The History, Ethics, and Future Considerations of the Native American Graves Protection

and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)

By: Haley Stodart

In 2018, I had to travel to two different countries to see the Greek Parthenon Marbles. I

was studying abroad in Greece at the time, and near the beginning of the semester, I had the

amazing opportunity to visit the new Acropolis Museum in Athens. This state of the art museum

contains the Parthenon sculptures and other artifacts found on the historic rock slopes dating

from the Greek Bronze Age to Roman and Byzantine Greece. However, some of these artifacts

are incomplete or plaster copies of the origins. Lord Elgin, a Scottish lord and fan of Greek

architecture, took some of the original artifacts back to England in 1801.1 Flash forward to my

spring break in 2018, and I was in London visiting a friend who was studying abroad there. We

went to the British Museum. There I saw the original marbles taken by Lord Elgin, most of

which I had only seen in their copied plaster form at the Acropolis Museum. I looked at them,

and I was enraged.

It is unreasonable, in my view, that these artifacts are still in London and not in Athens

where they rightfully belong. The Acropolis Museum was partly built as a response to the British

Museum’s refusal to give the marbles back, to address claims that Greece lacked a suitable

location for the marbles display. The Acropolis Museum and Greece should have the original

marbles, not plaster copies of the country’s own history.2 My friend disagreed; she felt that the

marbles belonged to the British Museum. By her account, the marbles had been taken with

permission, and if they hadn’t been in the world-famous museum, then she would never have had

1
“Lord Elgin - Saviour or Vandal?,” BBC.co.uk, accessed June 21, 2020,
http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/parthenon_debate_01.shtml
2
“Greece Unveils Museum Meant For 'Stolen' Sculptures,” NPR.org, accessed June 20, 2020,
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113889188

1
the opportunity to see them.3 We were not the first to have this argument, and we will by no

means be the last.

The repatriation of cultural artifacts, such as the Parthenon Marbles, throughout the world

has been a prominent discussion among museum professionals for decades. In the United States,

most repatriation claims for museums come from Indigenous peoples, whose ancestral remains

and cultural artifacts have been collected, stolen, and displayed without their consent for

centuries. It has even been said before that at one point in history, the largest Indigenous

graveyard was the Smithsonian Institution.4 That is why in 1989, Congress passed the National

Museum of the American Indian Act to address its largest historical institution, the Smithsonian.

This act not only established the first repatriation process for a museum, but it also founded the

National Museum of the American Indian, a Smithsonian institution dedicated to representing

and supporting Indigenous tribes and culture across the nation. A year later, in 1990, Congress

took repatriation a step further by passing the Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), requiring every museum and historic site receiving federal funds

to return Indigenous remains and artifacts back to the peoples and nations they originated from.

This essay will examine the ethics of the repatriation of cultural artifacts using NAGPRA

as its main case study. It will be structured chronologically, providing necessary background

information before breaking down the actual law itself, and then culminating with practical

analysis on how to handle repatriation moving forward. This concluding analysis argues that in

order for the historical field to be ethical, inclusive, and representative of Indigenous peoples, it

3
During my research for this project, I actually found a comedy sketch about this controversy with the
British Museum. It is quite funny, so I thought I would share in the footnotes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x73PkUvArJY.
4
Andrew Gulliford, Sacred Objects and Sacred Places: Preserving Tribal Traditions (Niwot, Colorado:
University Press of Colorado, 2000), 21.

2
must do the following three things: foster additional consultation and education surrounding

repatriation, change the definitions and perceptions surrounding Indigenous peoples and

NAGPRA, and provide adequate funding and resources to Indigenous tribes and museums.

Corrupt Collecting

Unlike the Parthenon Marbles, which were taken primarily by one individual, Indigenous

remains and cultural artifacts have been collected, stolen, and sold by numerous individuals and

groups across U.S. history, and for various reasons. One of the most prominent groups is early

American archeologists. These individuals claimed that by digging and collecting remains, they

uncovered history and caused progress in their scientific field. They believed that by studying

bones, they could analyze the culture, environment, and other aspects of America’s past. This

argument may seem justified on a surface level, but archeologists specifically disturbed and stole

Indigenous bones; white ancestral remains were left undisturbed, mainly because the

pseudo-scientific results archeologists deemed to find were heavily rooted in racial beliefs.

During the 18th and 19th centuries (and sadly into the 20th), there were theories that attempted

to give scientific merit to the superiority of different races based on the study of skulls.5 This

notion is, of course, completely false, but even well after the scientific community discredited

and abandoned these beliefs, predominantly Indigenous skulls and supposed “scientific results”

5
Scholars such as Charles White used the anthropological study of skeletons to compare various human
skulls (specifically the “Negro,” “American Savage,” and then “European”) with animal skulls, adding in a
hierarchy connected to physical appearance. He correlated “economic development with physical attractiveness,
joining the lengthening lineage to those who considered the leisured white European not only the most advanced
segment of humanity but also ‘the most beautiful of the human race.’” Nell Painter, The History of White People
(New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2010), 69-71.

3
were either kept in the personal collections of archeologists, anthropologists, and businessmen,

or sent to universities and museums for further research and display.6

Universities, museums, and various scientific groups used these remains and artifacts not

only as pawns of racist propaganda, but also to display so-called “American History.” Since the

remains and artifacts were found on what was and is considered U.S. soil, they are therefore part

of the larger story of this land. And yet, the idea that Indigenous artifacts are part of “American

History” is problematic for various reasons. This is the case not only because of their exclusion

and abuse in creating a particular vision of America and its “history,” but also because while

Indigenous peoples sadly represent a small percentage of the current American population, their

remains are the largest percentage of remains collected and held in museums. This discrepancy

demonstrates how “collecting specimens of Indian human anatomy was a racial and racist

preference far in excess of any statistical Indian representation in the American population.” 7

These archeologists and museum professionals became competitive over time in collecting

Indigenous objects, trying to see who could collect the most “Indian bodies or artifacts.”8

Collecting almost became a fashionable hobby with the pursuit of knowledge as its tagline and

cultural cruelty at its essence.9

6
This was continuing as late as 1971, when archeologists working on a highway project in Iowa uncovered
28 skeletons. The 26 that were of European descent were quickly reburied in the hallowed ground of a nearby
cemetery; the two that were of Indigenous descent were sent to the University of Iowa for study. Tom Beal,
“O’odham to rebury bones.” Tuscon.com. Accessed on January 16, 2022.
https://tucson.com/news/oodham-to-rebury-bones/article_f0f2cd07-8d56-56ab-9d22-f49207f8dfb4.html
7
Gulliford, Sacred Objects and Sacred Places, 22.
8
Sangita Chari and Jaime M. N. Lavallee. Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact,
and Future of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. First Peoples (2010), (Corvallis: Oregon
State University Press, 2013), 22.
9
Expressed in a powerful way, Gulliford highlights how “Amateur scientists or philosophers collected
[remains/artifacts] and other relics as one would collect butterflies,” boldly addressing the disrespect and abuse
experienced by Indigenous communities. Gulliford, Sacred Objects and Sacred Places, 16.

