessica Yann, Michigan State University

Another practice to consider when developing repatriation policies and procedures is how to align policies with the values of both Native American communities and the institution. The recent development and update of repatriation policies at Michigan State University (MSU) provide an example of how institutions are developing policies that ally with the values and rights of Native Americans. After MSU reorganized its NAGPRA program in 2019 from a department-level endeavor to a single central office, the first task was to draft and formally accept a university NAGPRA policy. This was done with the aid of a NAGPRA Advisory Committee to ensure that a single person was not responsible for all the decision-making. The Advisory Committee includes staff and faculty at MSU, as well as Tribal representatives. One Tribal representative was gracious enough to draft our Care and Treatment plan, which has been our baseline for the care of Ancestors and cultural items. The policy was completed in 2022, and it was subsequently updated in early 2024 to align with the updated regulations (NAGPRA Advisory Committee 2022). Each time, the policy was also shared with Michigan Tribal representatives for additional comment and feedback prior to acceptance.

Our policy has been relatively successful in providing clear guidance and transparency on our NAGPRA process as we have navigated both existing and new cases. This is due to the choice by the Advisory Committee to align the policy with those values and rights described in UNDRIP and with institutional values (as defined in the university’s Strategic Plan and its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Plan). These values have guided our path forward at times when the written policy has been lacking in detail or insufficient for the given situation. For example, these values have guided how we handle cases where Ancestors are dropped off by private citizens to the forensic anthropology laboratory, which was not a circumstance we had initially foreseen.

The Advisory Committee chose to focus on those rights that demonstrated the spirit of NAGPRA, which put the power back in the hands of Native American peoples to make decisions about their own cultural heritage. These are well articulated in UNDRIP, specifically Articles 11–13, which state that Indigenous people have the right to maintain, protect, and develop their cultures and customs in the past, present, and future, including their religious traditions, ceremonial objects, cultural sites, histories, languages, and oral traditions. By further aligning the policy with institutional values, we demonstrated to university leadership that the institution would benefit from such policies as well. As stated in the policy,

This value-based approach to the NAGPRA policy also provides a meaningful route to reconciliation as an action item in coming to terms with MSU’s history and identity as a land-rant institution, something further echoed in the long version of our land acknowledgment (Native American and Indigenous Studies Program).

While the NAGPRA policy was the first and most urgent step, the committee is now working on formulating a broader cultural heritage guideline that will also align with these rights and values and apply them to all cultural heritage collections on campus. It’s been challenging work, both in developing the policies and guidelines and in starting to enforce them. However, communities having access to and control over their own cultural heritage on their terms is necessary; we cannot embrace the spirit of NAGPRA and then ignore others’ cultural heritage. In our situation, a value-based approach to NAGPRA compliance has provided an avenue for reconciliation and broader institutional recognition of the importance of cultural heritage in addition to guiding our implementation of NAGPRA compliance.

How Has Your Institution Approached Consent for Access to and Exhibition of Ancestors and Human Remains Both within and beyond NAGPRA?

Amy Covell-Murthy, Carnegie Museum of Natural History

Under the updated NAGPRA regulations released in 2024, institutions are finding themselves in need of policies concerning access to and exhibition of NAGPRA-related collections. Moreover, for some institutions, the need for such policies is also starting to be extended beyond NAGPRA and to other collections that contain non-Native American Ancestors. The Carnegie Museum of Natural History (CMNH) provides one example of the creation of policies regarding access to and exhibition of human remains that fall both within and outside the purview of NAGPRA legislation and how such policies can ethically engage with individuals, Tribal Nations, and non-Native American Indigenous and descendant communities in decision-making.

In September 2023, CMNH’s board of trustees adopted an appendix to its statement of policies regulating the acquisition, disposition, use, and management of collections. This addition implemented guidelines on the care of and access to all human remains in the museum. The limitations of NAGPRA to federally recognized Tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations inspired CMNH staff to prepare this policy to ensure the equitable treatment of all human remains in their care, both Native American Ancestors and non-Native American Ancestors.

