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.

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 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.

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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

Repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects under NAGPRA and the increased use of culturally informed curation practices for sacred, religious, and ceremonial objects are important steps toward restoring control over cultural patrimony to Native Nations in the United States. Many museums holding Indigenous belongings have begun a collaborative care approach involving Indigenous community voices and improving access to collections. However, this framework has not been applied to many animal remains curated in American archaeology museums, which remain broadly beyond the care or administrative purview of Native people. Because many Indigenous worldviews do not hold a clear separation between the human and animal spheres, common practices applied to animal remains are not congruent with the idea of respectful or culturally informed care. Here we outline steps to shift the treatment of animals through the application of Indigenous knowledge to museum collections.

For nearly a decade, there has been recognition of the need for an African American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (AAGPRA) or similar legislation. Experiences from implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) have shed light on challenges that prevent practitioners from achieving the informed, respectful, and expeditious return of remains. Given the likelihood of federal legislation addressing the repatriation of persons of African descent and acknowledging the hurdles that practitioners may face if and when it is passed, we offer a practical model, START, to reorient our understanding of success to recognizing that incremental progress is still forward movement. The model is organized into five stages and is presented with context from NAGPRA, along with suggested steps that practitioners can take at each stage to help build on their success. The START model is a straightforward and practical checklist approach that helps practitioners recognize the victories achieved in small steps that could be hidden or prevented by misguided but well-intentioned attempts at perfection. It is directly applicable to preparation for repatriation but has utility for any curation or collections management context.

In November 1995, the Laboratory of Archaeology at the University of Georgia submitted inventories and summaries of Indigenous ancestors and funerary objects in its holdings to comply with the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). However, after this submission, the Laboratory attempts at consultation with federally recognized descendant Tribal communities who have cultural ties in the state of Georgia were not successful, and NAGPRA-related activities essentially stalled at the Laboratory. Beginning in 2019, the Laboratory's staff recognized a lack of formal NAGPRA policies or standards, which led to a complete reevaluation of the Laboratory's approach to NAGPRA. In essence, it was the Laboratory's renewed engagement with NAGPRA and descendan tribal communities that became the catalyst for change in the Laboratory's philosophy as a curation repository. This shift in thinking set the Laboratory on a path toward building a descendant community–informed institutional integrity (DCIII) level of engagement with consultation and collaborative efforts in all aspects of collections management and archaeological research. In this article, we outline steps that the Laboratory has taken toward implementing meaningful policies and practices created with descendant Tribal communities that both fulfill and extend bounds of NAGPRA compliance.

The hope has long been that the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) would finally bring ancestors and their cultural items home to their communities to be reconnected and rest. However, 30 years later, museums and academics still fear losing control of research and access in their intellectual pursuits. Far from true, museums have benefited in working with tribes in telling stories around their cultural history, present and future. This article shares experiences over the authors’ careers and counters the alarmist calls to arms against compliance with NAGPRA.

The issue of pesticide-contaminated archaeological collections has generated concern among staff in collecting institutions. Pesticides have long been used, but the awareness of their unseen persistence and their potential as a human health hazard is a new aspect of preventive conservation. Background information and guidelines for developing a pesticide history are provided for repositories, museums, cultural resource management companies in the private and public sectors, academia, and other public collections.

There has been—and continues to be—tension between Native peoples and museums in the United States due to past collecting practices and exhibitions that strive to interpret their culture and history without their involvement. Previously, many of these exhibitions stereotyped and lumped Native peoples together, depicting their cultures as static and interpreting them and their material culture from a Western scientific perspective. Changes are being made. Collaboration between Native peoples and museums in all areas of museum work, including exhibitions, is beginning to be considered by many as a best practice. Exhibitions developed in collaboration with Native peoples, with shared curatorial authority, decidedly help ease the historic tension between the two, and they are much more vibrant and accurate than when collaboration is lacking. This article will provide three examples of collaboration, defined with our tribal partners, to develop exhibitions at History Colorado, the state history museum, concluding with lessons learned.

Over the past few years, the lead author has had the opportunity to excavate multiple large sites in California, working on behalf of developers to keep their projects in compliance with their permits. She also worked in conjunction with local tribes to resolve burial issues with each excavation. During these excavations, she observed the challenges that the tribes encountered when dealing with fast-paced cultural resource management (CRM) projects where burial retrieval and a shortage of resources were the norm. For many years, archaeologists have viewed CRM as only dealing with the material culture of the past; however, archaeologists also consult and work with living cultures. This article will address the endemic problem in CRM that stems from a lack of planning, preparation, resources, and training and how it affects the burial excavations that archaeologists and tribes encounter in the CRM setting. It will also look for solutions to remedy a long-broken system that continues to ignore existing laws set in place to protect resources, as well as the relationships between the Native American community, agencies, researchers, and land developers.

This article will show how institutions and cultural values mediate changes in the governance of repatriation policy. By examining ownership paradigms and institutional power structures and analyzing the changing discourses before and after the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, it is possible to understand the ramifications of formalizing repatriation. The current binary of cultural property nationalism/cultural property internationalism in relation to Indigenous ownership claims does not represent the full scope of the conflict for Indigenous people within the Western legal interpretations of property ownership. Inclusion of a cultural property indigenism component into the established cultural property nationalism/internationalism ownership paradigm will more accurately represent Indigenous concerns for cultural property. Looking at the rules, norms, and strategies of national and international laws and museum institutions, this article will argue that there are consequences to repatriation claims that go beyond the possession of property and that a formalized process (or semi-formalized approach) can aid in addressing Indigenous rights.