4
 In addition to academic and museum collectors, private collectors acquired Indigenous

remains and artifacts as well. Private individuals obtained these objects through grave robbing,

theft, purchase, or fraudulent acts, usually to build up their personal collections or to sell them

off to the highest bidder.10 An example of such action was highlighted by Smithsonian Magazine

as recently as 2019. In their March 4th issue of that year, the magazine highlighted the FBI’s

continued attempts to repatriate the remains and artifacts from a private collection discovered in

2014 in Indiana. This collection was unjustly collected by Don Miller, who had amassed:

“more than 7,000 objects in a collection that ranged in the tens of thousands[…he was]

known among his community for his collections of treasure that he accumulated during

vacation time traveling the world on “archaeological digs,” according to a report by

Indianapolis Star’s Domenica Bongiovanni. To that end, he often invited local residents,

reporters and Boy Scout troops into his home to view his artifacts.”11

Here, it is obvious that this private collector doubled as an amateur archeologist to build his own

collection while disregarding scientific research. However, his public display of such objects

demonstrates how these collections led to the creations of private cabinets of curiosity, which

often became public displays that later turned into museums themselves.12

The Surgeon General and federal policy even sanctioned and encouraged the acquisition

of Indigenous objects in 1867, legally supporting the theft of skulls, remains, and more.

According to public historian, anthropologist, and academic author Chip Colwell, “Over

10
Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert, and Paul Turnbull. The Dead and Their Possessions: Repatriation in
Principle, Policy, and Practice, One World Archaeology; 43, (London; New York: Routledge, 2002), 19.
11
Brigit Katz, “The F.B.I. Is Trying to Return Thousands of Stolen Artifacts, Including Native American
Burial Remains,” Smithsonian Magazine, March 4, 2019,
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/fbi-trying-return-thousands-stolen-artifacts-including-native-america
n-remains-amassed-indiana-collector-180971604/
12
Chari and Lavallee. Accomplishing NAGPRA, 119.

5
decades, thousands of bodies and funerary objects were amassed from battlefields, prisoner

camps, cemeteries, hospitals, and archeological sites–all part of the national project to gather

Indian bodies in the name of scientific progress…[The body] was redefined symbolically,

politically, and scientifically and was seen more as a specimen for observation than as the temple

of the soul.”13 This looting style of acquisition was further encouraged in the early 20th century,

when federal law “defined dead Indians interred on federal lands as ‘archeological resources’

and, contrary to long-standing common law principles, converted these dead persons into

‘federal property.’”14 These federal excavations rarely had tribal communities’ permission, and

even when Indigenous peoples fought the legal system, they found little success in court.

Tourism and public works projects also played a role in the removal and unethical

collection of Indigenous remains and artifacts. The construction of modern amenities and

infrastructure–such as roads, bridges, railways, housing, and commercial developments–caused

many Indigenous graves to be disturbed and removed. Following those public works, one could

increasingly find remains being sold in roadside stands, tourist shops, and stores even into the

late 20th century and modern day. For example, in 1998 the New York Times reported on the

selling of Indigenous artifacts by the store Evolution: Natural History in SoHo. Despite claiming

their legal and ethical acquisition, the store's owner, William Stevens, “sold Seminole and Peoria

Indian remains, including 6 skulls, 10 skull fragments and 1 jawbone, and smuggled a wide

variety of endangered species bones, like gorilla and bald eagle skulls, in violation of Federal

law.”15 This article suggests not only the ways in which tourism or “treasure hunting” have
13
Chip Colwell, Plundered Skulls and Stolen Spirits: Inside the Fight to Reclaim Native America’s Culture
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017), 85-86.
14
Chari and Lavallee. Accomplishing NAGPRA, 23.
15
David Rohde, “A Store Owner Pleads Guilty To Selling Skulls of Indians,” New York Times, March 17,
1998 https://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/17/nyregion/a-store-owner-pleads-guilty-to-selling-skulls-of-indians.html

6
affected the unethical collecting of Indigenous remains and artifacts, but also shows that it is a

continued issue in the United States, despite the existence of laws like NAGPRA.

Finally, the saddest way in which Indigenous remains and artifacts were collected and put

into the hands of those outside the nation was through Indigenous people who gave them away

themselves. They did so, not happily, to aid their impoverished state. The effects of

colonization–including disease, drought, encroachment, and loss of land and health–led many

Indigenous people to enter a state of starvation and desperation. It was not completely

uncommon to hear that an Indigenous individual sold sacred objects to use the money for food

and more.16 Even when objects were sold for less desperate means, those individuals often did

not have the consent of all nation members, and most transactions were unequal, with power in

the hands of the collectors or dealers instead of the Indigenous individuals or groups.17

Respect their Remains

The collection of Indigenous remains and artifacts is disrespectful and unethical for a

plethora of reasons. The main reason is that every culture has a respect for its dead, yet the

reburial (and repatriation at large) question has been widely considered an Indigenous issue, as

there has been the greatest need for returning their remains.18 However, people all over the world

are concerned over the fate of the bodies of their kin or cultural groups. For example, when wars

end, according to prominent researchers Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert, and Paul Turnbull, “the

16
Colwell, Plundered Skulls and Stolen Spirits, 18.
17
Colwell, 162.
18
This is partially because the U.S. is a nation built on colonization. In countries such as this, the beliefs
and practices of the colonized people are often ignored or denied by the colonizers, so the predominantly white
population that descends from English, French, and Spanish colonists don’t have to worry about their ancestors
remains being disturbed within the U.S., but the colonized Indigenous groups do. Fforde, Hubert, and Turnbull, The
Dead and Their Possessions, 2.