As the archaeology collections manager, I was tasked with writing this policy along with the help of a team of 22 staff members from different departments of the institution to answer relevant questions regarding definitions, full inventories, and the special needs of each collection. Consultation was also carried out with Indigenous advisors before, during, and after the writing process. More specifically, we used knowledge gained from interviews conducted during my master’s capstone thesis to organize and execute the task of writing (Covell-Murthy Reference Covell-Murthy2021). The team worked together to first define what “human remains” means for CMNH. Then, using that definition, which we determined would include casts and reproductions, we completed a full accounting of all human remains (both Native American Ancestors and non-Native American Ancestors) cared for by every section of the institution. The policy was written using the American Alliance of Museums’ (2021) guidelines for writing a collections management policy with the addition of a section regarding exhibition. The final step before board approval and implementation was to get a detailed review by the museum’s legal counsel.

Requests for access to human remains for research at CMNH are now taken on a case-by-case basis. Access is only granted to those given the informed consent of the individual, their closest living relative, representatives of their descendant community, or by ethical stakeholders with intent to repatriate. As Drawson and colleagues (Reference Drawson, Toombs and Mushquash2017) mention, this requires interested researchers to incorporate Indigenous research methods in every step of the process and acknowledge that this may look different for every community. The museum has since given and denied approval for research requests based on this requirement. No research has been proposed on Native American Ancestors since the implementation of the policy.

The policy also requires informed consent before approving the exhibition of human remains. This has impacted CMNH more broadly than the requirements for research access by not only altering existing exhibitions but also limiting what traveling exhibits can be installed in the halls. All human remains were removed from view, which included mummified humans from Egypt and the remains of a person who had spent over 100 years on view in a diorama depicting North Africa. While the policy does not prohibit the viewing of human remains completely, it does reinforce the institution’s commitment to accountability by ensuring that exhibitions are created with community consultation and co-curation in mind.

As James Riding In has noted multiple times, museums function within a colonial framework that prioritizes Western scientific inquiry over Indigenous ways of knowing (Riding In Reference Riding In1996, Reference Riding In2008). For CMNH, this human remains policy is a small step in the direction of rectifying inequities. As staff at CMNH continue to aim above and beyond the minimum requirement by law, they have found that consultation, co-curation, repatriation, and relationship-building are quickly becoming the focus of their research and exhibition goals. This is reshaping this specific institution into a place that can provide a platform for authentic storytelling and community-building by sharing resources and holding itself accountable for its ongoing participation in this oppressive framework.

How Has Your Institution Promoted Indigenous Data Sovereignty in the Management of NAGPRA-Related Data and Documents?

Carey J. Garland, University of Georgia, Laboratory of Archaeology

Institutions need to address how to best manage NAGPRA-related documents and data in a way that is accessible and protects the rights of Tribal Nations and communities. We need to consider how to include data and documents created during the NAGPRA process (e.g., inventories, summaries, reports, consultation documents, etc.) and data on Ancestors and cultural items that are included in archaeological site reports, articles, photographs and slides, maps, and artwork—both physical and digital copies. Increasing attention is being given to data sovereignty, specifically the rights of Indigenous communities to access and control data, and how data can impact Tribal Nations and communities (Nicholson et al. Reference Nicholson, Kansa, Gupta and Fernandez2023; Russo Carrol et al. Reference Carroll, Stephanie, Hudson, Russell and Stall2021). These rights are outlined in UNDRIP, which states that Indigenous people have the right to control data about their culture, history, land, and resources (Russo Carrol et al. Reference Carroll, Stephanie, Hudson, Russell and Stall2021). Krupa and Grimm (Reference Krupa and Grimm2021) make a compelling argument as to why repatriation should include NAGPRA-related documents that contain data, knowledge, and information about Native American culture and histories, especially considering Indigenous rights outlined in UNDRIP. Many state institutions are beginning, or at least should begin, to think about how to include the management of data and documents in their NAGPRA and broader collections management policies (Krupa and Grimm Reference Krupa and Grimm2021; Marsh Reference Marsh2023; Thompson et al. Reference Thompson, Thompson, Garland, Butler, deBeaubien, Panther and Hunt2023).

