Three decades after the initial five-year deadline for compliance, federal agencies and museums have once more been called to account for their failure to return Ancestors and cultural items to Tribal Nations under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA). In April 2024 more than 70 practitioners collaborated in forums and paper and poster sessions to produce the first ever “Day of NAGPRA” at the 89th Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology in New Orleans. The overwhelming success of this effort is as clear a barometer as any for the current need in the discipline for more conversation, better resources, increased opportunities, and—above all—the chance at a truly collaborative push for a complete return of all Ancestors and their belongings to their communities. In this article, we set up our thematic issue by introducing readers to the various contributions concerning duty of care, education, and policy implementation inspired and informed by the “Day of NAGPRA.”

The passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990 ushered in a new era in museum and Tribal practices. Faced with new and unprecedented legislative mandates, early NAGPRA practitioners were challenged to put a set of principles and statutory language into practice. Museum and Tribal representatives faced numerous challenges and unexpected barriers to implement the law. In this retrospective, we discuss the reality of implementing NAGPRA between its passage and the inventory deadline in 1995, focusing on four areas: the law, professional archaeological and museological codes of ethics, the state of collections, and capacity to do the work. The substantial accomplishments of the first five years created a foundation for work that continues today. Parallels to contemporary NAGPRA implementation, especially under the 2024 regulations, include tight deadlines, requirements that were not previously contemplated by practitioners, and the changing understanding of what it means to comply with the law. Practitioners will get a better understanding and awareness of their NAGPRA obligations, practices that are respectful of Tribal practitioners’ time demands and priorities, appreciation for the technological capacities available today, the need to support for consultation partners, and the importance of taking time to build empathetic relationships.

In response to stagnated repatriation efforts in the 32 years since the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) became law, a proposed rule to revise implementation regulations was entered into the federal register in October 2022; 181 written comments on the proposed changes were submitted to regulations.gov, representing input from Native nations, the general public, universities, museums, and other individuals and entities engaged in NAGPRA work. Although the comments were publicly available, their quantity and format presented barriers to access. Interested parties could search for and read individual comments, but it was difficult to get an overall impression of demographic or feedback trends among respondents. I undertook a rigorous, independent analysis of the submitted written comments with the goals of (1) providing NAGPRA practitioners with a “snapshot” view of attitudes toward the proposed regulations; (2) considering more closely the responses of NAGPRA stakeholders, in particular Native nations; (3) summarizing the shared and specific concerns of Native respondents; and (4) highlighting the degree to which those concerns were addressed in the issuance of the Final Rule. I hope that this analysis helps focus the lens of NAGPRA praxis in the present moment more squarely on the needs and concerns of the descendant communities most affected by the Act.

The recent increased attention on repatriation efforts and compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) has placed many institutions in the same position—needing internal policies concerning research, exhibition, duty of care, and the eventual repatriation and return of cultural items held within their respective institutions. We argue that these policies should be created and carried out in a truly consultative, transparent, and respectful manner that includes Tribal perspectives and knowledge. Repatriation policies are not one size fits all but rather should reflect the holdings of specific institutions, as well as input from Tribal Nations whose Ancestors and cultural heritage they steward. This article brings together repatriation practitioners from five different institutions who share their experiences in creating collaborative repatriation policies and extending them to non-NAGPRA collections. These practitioners highlight some important considerations for those developing policies on exhibition and research, the care of Ancestors, their cultural items, and associated materials, and eventual repatriation. Our goal is to provide useful examples for those who are currently developing policies centered on repatriation, together with care practices, curation, and collections management.

Since 2018 the Alabama Department of Archives and History (ADAH) has actively engaged in Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) compliance work. During this time, the agency developed new perspectives and policies on NAGPRA and Indigenous collections care through consultation with Tribal partners and participation in the NAGPRA Community of Practice. Based on experiences at the ADAH, the authors identify challenges in implementing culturally sensitive collections care and suggest pathways forward. Topics of discussion include building institutional commitment and capacity, identifying and implementing culturally sensitive practices, stewarding sensitive information, and navigating a variety of stakeholder positions on NAGPRA and repatriation. We conclude that prioritizing the integration of Indigenous perspectives into collections care can positively affect the culture of our workplaces and disciplines at large.

This article examines how Native Nations and institutions have been affected by a new directive in the revised NAGPRA regulations, the duty of care provision (43 CFR 10.1(d)), with a focus on the care of Indigenous Ancestral remains and cultural items. The Native Nation’s perspective is provided by the Osage Nation and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. The South Carolina Institute of Archaeology and Anthropology; the University of Tennessee, Knoxville; the Illinois State Museum; and Indiana University share their viewpoints as institutions that house Indigenous Ancestral remains, cultural items, and archaeological collections and describe the initial impacts of the revised legislation on their programs. There are several key takeaways of its initial effects, including (1) an increased burden to Native Nations, given the substantial uptick in requests for consultation linked to new requirements for consent and the revised definitions of cultural items and research (although the end result of more consultations leading to repatriations is desired), (2) a disconnect between Native Nations and institutions regarding cultural item identification, (3) a strengthening of existing NAGPRA-related institutional policies and procedures, and (4) an emphasis on the importance of consultation between institutions and Native Nations to facilitate repatriation.