7
families of those who were killed often want their bodies brought back to them so that they can

be buried at home and properly mourned.”19 Americans have seen this desire for return happen in

almost every war fought in the country’s history. In 2000 on a visit to Vietnam, Bill Clinton

collected the partial skeletal remains of a member of the American troops killed during the

Vietnam War, so this fallen soldier could be buried at home.20

Back within the borders of the United States, many of the disturbed and stolen

Indigenous remains were found on land that was a previous battlefield between Indigenous

people and colonists or American citizens during the arrival, founding, and expansion of the

United States. A famous and devastating example of stolen battlefield remains is the Sand Creek

massacre. On November 29, 1864, a large group of U.S. soldiers attacked a village of around 750

Cheyenne and Arapaho along Sand Creek in southeastern Colorado Territory. 21 The American

troops drove the Indigenous peoples from their camp and pursued them as they ran, harming and

murdering any they came across. In the end, the U.S. soldiers killed over 200 Indigenous

individuals, predominantly noncombatant women, children, and elderly.22 Afterward, the soldiers

wandered over the field, committing atrocities on the dead, scalping some and taking remains

and artifacts that would later end up in museums. This heinous collecting practice was revealed

by the National Museum of Natural History’s Repatriation Office Case Report Summaries,

which highlighted that Cheyenne and Arapaho tribes made repatriation requests that “called for

the return of human remains collected by the U.S. Army following the massacre of Cheyenne

19
Fforde, Hubert, and Turnbull, 1.
20
Fforde, Hubert, and Turnbull, 1.
21
“Sand Creek Massacre” NPS.gov, accessed on March 16, 2022,
https://www.nps.gov/sand/learn/historyculture/index.htm#:~:text=At%20dawn%20on%20November%2029,people
%20out%20of%20their%20camp.
22
“Sand Creek Massacre” NPS.gov.

8
Indians at Sand Creek, Colorado Territory, November 29, 1864.”23 Those Indigenous remains

belonged to individuals who died defending their homeland and culture from the United States,

just as U.S. soldiers died defending their culture and beliefs abroad. Cressida Fforde, Jane

Hubert, and Paul Turnbull ask the valid questions in their book The Dead and Their Possessions:

Repatriation in Principle, Policy, and Practice: “Are Native American warriors killed in battle

less deserving of an honorable burial than American service men and women who died for the

United States? What would the reaction of American society be if Vietnam refused to return the

skeletal remains of American service men and women killed there? What if they said ‘We want

to keep them and study them. They have much scientific value.’”24

The answers to these questions seem obvious, which is why there are laws in place in the

U.S. to protect the dead. These laws include statutes that regulate cemeteries, prohibit grave

robbing, and demand the proper treatment of remains. However, these statutes refer mainly to

those remains located in official cemeteries; state laws do not protect unmarked graves, which

consist mainly of Indigenous grave sites on which colonialism, industrial development, and

natural overgrowth were built. These laws also “failed to take into account that many tribes were

removed from their historic homelands, leaving behind (involuntarily) their burial grounds.”25

Nevertheless, having one's remains returned is clearly a basic human right, yet it is one that has

been denied to the Indigenous for hundreds of years.

23
“Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History Repatriation Office Case Report
Summaries: Plains Region,” National Museum of Natural History, revised
2020,https://naturalhistory.si.edu/sites/default/files/media/file/case-reports-plains-region-rev2-2020.pdf
24
“Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History Repatriation Office Case Report
Summaries,” 20.
25
Chari and Lavallee. Accomplishing NAGPRA, 20.

9
 However, despite viewing Indigenous burials as less important, many Americans are still

aware that Indigenous burials are sacred, spiritual spaces. Some collectors and archeologists

removed remains with trepidation.26 Even modern pop culture or cinema will place horror

movies in the setting of an “Indian burial ground,” knowing that disturbed remains can cause

disturbed spirits that will affect the living.27 This notion is also acknowledged by the Indigenous

communities themselves, who view the theft and disturbance of their remains as an outcry on a

spiritual level beyond the simple ethical and unjust one. Barbara Mann, an Indigenous scholar,

emphasized in her book Native Americans, Archaeologists, & the Mounds, how in one of her

many repatriation journeys:

“I was reluctant to touch even the styrofoam, because I know that unprotected contact

with human remains brings on illness and subjects me to haunting. Morally, however, I

could not allow Koons to take the entire burden on himself. Therefore, I helped him dig

and bury. The cleansing ritual thereafter did protect me from haunts and death, although I

did come down with a nasty sore throat during my drive back to Toledo that same

evening. Western archeologists scoff as such debilitations as psychosomatic, but Natives

know they are as real as it gets.”28

It is clear, then, that despite these cultural and spiritual understandings, Indigenous remains were

removed anyway, because scientific or historical research outweighed moral and ethical

obligations.29
26
Fforde, Hubert, and Turnbull. The Dead and Their Possessions, 27.
27
Pop Culture has also glorified the removal of such remains as well though. Key figures, such as Indiana
Jones, are esteemed as “skeleton detectives” and treasure hunters who had a sense of intrigue and mysticism to this
atrocious endeavors. Devon Mihesuah, Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? (Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press, 2000), 3.
28
Barbara Alice Mann, “Native Americans, Archaeologists, & the Mounds,” American Indian Studies, v.
14. (New York: P. Lang, 2003): 244
29
Fforde, Hubert, and Turnbull. The Dead and Their Possessions, 27.

10
 Before NAGPRA

One of the most profound attempts to push back against this history of injustice and

corrupt collecting was the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

(NAGPRA).Passed in 1990, it meant to return Indigenous remains and artifacts back to the

peoples and nations to whom they belong. However, it took a long time for Congress to pass this

law. Before NAGPRA, the federal government did not require museums to repatriate items of

cultural importance to Indigenous peoples. However, Indigenous peoples did not wait until the

late 20th century to maintain and defend their cultural identities. Centuries of failed treaties led

many Indigenous peoples to use federal law to their advantage as soon as it was offered to them

through citizenship. Dating back to the 19th century, Indigenous peoples assimilated into

American society through policies such as the Dawes Act, or General Allotment Act of 1887,

which essentially offered citizenship and split up collective reservation land into individually

owned land allotments for Indigenous people. Once land was no longer held by the entire tribe,

white Americans were able to purchase the land from Indigenous individuals–like one would

with other private property–without violating any treaty or federal or state agreements. This act

not only broke up communal and extended kinship land traditions, but it also instilled American

ideals surrounding individual capitalism, and opened the land for eventual purchase and capture

by whites. Furthermore, the act removed collective rights by also granting citizenship only to

those who were born within U.S. territory limits and have adopted the “civilized life” of a citizen

of the United States, and therefore dissolved tribal affiliation.30 However, some Indigenous

peoples in Michigan actually jumped at the opportunity of citizenship through the Dawes Act, so

30
Jeanette Wolfley, “Jim Crow, Indian Style: The Disenfranchisement of Native Americans” American
Indian Law Review 16, no. 1 (1991): 176. https://doi.org/10.2307/20068694.

11
they could gain such allotments and not be removed from their homeland.31 Owning protected,

private property and staying on their homeland allowed them to maintain control over not just

their cultural connection to the land, but the artifacts and remains that were present there as well.

What was considered at the time a win for the U.S. white population was actually a successful

tool for Indigenous groups.