Here, I discuss how we are managing NAGPRA-related documentations and data at the University of Georgia’s (UGA) Laboratory of Archaeology (hereinafter referred to as the Laboratory) and how these practices were developed through consultation and collaboration with Tribal Nations. One way practitioners have been operationalizing Indigenous data sovereignty is through the integration of the CARE and FAIR Principles (see Nicholson et al. Reference Nicholson, Kansa, Gupta and Fernandez2023; Russo Carrol et al. Reference Carroll, Stephanie, Hudson, Russell and Stall2021). The CARE Principles assert that Indigenous data should lead to positive outcomes through Collective benefit, Authority to control, Responsibility, and Ethics. The FAIR Principles assert that Indigenous data should be Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable (Nicholson et al. Reference Nicholson, Kansa, Gupta and Fernandez2023; Russo Carrol et al. Reference Carroll, Stephanie, Hudson, Russell and Stall2021). Together, these principles give us a starting point to think about how we can ethically archive NAGPRA-related data and documents in such a way that Tribal Nations have access to and control over how the data and documents are being managed and used.

We began to have conversations with our Tribal Nations about data and documents early on in our NAGPRA work at UGA’s Laboratory, specifically regarding access to and the security of documents and data created during the NAGPRA process, as well as those already included in publicly accessible site reports, manuscripts, publications, excavation records, and so forth. Regarding access and security, we developed policies and protocols to make sure that Tribes (1) have secure access to NAGPRA-related documents and (2) have control and input over how publicly accessible documents are managed and used.

I want to highlight a few of our practices regarding data and document management (see Thompson et al. [Reference Thompson, Thompson, Garland, Butler, deBeaubien, Panther and Hunt2023] for more details). First, after these early discussions, we began collaboratively working with a database developer to create a NAGPRA-specific module within our broader collections management database. This database archives all data collected during the NAGPRA process, such as skeletal and object inventories, as well as digital documents such as PDFs and other media related to the collection. Moreover, the database allows us to save, archive, and easily export NAGPRA-related data and files in a secure way to which only Laboratory staff and our Tribal Nations have access. Through consultation, we also started to think about how we manage data and digital resources that are publicly available through the Laboratory’s website. Many of the documents that are publicly available, such as our Lab Series manuscripts, contain images that are viewed as harmful by and to many Native Americans. At the request of our Tribal Nations, all publicly available resources with images of Ancestors and funerary cultural items have been redacted, and the documents contain a warning label at the beginning so that the reader is aware of the images. In fact, we have created redacted versions of all digital resources archived at the Laboratory. This has led to two versions of these documents, a redacted and unredacted version, allowing our Tribal Nations the option to view whichever version they prefer. Additionally, we created a naming system for all archived documents in which NAGPRA-related materials include “restricted,” “sensitive material,” “redacted,” or “unredacted” in the file or folder name.

We also now require researchers to go through a consultation process with our Tribal Nations to conduct research on collections housed at and under the control of UGA’s Laboratory and to access sensitive documents and data. In a required consultation form, which must be approved by our Tribal Nations, researchers must state their research objectives and identify how the proposed research may potentially affect Native Americans, both positively and/or negatively. Many of the federal and state agencies that curate collections at the Laboratory have also adopted these consultation protocols for proposed research on their collections. These practices have not led to the erasure of sensitive images and documents. Instead, these efforts are an attempt to get one step closer to Tribal data sovereignty, by collaboratively creating policies and protocols that protect Native Americans from harm and relinquish to them the authority and control over who has access to NAGPRA-related data and documents and how they are used. These protocols and practices align well with the CARE and FAIR Principles and help fill in a gap in the NAGPRA legislation regarding the repatriation of data and documents.

Collaborative Repatriation and Collections Management Policies at the NMAI

The examples provided above highlight some of the ways that NAGPRA-governed institutions have been approaching the development of repatriation and broader collections management policies. The Smithsonian’s NMAI provides a comparative example to illustrate how an institution that operates outside of the NAGPRA regulations has approached the development of collaborative and transparent repatriation and collections management policies rooted in accountability and responsibility to Native communities whose Ancestors and objects are under their care. The NMAI, which is part of the Smithsonian, was created by Congress in 1989. Its repatriation activities are governed by the same Act that created the museum. The NMAI has developed repatriation and collections management policies that expand on the legislative mandate and are rooted in accountability and responsibility to the communities whose Ancestors and belongings are under the NMAI’s care. As such, they have developed their own pathways to return and collections management that include Tribal and descendant-community collaboration. In this last section, Arbolino and Sieg provide a short history of collaboration and repatriation at the NMAI, with a focus on two recent initiatives: (1) the Shared Stewardship and Ethical Returns (SSER) policy and (2) the implementation of Collections Care (CC) Notices. Both reflect the museum’s long-standing commitment to supporting Native communities and recognizing their rights and relationships to the collections.