The fields of archaeology and museology are working to encourage and enforce research methodologies and policies that center reciprocity and respect among archaeologists, institutions, and Native Nations. This shift in approach is grounded in part by the inclusion of the Duty of Care clause in the revised NAGPRA regulations and partly by a revised awareness of ethical standards. Policy-level changes around research access are the most impactful but can also be the most challenging to initiate. In this article, we address shifts in both institutional research policies and researchers’ approaches and practices that actively incorporate Native perspectives. The framework presented was developed as a complement to the Indigenous Collections Care Guide and is grounded in case studies from three institutions that have changed their research policies. The resulting prompts, tips, examples, and challenges are provided for both researchers and institutions to evaluate research and access practices and how they intersect with Native perspectives. Seeking input and consent from Native Nations adds challenging layers to research, but the depth, quality, and impact of the research and the strengthening of relationships and trust with the communities significantly outweigh the extra time and effort.

Now more than a year into the revised NAGPRA regulations, practitioners are carefully considering how best to respond to the amendments, especially newly added components such as duty of care (§10.1[d]). Because associated records are not a defined category under the Act, however, practitioners have no guidance on how best to move beyond the return of Ancestors and cultural items to the long-term preservation and curation of the records that may remain once repatriation is complete. Since associated records play such a significant role in NAGPRA compliance, and since digitizing archaeological records has become commonplace in repositories across the country, we propose that curatorial facilities adopt a policy prior to digitizing records that contain information pertinent to NAGPRA. Considerations about Indigenous data sovereignty, privacy concerns, and sensitivity of certain themes or types of data should be factored into the decision-making process. This article provides a review of the relevant context and a step-by-step guide to creating a policy for your institution.

Since the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990, university museums and academic units have struggled to accomplish the volume of collections work necessary for compliance with available personnel. Simultaneously, students pursuing collections management careers rarely receive adequate compliance training in classroom settings. Involving students in collections documentation is a possible solution for helping practitioners manage archaeological collections and addressing the NAGPRA education gap; however, there are ethical concerns with including students in NAGPRA teams. In this article, we discuss challenges associated with employing students, the need to consult with Tribal Nations about involving students in NAGPRA projects, and safe ways to incorporate student workers into collections management workflows that support repatriation. Ultimately, we argue that employees with student status can be valuable members of a NAGPRA team when their roles are defined through consultation with Tribal Nation partners. Institutions with archaeological collections provide a unique opportunity to train students in proper procedures for documenting NAGPRA collections, cultural sensitivity, and the decolonization of collections management practices. Involving students in NAGPRA initiatives is an important way to teach the next generation to be respectful, well-rounded, and collaborative archaeologists.

Legacy collections frequently originate from Indigenous archaeological sites with extensive histories of investigation and removal by numerous institutions and individuals. These “split” collections complicate institutional compliance with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA; 25 U.S.C. § 3001-13) , in part by hindering the identification of cultural items, including associated and unassociated funerary objects. In aligning with the spirit of NAGPRA and following guidance received during consultation with Tribal Nations, institutional NAGPRA practitioners strive to repatriate the Ancestors removed from these locations whole, both in body and cultural items, facilitating a respectful return to living communities. Moreover, collaborating across institutions and in coordination with Tribal Nations has the potential both to lessen the burden on Tribal Nations and minimize repetitive trauma brought about by multiple repatriations of Ancestors and cultural items from the same site. Accomplishment of this repatriation goal often requires cross-institutional collaboration to reconcile these legacy “split collections.” In this article, we present the roadmap developed and used by the University of Wisconsin–Oshkosh and the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee for repatriation with split collections, with some considerations for fruitful interinstitutional collaboration.

Digital technologies, including 3D digitization and replication, are increasingly integrated into repatriation-related work by museums and Indigenous communities. Repatriation laws began being adopted in the United States at state level in 1976, followed by federal repatriation laws in 1989 with the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) Act, which applies only to the museums of the Smithsonian Institution, and in 1990 with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Early repatriation, therefore, was in the predigital age, but the use of computers and databases, including digital imaging, email, and file-sharing, has had a significant impact, first with 2D digital technologies and more recently with the incorporation of 3D digitization. These, and the creation of surrogates of archival and object collections, have led to an explosion of information-sharing between museums and Indigenous partners. 2D digitization and 3D digitization and replication, in consultation and collaboration with Indigenous communities, are emerging as important tools alongside repatriation efforts—not in lieu of repatriation but as supplements to mutual interests that go beyond it. Here, the experiences of the Smithsonian’s National Museum of Natural History and others are offered as examples of such new applications of 3D in the context of repatriation and beyond.