Citizenship tactics were also turned on their head when Indigenous peoples across the

U.S. claimed inherent American rights to fight against dance bans. Working against the

Organization of Indian Affairs (OIA), who claimed that a particular dance called the Sun Dance

“was seen as incompatible with American citizenship,” Native petitioners used a citizenship right

from the Constitution to win their argument: religious freedom.32 If dancing was part of their

religion, then it was an inherent American right to practice such faithful actions. Though

effective, Indigenous groups did not stop there; they continued to use the one thing the U.S. had

utilized as a citizenship tactic before: land. Through the Dawes Act, Indigenous peoples had

acquired land allotments, some of which they were able to maintain as personal, private property.

According to the law, as long as they held the dances on their own allotments, they could not be

stopped.33 Therefore, Indigenous peoples were able to maintain their cultural identity, previously

hindered through years of stolen artifacts and remains, by claiming proper legal action in the

U.S.

31
Theodore Karamanski, “State Citizenship as a Tool of Indian Persistence: A Case Study of the
Anishinaabeg of Michigan.” Michigan Historical Review 37, no. 1 (2011): 119–38.
https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119.
32
Gabriella Treglia, “Using Citizenship to Retain Identity: The Native American Dance Bans of the Later
Assimilation Era, 1900–1933,” Journal of American Studies 47, no. 3 (2013): 782.
33
Treglia, 789.

12
 Even on the topic of repatriation, many Indigenous nations took their own measures

before the implementation of NAGPRA to protect and return their remains and cultural items. A

big push began in the 1960s, when the demand for equal rights to women, African Americans,

and other marginalized groups began. The American Indian Movement arose as well in the

summer of 1968, when Native American activists Dennis Banks, George Mitchell, and Clyde

Bellecourt “gathered hundreds of like-minded individuals in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Armed

with the ultimate goal of forcing the United States to recognize Native American sovereignty” 34

The American Indian Movement group, or the AIM, strove for the recognition of Indigenous

treaties by the U.S. government, and the protection of Native Americans and their liberties

within the nation. In connection with this movement, by the end of the decade, Indigenous

groups such as the AIM were having sit-ins and protests, interrupting archeological digs, and

demanding the return of their nations’ artifacts and remains. 35 Some were successful. For

example, “In 1967 the Iroquois of New York revived efforts from the late 1800s to regain stolen

wampum belts. Protests outside the state capitol led to the “Wampum Bill” in 1971, which

returned the belts on the condition that a museum be built on the Onondaga Reservation to house

them.”36 This repatriation was a rare, successful version of what the British Museum refused to

do. The items are back with their culture and people and will be preserved in a similar fashion to

how they were preserved in federally-funded museums.

However, the idea that Indigenous objects could be returned and preserved by tribal

nations was something that many deemed impossible and still unacceptable, especially in the

34
“American Indian Movement,” accessed on March 16, 2022,
https://digilab.libs.uga.edu/exhibits/exhibits/show/civil-rights-digital-history-p/american-indian-movement
35
Colwell, Plundered Skulls and Stolen Spirits, 76.
36
Colwell, 35.

13
public history field. When rumors of an official law on repatriation first began, archeologists,

museum professionals, and others fought back, hoping to delay the creation of a law such as

NAGPRA. Many archeologists claimed that they helped preserve Indigenous culture by studying

their history through scientific methods and sharing their knowledge with public museums. In

their eyes, “if [they] hadn’t collected so much, then most of Indian material culture would have

been destroyed.”37 Also, any archeologists who didn’t push against NAGPRA were then

excluded within their respective field, usually by colleagues who harassed them and attempted to

discredit their standing in the field.38

Museum professionals also feared that their shelves would be cleared off and exhibits

ruined if they had to return such large portions of their collections. Some even claimed that

repatriated objects would be resold on the black market: according to Chip Colwell, some

museums feared “returned objects would not be properly cherished by [Indigenous]

communities…repatriation would fundamentally undermine the museum’s civic duty to care for

objects held in the public trust.”39 This idea is completely ludicrous. It comes off as a “white

savior complex” and sounds similar to the British Museum’s rhetoric for keeping the Parthenon

Marbles.40 Yet, this idea touches upon one of the most significant points within the debate

37
Colwell, 80.
38
“‘For the high crime of arguing the possibility of ‘different and valid ways of knowing the past,’ for
example, Larry Zimmerman was roundly denounced as a ‘malcontent’ and accused of having gone Indian, which,
apparently, is a bad thing.’” Mann, “Native Americans, Archaeologists, & the Mounds,” 259.
39
Colwell, Plundered Skulls and Stolen Spirits, 106.
40
The “white savior complex” is a common narrative across media in which a white central character (or
characters) rescues/aids non-white characters from unfortunate circumstances. The white character is often portrayed
as a non-traditionalist who courageously risks being ostracized by their more prejudiced community in order to help
a person of color. It perpetuates the idea that non-white individuals need the assistance of white people to progress
or come out successful, and is shown here with museum professional ridiculously claiming that they are the ones
who want to preserve indigenous culture and artifacts for all because the non-white Indigenous are unable to do so
on their own. The British Museum maintains this narrative in the present day, continuing to claim that they will not
return any part of their collection to its rightful culture, people, and home because they are keeping those artifacts to
share a “world history” with all, as if those individual nations and peoples are unable to do so on their own. What

14
surrounding repatriation. Summed up perfectly by Chip Colwell, “Perhaps no other point in the

repatriation debates would so perfectly capture the culture clash between museums and tribes. ‘In

effect,’ one observer noted, ‘the [Indigenous] were entitled to destroy the objects that the

museums had so carefully preserved.’ Or, said another way: the museums felt they were entitled

to preserve what the [Indigenous] had so carefully made to decay.”41 However, despite the desire

to preserve and protect artifacts, I believe that the remains and cultural objects should be

repatriated. To do so effectively and appropriately, additional consultation and education must

occur; definitions and perceptions must be changed; and funding and adequate resources must be

provided.

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)

NAGPRA is a law that is both beneficial and limited in the repatriation process. To

understand it fully, one must first understand its logistics. For starters, when Congress passed

NAGPRA in 1990, the Secretary of the Interior was assigned to enforce the law with assistance

from the National Parks Service. Looking at the law through the governmental perspective of

those who enforce it, NAGPRA, according to the National Parks Service’s official website:

“describes the rights of Native American lineal descendants, Indian tribes, and Native

Hawaiian organizations with respect to the treatment, repatriation, and disposition of

Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural

many professionals misunderstand is that it is not up to them to decide how Indigneous objects should be cherished.
Devotion, concern, and proper use can take many forms, and NAGPRA finally allowed Indigenous peoples to
choose theirs.
41
Colwell, Plundered Skulls and Stolen Spirits, 52-53.