How Has the NMAI Expanded the Pathways of Return to Communities and Recognized Tribal Authority in the Care of Collections?

Risa Arbolino and Lauren Sieg, National Museum of the American Indian

The 1989 NMAI Act had two important “firsts”: the first national repatriation legislation in the United States and the first national museum dedicated to the Native peoples of the Americas. The unique history of the NMAI sets it apart from other museums: repatriation was part of the museum’s work from the outset. The law required the inventory and repatriation of culturally affiliated Native American human remains and funerary objects; it was amended in 1996 to include the repatriation of sacred objects, objects of cultural patrimony, and unassociated funerary objects. Through the early leadership of people such as Vine Deloria Jr., Suzan Shown Harjo, and Rick West, the NMAI (National Museum of the American Indian 2022) charted a course as a “museum different” (e.g., Champagne et al. Reference Champagne, Fowler and Gover2011) that recognized the museum’s responsibility to “protect, support, and enhance the development, maintenance, and perpetuation of Native cultures and communities” (e.g., National Museum of the American Indian 2005:77). Consultation, respect for Native perspectives, and a willingness to explore culturally responsive alternatives to traditional museum practices became core principles of the NMAI.

When the NMAI’s building on the National Mall was constructed and its collections (originally the collections of the Museum of the American Indian, Heye Foundation) were moved from New York to the Cultural Resources Center outside Washington, DC, NMAI’s collection practices began to take form. Foundational to all the work at the museum was an ethos based on stewardship rather than ownership. Practices based on stewardship require consultation, and the NMAI consulted with Tribal Nations and communities on many aspects of its work, ranging from building design to exhibits, collections care, and policies (see Rosoff Reference Rosoff1998; West Reference West1994). The NMAI also prioritized collaboration on projects related to a specific community’s belongings. Early in its history, the NMAI established a long-term loan program so that items could return home while the NMAI supported their care. The NMAI now has loans to communities that have lasted decades (e.g., Johnson et al. Reference Johnson, Bernstein and Henry2006:217) and is actively partnering with more communities to expand this work. The NMAI Conservation Department also embraced collaboration and works alongside artists and experts in the community to determine the appropriate approaches to stabilization, repair, mounting, and other aspects of care. These are just two examples of the ways in which the NMAI put its principles into action during the early years of the museum, and we continue to seek additional ways to partner with communities in the care, exhibition, and research of their belongings.

Repatriation was also important from the earliest days of the NMAI’s history. The NMAI held listening sessions across the country where repatriation was repeatedly discussed as a priority for communities. The museum produced a statement on repatriation in 1991, and its early repatriation policy included categories that were not initially covered by the NMAI Act (sacred objects, objects of cultural patrimony, and unassociated funerary objects), so that all the categories of cultural items under NAGPRA were also eligible for repatriation at the NMAI. The NMAI also sought to return the remains of individuals whose cultural affiliation could not be determined and conducted international repatriations for human remains as an extension of its commitment to its constituents outside of the US borders in North, Central, and South America. Our practices continue to grow because of collaborations, changing ethical standards at the Smithsonian, and a wider acceptance of restorative and decolonized museology.

CC Notices

In 2023, the NMAI began to use CC Notices. CC Notices are icons that indicate there are cultural protocols associated with a collection item. They were developed in partnership with Local Contexts (an initiative that supports Indigenous communities across the globe) to create a common iconography for broader categories of cultural concern. They include the following: authorization, belonging, caring, gender awareness, leave undisturbed, safety, viewing, and withholding (see https://localcontexts.org/notices/cc-notices). Unlike the Traditional Knowledge labels developed by Local Contexts, which are assigned by community members, CC Notices are intended to be applied by museum staff. They reflect specific information from a community or staff experience working with communities and are intended to provide guidance on the appropriate care and use of materials within collections.