15
 patrimony, referred to collectively in the statute as cultural items, with which they can

show a relationship of lineal descent or cultural affiliation.”42

The National Parks Service website also lists the official regulations of NAGPRA. In particular,

the law requires federal agencies receiving federal funds to do an inventory or catalog of their

native objects and send summaries of these studies to the nations and peoples to whom those

items have a connection. Agencies had an initial deadline of five years to accomplish these tasks.

The law also provides greater protection for native sites and object movement, and requires that

Indigenous tribes be consulted whenever archeological investigations encounter, or are expected

to encounter, cultural items that are unexpectedly discovered on federal or tribal lands.43 When

remains are discovered, it is not required for the agency, museum, lineal descendant, tribe or

nation to establish beyond all doubt which descendant or group is a proper claimant for purposes

of repatriation.44 This statement, however, does not ring true in the eyes of Indigenous peoples.

According to Native News Online, an Indigenous news source that was founded in 2011

with the aim of delivering important daily news that affect the lives of Native Americans

nationwide, NAGPRA is:

“a 1990 federal law that requires all federal agencies and museums receiving federal

funding (excluding the Smithsonian Institution and its affiliates which follow their own

repatriation process) to catalog the Native American remains and cultural items held in

their collections within five years. The law requires museums and agencies to then notify

42
“The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA),” NPS.gov, accessed June
20, 2020, https://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/nagpra.htm
43
“The Regulations.” NPS.gov, accessed on January 18, 2022.
https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/regulations.htm
44
“The Regulations.” NPS.gov.

16
 tribes about their specific holdings affiliated to them, and return them…But a loophole in

the law has allowed the majority of the total human remains cataloged—those without

documented tribal affiliation, deemed “culturally unidentifiable”—to fall through the

cracks. Though museums and agencies still had to report those remains, they haven’t had

to take the initiative to determine if they have a connection to a present-day tribe, and if

they do, return them.”45

Cultural affiliation is a key issue here. If more than one claimant arises for Indigenous

remains or artifacts, then it is obvious and imperative that museums ensure the objects are

repatriated to their proper home and cultural people. However, museums use the multiple

claimant process as a way to delay repatriation and maintain the preservation of collection

pieces, despite the availability of proper knowledge. Melanie O’Brien, national NAGPRA

program manager, highlights this available knowledge when she states, “For most of these

remains, we know where they're from. I think that most tribes have pretty specific territories of

ancestral occupation.”46 These territories may have blurred due to years of displacement of

Indigenous peoples by the United States, but tribal oral traditions could clear up many concerns.

Based on this primary analysis, it is clear that while NAGPRA essentially states that Indigenous

people and tribes have a right to reclaim their ancestral remains, funerary objects, sacred objects,

and objects of cultural patrimony from museums and public history sites receiving federal

assistance, they are also hindered and restricted by institutions that neglect to recognize

Indigenous authority or fulfill the terms of the law to its fullest extent.

45
Jenna Kunzie, “Repatriation Delays A Matter of Priorities, Not Funding, Experts Say,” Native News
Online, January 20, 2022,
https://nativenewsonline.net/sovereignty/repatriation-delays-a-matter-of-priorities-not-funding-experts-say
46
Kunzie, Native News Online, 2022.

17
 In addition to the issue and limitation of cultural affiliation, the Native American Graves

Protection and Repatriation Act meant to address several questions. One major issue of concern

was: Is it ethical for museums to claim ownership of Indigenous artifacts and remains to preserve

both those artifacts/remains and the reputations of a museum collection/public viewing ability?

Did NAGPRA answer this? In a way, yes. By requiring museums to follow statutes around

objects that in the end can be repatriated and disposed of, the law made it clear that it is not

ethical for museums to keep Indigenous artifacts from their people and cultures. But while the

law created a cultural reunion that many would argue is rightfully deserved, there are still

debates and pushback surrounding its enforcement.

NAGPRA: Successes

The law has had tremendous success in certain ways. Because it was a federal mandate,

museums receiving federal funding were forced to go through their collections and discover what

Indigenous remains and artifacts they had. Indigenous scholar and activist Barbara Mann argues,

“By requiring inventories of remains, NAGPRA had archeologists busily dusting off their

collections just to see what they had. Most did not know. Pre-NAGPRA, only 30% of the bones

held in institutions had ever been ‘studied.’”47 Now museums, universities, and public history

sites have scoured their collections to find bones and artifacts, making these objects known to

Indigenous nations and the museums themselves.

By forcing engagement through inventories and notifications, NAGPRA also forced

conversation, consultation, and collaboration to happen. For example, the Library of Congress

had sound recordings of Indigenous chants and dances along with field notes to which tribes

47
Mann, “Native Americans, Archaeologists, & the Mounds,” 68.

18
have since received access due to the law.48 Tribes can learn a good deal about their cultures and

language from these recordings, and “for many Native Americans, language preservation is far

more important than saving buildings or structures because the spoken word and oral tradition

embody the full history of the tribe in stories.”49 Buildings are still helpful though; after hearing

about proper spiritual and cultural values, some museums actually built sacred storage spaces

and established new policies to allow tribal visitors to conduct rituals on property.

Rituals that didn’t happen on museum property were able to occur on the territory of the

Indigenous nations; many remains and artifacts beyond the chant recordings have been

repatriated because of this law, and formal apologies have been issued by museum professionals

and public history institutions. This act alone helps Indigenous groups achieve some form of

closure towards the traumatic events of their history, “a closure that was not possible as long as

human remains and cultural objects associated with these events were held by museums and

other institutions.”50 This feeling of closure is now legally maintained as well, Lindi Trolan, a

member of the Grand Ronde tribes, highlighted through her Tribal Legacy Testimonial. She

stated how NAGPRA “requires consultation with tribes and has penalties for the violation of this

48
“Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990); NAGPRA addresses four different
categories of tangible objects: “associated and unassociated funerary objects”, “sacred objects” and “objects of
cultural patrimony”. There is currently a debate (Nason 1997) whether NAGPRA could be extended to intangibles:
Does a tape with a sacred song fall within the category of “sacred objects”? Could photographs depicting restricted
ceremonial activities be claimed with recourse to NAGPRA? However, at this time there is no clear precedence set
at the level of case law…NAGPRA does not reference archival records or traditional knowledge. Some institutions
have voluntarily, in the spirit of NAGPRA, offered to repatriate culturally sensitive archival materials as sacred
and/or patrimonial objects, including images and recordings.” This is most likely what the Library of Congress
chose to do. Though they are not forced to do so, had NAGPRA not been in place, then this exchange between the
tribe and the Library of Congress may never have happened. Martin Skrydstrup, “Towards Intellectual Property
Guidelines and Best Practices for Recording and Digitizing Intangible Cultural Heritage” A Survey of Codes,
Conduct and Challenges in North America, (World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), 2006),
https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/resources/pdf/skrydstrup_report.pdf
49
Gulliford, Sacred Objects and Sacred Places, 7.
50
Fforde, Hubert, and Turnbull. The Dead and Their Possessions, 22.

19
law…if intentionally disturbed…it's a felony.”51 By making the violation or intentional

disturbance of burial sites a criminal offense, NAGPRA finally provides the legal protection that

Indigenous have been denied for centuries.

The protection has also extended to the remains and artifacts themselves. While many

artifacts have gone back into ritual use or elemental exposure, some have entered organizations

that appease public history professionals’ fears regarding preservation and conservation.

According to historian Andrew Gulliford, “Over 150 tribal museums and cultural centers now

exist, with both simple and elaborate exhibits, public programs, educational programs for

children, and collections of prehistoric and historic materials.”52 Repatriation has (and still is)

fostering continued education and understanding of Indigenous history and material culture. This

process has led many Indigenous nations to gain pride in their tribal roots, find deeper

connections to their culture, and revive certain tribal practices.53 Repatriation not only allows

Indigenous peoples to regain control of their sacred artifacts and ancestral remains, but also can

prompt them to feel whole again.

NAGPRA: Faults

Although the success surrounding NAGPRA should be applauded, the law itself is still

limited in its reach. Lindi Trolan suggests one major limitation in her Tribal Legacy Testimonial:

NAGPRA excludes collections under state jurisdiction and private collections, including private

51
Lindi Trolan, “NAGPRA (1990): Tribal Legacy Testimonials [Transcribed].” LC-TribalLegacy.org.
Accessed on January 16, 2022.
https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.uoregon.edu/dist/5/13162/files/2019/02/NAGPRATestimonials-1ryrbyf.pdf
52
Gulliford, Sacred Objects and Sacred Places, 41.
53
“A younger generation now recognizes elders as tradition bearers, and maintaining culture has become
essential to the health of tribal peoples.” Gulliford, 177.

20
museums.54 Therefore, not only are some remains and artifacts still separated from their

descendants, nation, and culture, but Indigenous communities are not even aware of where or if

these objects are being held. Since private and state collectors are not required to release details

of their inventories, these artifacts still remain out of reach of the Indigenous peoples.

This disconnect with non-federally connected collections is a prominent issue in the

eastern half of the United States. As Barbara Mann argues, “In vast areas of the east…NAGPRA

is elusive, uttering all the right words but only through the gaping holes in its toothless mouth.

The failure of the law in the east rests on three glitches in its structure: 1. NAGPRA deals only

with federal and Native lands; 2. NAGPRA allows archeologists to identify Native cultural

groups; and 3. NAGPRA considers only federally recognized Natives.” 55 There are almost no

federal or tribal lands east of the Mississippi. The majority are privately owned or state owned,

as much of this region was dominated by colonialism’s early measures.56 Therefore, NAGPRA

cannot halt further digging and stealing of remains and/or artifacts that are discovered in that

region. This limitation is detrimental to the repatriation process, as a large portion of federally

recognized Indigenous nations in the U.S. have original homelands in the east, and therefore

have no control over the remains or artifacts of their ancestors found on their native soil.

There are still Indigenous individuals who are part of larger tribal nations in the east.

They refused historic removal to the West and bravely chose to stay on their ancestral homeland,

accomplishing so by hiding and then forming communities.57 However, many are living on land

54
Trolan, “Tribal Legacy Testimonials [Transcribed].” LC-TribalLegacy.org.
55
Mann, “Native Americans, Archaeologists, & the Mounds,” 239.
56
Mann, 240.
57
“Remaining east was no fluke but an anguished, conscious decision that involved considerable personal
danger. It was undertaken by those longhairs who, distrusting the ‘pen-and-ink witchcraft’ of treaty-making, eluded

21
that is not federally dictated as “tribal lands” and the U.S. government actively tried to exclude

them from their western counterparts. This exclusion was accomplished by limiting their

enrollment and severing their legal and cultural ties from their western counterpart by

proclaiming to the public that there were no Indigenous left in the east, and so essentially

creating an environment that is heavily excluded from NAGPRA.58 In this manner, “the U.S.

courts upheld the portrait of the eastern holdouts, not as people heroically clinging to their old

homelands, but as apathetic losers who had willfully ‘separated themselves’ from their

Indianness by living in the eastern states, rather than going to Indian Territory–as though

Removal had been a picnic outing; as though reservations were the natural habitat for Native

American.”59

There are also entire Indigenous tribes in the east and across the nation that are

considered to be unenrolled and/or not recognized by the United States. Indigenous tribes that

are not federally recognized are not protected by NAGPRA; therefore, tribes that are not on the

federal registry are powerless against the removal, theft, and mistreatment of their ancestors and

cultural artifacts.60 While some museums have repatriated items to these individuals and groups

of their own free will, NAGPRA as a law has failed to require them to do so.

NAGPRA also exposed many issues in the public history field. Museums were

confronted with incomplete and inconsistent records after being forced to inventory their

collections. They had (and still have) insufficient staff and equipment and resources to handle the

mission-aires and Indian agents alike, braving death to hide out in the swamps and hills. They risked all to remain in
the land of their ancestors, tending the graves of their grandparents, living in secret for generations.” Mann, 291.
58
Mann, 292-293.
59
Mann, 295.
60
Mann, 280.

22
requests and consultations. As a result, the deadlines set by NAGPRA–made and demanded in

haste due to the outcry of injustice by so many Indigenous and the desire to keep up with the

Smithsonian Institution–were impossible to meet for many museums and Indigenous tribes.

These deadlines also led many museums and public history sites to rush the inventory and

repatriation process, overlooking appropriate procedures and taking little care with objects they

believed would no longer be theirs.61

One such procedure that was rushed and overlooked was the testing for chemicals on the

objects.62 Testing was critical, because it became clear throughout the repatriation process that

museums had contaminated a lot of these remains and objects in the past by using preservation

pesticides. As Andrew Gulliford recalls, “Decades ago, nonnative curators, thinking only of

preserving the objects, sprayed them with insecticide or arsenic compounds to eliminate their

insect infestations, but now those sacred objects are returning to their tribes of origin to be used

in rituals and ceremonies.”63 In the case of the Hopi Tribe, some of these treated objects were

used by religious leaders after their repatriation, and some of the leaders later became ill. One

passed away. Members of the nation attribute the illness and death directly to the pesticides that

were later found to have been applied to the items, especially since those items were stored in the

tribe’s traditional way, which happened to be in the same room as food.64

The Indigenous nations themselves also struggle with the repatriation process for several

reasons beyond collecting and preservation issues. They too have a lack of resources, are

61
Fforde, Hubert, and Turnbull. The Dead and Their Possessions, 140.
62
Chari, Trice, and United States National Park Service, Journeys to Repatriation.
63
Gulliford, Sacred Objects and Sacred Places, 51.
64
Chari and Lavallee. Accomplishing NAGPRA, 278.