The use of CC Notices throughout collections is a logical extension of the NMAI’s efforts to record community guidance on the proper care of items (Figure 1). This work began in the 1990s, when information was recorded on handwritten pages. Later, it was typed and organized into binders. However, without reminders that a protocol existed, it was difficult to fully implement the guidance that the NMAI received. Once the collections information system was robust enough to support the data, NMAI staff migrated all the guidance that was provided since the 1990s into the database and linked it to specific object records. The ability to incorporate such information in the database led to discussion of proper terminology. Until recently, efforts to observe such guidance were labeled “Traditional Care.” Conversations about the guidance resulted in a decision that this could not be considered traditional care, because a museum setting is not “traditional” for any community. It was also decided that the information received from communities should not be called “restrictions” because it explains how to care for an item properly, which is more accurately described as guidance or protocols.

Figure 1. Collections Care (CC) Notice example at the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI).

After incorporating the information in the database, the next step was to reflect it in the collections space. Now, with the use of CC Notice icons, there is a visible reminder on the boxes, trays, or shelves that alerts staff to the need to engage with certain items in specific ways. While the icon doesn’t provide those specifics, a quick review of the record in the collections database gives the details. The icons are part of the museum’s accountability to communities, acknowledging that the museum has listened to and incorporated the information it has received about the appropriate access to, and the handling, use, and care of, an item. Compliance with the notices is the responsibility of every staff member and visitor; although it is voluntary, it is understood as obligatory.

Starting as the “museum different,” the NMAI has often been used as an example of how collaborative museum work should be conducted, but any museum, and indeed any policy, needs continued reassessment to remain relevant and effective. To keep pace with the increasingly open discussion of ethics in public forums and a push for increased transparency about past collecting practices prompted by descendant communities, the NMAI (and the broader Smithsonian) has embraced some important course corrections with the SSER and its CC Notices. Ultimately, when discussing the development of policies and the implementation of repatriation practices, it is the museum that writes the policy and makes the decision about returns and shared stewardship; power can only be ceded so far. However, if museums continue to embrace the reality that conversations about ethics are acceptable and necessary, they can also accept what Kathleen Fine-Dare (Reference Fine-Dare2002:173) accurately predicted in her seminal book about repatriation. For museums subject to repatriation legislation, they must expect to remain open to engagement and collaboration with descendant communities in new ways and remain focused on issues of stewardship, not ownership. The fact that 30 years ago it would have been difficult to imagine our current time of disruption and change suggests that more change is inevitable and necessary for this work.

Final Thoughts and Conclusion

As institutions continue to grapple with how to move forward after decades of noncompliance or with the continued holding of Ancestors and cultural items within their collections, there is a growing need for the development and implementation of repatriation and care policies. We argue that these policies should be developed in a truly consultative, transparent, and respectful manner that puts Tribal Nations and communities at the forefront of policy development. To echo Zoë Antoinette Eddy (Reference Eddy, Van Alst and Shield Chief Gover2024:3), museums are haunted by the ghosts of our colonial past and its enduring legacy—repatriation work should not be conducted simply to right this wrong or to get closure but rather to do what is ethically right, including collaborating with Native American communities throughout the entire NAGPRA process. NAGPRA is beginning to be seen as not just a federal law that institutions need to comply with, but a “living relationship” between Tribal Nations and institutions that fall under its purview (Boydston-Schmidt Reference Boydston-Schmidt, Emily and Gover2024:96). Moreover, the development of collaborative repatriation policies has created long-term relationships between institutions and Tribal Nations, which has led to the extension of these policies to broader collections management policies regarding research, curation, and exhibition.

We have highlighted some experiences of practitioners from NAGPRA-governed institutions and the NMAI in the steps that they have taken to build living relationships and create collaborative repatriation and collections management policies for both NAGPRA and non-NAGPRA-eligible collections. We hope that these discussions provide a resource for other institutions that are currently in the process of developing collaborative policies centered on traditional care, curation, and collection management, with the end goal of promoting Tribal sovereignty and multivocal input into the care of their culture and histories. While the development of collaborative repatriation and collections management polices takes a lot of resources and time, especially regarding relationship-building, it is not out of reach for institutions. As the case studies show here, some institutions have been able to develop and move forward with these policies with a one-person NAGPRA team (which is a common structure for many institutions), while other initiatives have taken more staff, financial support, and buy-in from upper administration. The amount of resources needed, of course, varies from institution to institution. However, the most important part of this process starts with reaching out to affiliated Tribal Nations to begin building relationships and earning trust. A path toward collaborative and ethical policy development cannot begin without Tribal engagement and support.