23
overwhelmed with paperwork from museums, are short staffed, and lack the facilities to process

the immense flow of formal letters or computer-generated inventories.65 There is also a continued

pushback and a lack of repatriation because many museum professionals and scientists have

trouble accepting oral tradition or folklore as credible evidence in regards to demonstrating

cultural ties, a notion that Indigenous groups still struggle with.66 Commenting on this debate

from the Tohono O’odham nation, Joe Joaquin has dealt with numerous repatriation efforts, and

noted that “he has never understood why archeologists needed to study his ancestor’s bones. ‘If

they want to know how people lived and what they ate, they should ask their descendants’, he

said.”67 Although this debate was revealed in the local Arizona Daily Star, many academics and

public historians still struggle with Indigenous traditional knowledge, and there is a persistent

mistrust surrounding oral tradition. I believe this mistrust is partially an academic system issue,

as scholars are brought up to trust only citable sources, those that can be proven with evidence

(or primary sources). Secondary sources are fine if they have been vetted, edited, and reviewed,

but the possible bias over sources that can be considered “outdated” or “misheard” is hard for

many in the academic field to accept.

This mistrust is also present in Indigenous peoples regarding the idea of repatriation.

Many of the remains and objects currently open to NAGPRA “were obtained from atrocities

committed against Native Americans during the past several hundred years of European

colonialism [which] not only furthers the discomfort but has prevented Native Americans from

fully resolving or coming to terms with the psychological pain produced by events from their

65
Gulliford, Sacred Objects and Sacred Places, 29.
66
Mann, “Native Americans, Archaeologists, & the Mounds,” 272.
67
Beal, “O’odham to rebury bones,” Tuscon.com.

24
history.”68 There is a psychological effect that goes into revisiting these bitter memories and

histories. And yet, Indigenous peoples still wish to reconnect their ancestral remains and artifacts

with their nation, as can be seen by the overwhelming amount of repatriation discussion, action,

and requests happening within Indigenous nations and public history sites.

This practice of repatriation, however, is not easy. Reburials are not part of traditional

culture. There were few, if any, ceremonies originally created to deal with reburial or return of

cultural items, because there was no notion that they would be disturbed in the first place.

However, the remains were disturbed, so Indigenous nations had to create new ceremonies and

reburial practices to attend to the abuse their people and cultural objects have received, as the

Tohono O’odham nation has revealed. When remains are found, “If that happens, the Tohono

O’odham will do what they have already done with thousands of cremated and skeletal remains

dug up in the name of science or in advance of pipelines, freeways and housing developments.

They will bless them and rebury them in ceremonies that Joe Joaquin has a tough time calling

traditional.”69 They had to do so with a lack of land as well, since they are only allotted certain

regions for reservations and have to battle with private owners or state-owned land managers

with the possibility that the reburials could be dug up again if the land is developed in the

future.70

Museums recognize and understand the history of abuse towards Indigenous people in

regard to collecting. However, this understanding often causes museum staff to hesitate in

contacting tribes, partially because museums are understaffed and lack a strong grasp on

68
Fforde, Hubert, and Turnbull. The Dead and Their Possessions, 19.
69
Beal, “O’odham to rebury bones,” Tucson.com.
70
Chari and Lavallee. Accomplishing NAGPRA, 93.

25
NAGPRA, but mainly because they do not want to cause further offense or negative emotions.

Causing further offense is not difficult, because it is up to the museums to deem Indigenous

repatriation claims as acceptable or not through NAGPRA. Lindi Trolan has shown how easy it

is to cause such offense: “we submit our claims to the museum, who then review's it, compares it

to their own information. And if they deem the claim as accessible and comparative to what they

have, then we then go into negotiations.”71 Her statement denotes the continual struggle the

Indigenous face to claim authority over their cultural materials, as it is the museum who

designates whether an item is worthy of repatriation.

Maintaining authority is especially difficult when new remains or artifacts are discovered,

because the law only halts the modern construction project or archeological dig. Projects are not

stopped or moved; there is no stopping progress, only simply removing the “issue” (also known

as Indigenous remains and artifacts), as Valorie Sheker, a Callapooya tribal member, revealed in

her Tribal Legacy Testimonial. 72 This notion was further backed by Indigenous tribes at the

On-Site Tours for the Rosemont Project, which deals with the creation of the Rosemont Copper

Mine on Indigenous ancestral lands in the southwest. These nations argue that even though

consultation is required, “Several members stated that they do not want to talk about nor be a

part of mitigation, as this is an acceptance of defeat, rather than true consultation and

negotiation.”73

71
Trolan, “Tribal Legacy Testimonials [Transcribed].” LC-TribalLegacy.org.
72
Valorie Sheker, “Tribal Legacy Testimonials [Transcribed]” LC-TribalLegacy.org, accessed
on January 16, 2022,
https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.uoregon.edu/dist/5/13162/files/2019/02/NAGPRATestimonials-1ryrbyf.pdf
73
“Notes from the On-Site Tour of the Rosemont Project Area by Representatives from the Four Southern
Tribes.” Fs.usda.gov. Accessed on January 16, 2022.
https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5322625.pdf

26
 Improper funding is one issue that both museums and Indigenous nations face

simultaneously. Museums and Indigenous NAGPRA programs are severely understaffed,

especially smaller museums or tribes who do not have the extra resources or finances to give

NAGPRA the proper attention it deserves. Also, the procedure for a proper examination of

collections, artifacts, and remains is complicated. Putting this examination on the archival

record; engaging in proper consultation; maintaining proper storing; and transporting the objects

for repatriation is extremely expensive and minimally funded.74 So despite the law’s best efforts,

there is still a substantial number of remains and cultural items in museums and federal

repositories in need of proper repatriation, which NAGPRA is failing to handle.

NAGPRA: Moving Forward

Nothing is without its faults, but as the main act connecting Indigenous peoples, culture

and history to museums and public history sites across the nation, the Native American Graves

Protection and Repatriation Act cannot continue in its current state. For the historical field to be

ethical, diverse, inclusive, and representative of the people who make up this nation–as it so

often proclaims to be striving to become–then our actions must match our proclamations. In

regard to NAGPRA, those actions should include: fostering additional consultation and

education; changing the definitions and perceptions surrounding Indigenous peoples and this act;

and providing adequate funding and resources.

Based on my research of secondary sources and primary sources–including current news

articles, Indigenous testimonials, and official NAGPRA law text–there needs to be a push

towards NAGPRA education on an academic and public level. One of the main faults of this law

is that Indigenous communities cannot access collections from private sources. However, few

74
Fforde, Hubert, and Turnbull. The Dead and Their Possessions, 164.

27
people outside of the public history field know about NAGPRA or that there is even a law

surrounding the imperative repatriation of Indigenous remains and artifacts. The sad truth is that

even “as a law concerned in part with America’s heritage and the history of inquiry, relatively

few fora have involved broad-based public education and discussion around NAGPRA’s public

relevance.”75 If NAGPRA were brought to the attention of the larger public, there may be more

private collectors who might be more forthcoming with returning remains and/or sacred objects.

NAGPRA education needs to extend to academic and museum professionals as well.

According to Chip Colwell, although aware of the law, there are still many that need to

understand how, “NAGPRA could be a way of gaining information through collaboration,

instead of only losing information through repatriation.”76 If museums embrace the repatriation

and consultation process, then institutions will change the negative perceptions surrounding the

act and learn more about the history and culture of Indigenous nations than any study of the

skulls or artifacts could ever achieve. Indigenous peoples can also learn more about the public

history process in turn, creating a dual educational opportunity. These benefits have already been

proven throughout the past three decades. Through consultation, museums became aware that

objects needed to be handled in a way that was respectful to the culture of specific nations, and

Indigenous peoples became aware of museums rules, processes, and past actions or storage uses

that may affect the religious use of the object.77 Also, museums need to end the perception that

traditional knowledge or oral history traditions should be discounted over other types of

evidence.78 Failing to do so continues to undermine Indigenous authority and hinders

75
Chari and Lavallee. Accomplishing NAGPRA, 129.
76
Colwell, Plundered Skulls and Stolen Spirits, 114.
77
Colwell, 92.
78
“If this sense continues…museums have room for improvement in receiving and acting on traditional
knowledge and “other expert opinion.” Chari and Lavallee. Accomplishing NAGPRA, 123.

28
relationships from progressing. Therefore additional education, which can lead to more in-depth

consultation and a change in the perceptions, is necessary. Through such measures, Indigenous

groups, museums, and public historians can establish further understanding, share cultural

knowledge, and lead to more positive repatriation.

To aid in this process, the federal government needs to provide additional funding and

resources for NAGPRA and for the Indigenous nations themselves. Although there are grants

available for NAGPRA through the National NAGPRA Grant program, the current grants are not

sufficient or evenly distributed. Administered by the Secretary of the Interior, the grants from the

grant program can go to museums, tribes, and Native Hawaiian organizations to be used for

consultation, documentation projects, and journey’s home for repatriation. They focus on more

meaningful consultation and communication and recognize the rights of Indigenous peoples to

have control of their ancestors and cultural objects, something that has been addressed as an

imperative part of NAGPRA moving forward. However, even though two thirds of the grant

applications come from Indigenous groups, there is an even distribution in the proportion of

grants awarded to museums and Indigenous nations, as revealed by the National Park Service on

their analysis of the program.79 This distribution is an issue; the grants are clearly needed on a

larger scale by the Indigenous nations, and therefore should be allocated in an equitable manner

instead of an equal one.

This imbalance of grant requests and distribution demonstrates that while museums need

help, Indigenous communities need it even more so. Though uncommon, there are some

instances in which objects that are repatriated have been resold on the black market due to the

79
Sangita Chari, Lauren A. Trice, and United States National Park Service. Journeys to Repatriation: 15
Years of NAGPRA Grants (1994-2008). Washington, D.C.: National Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 2009.

29
impoverished condition of many reservations and nations. Indigenous people are continually

unemployed or underemployed, with few opportunities to earn a decent living near or on

reservations, which can lead to selling artifacts for money. Also, Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert,

and Paul Turnbull highlight that “to expect tribes to fund their own repatriation activities, when

the goal of the process is to right the wrongs of past museum and agency actions, add further

insult to injury. Inadequate funding has adversely affected all aspects of repatriation.”80 There

needs to be legislated funding opportunities to aid the reservation communities and the

NAGPRA process.

This funding should come from the federal government, preferably allocated through a

redistribution from other areas, such as military spending. Since military actions caused

significant portions of unjust collecting, this funding solution seems like an appropriate way to

amend for past atrocities. These funds should be distributed to the National Parks Service, who

will then allocate the funds between Indigenous tribal governments or representatives for the

specific use of repatriation and its associated actions, such as research, transfer, storage, and

NAGPRA employee salaries. This funding should also be awarded to nations and Indigenous

groups in the east or those unenrolled. Also needed is an expansion of federally recognized tribes

or an amendment that forces the repatriation of remains or cultural objects to non-recognized

tribes, at least if connection is proven through the same parameters that recognized tribes must

go through. There needs to be support for all Indigenous nations; they are on this land and their

remains and artifacts deserve the same respect as those located in cemeteries across the United

States.

80
Fforde, Hubert, and Turnbull. The Dead and Their Possessions:, 197.

30
 This respect could be shown best in the museum and public history field by hiring

Indigenous consultants, curators, educators and more. No one knows their histories and culture,

and the history and culture of our nation, better than those related, connected, and devoted to the

first people who lived on the land we call America. They can share their knowledge through

educational programming that is created and guided by Indigenous craftsmen, leaders, and

citizens. This final and crucial notion is all related to being more inclusive and representative

within the public history field at large. So many marginalized communities are excluded from the

opportunity to represent themselves, and Indigenous have had this issue for centuries. If

museums and public history sites not only provide these opportunities, but support Indigenous in

making their own decisions as to how and where their history and culture is shared, then we will

truly reach the respect and recognition that the Native American Graves Protection and

Repatriation Act was made to uphold.

31
 Bibliography
“American Indian Movement.” Accessed March 16, 2022.

https://digilab.libs.uga.edu/exhibits/exhibits/show/civil-rights-digital-history-p/american-i
ndian-movement

Beal, Tom. “O’odham to rebury bones.” Tuscon.com. Accessed January 16, 2022.

https://tucson.com/news/oodham-to-rebury-bones/article_f0f2cd07-8d56-56ab-9d22-f492
07f8dfb4.html

Chari, Sangita and Jaime M. N. Lavallee. Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent,

Impact, and Future of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. First
Peoples (2010). Corvallis: Oregon State University Press, 2013.

Chari, Sangita, Lauren A. Trice, and United States National Park Service. Journeys to

Repatriation: 15 Years of NAGPRA Grants (1994-2008). Washington, D.C.: National

Park Service, U.S. Dept. of the Interior, 2009.

Colwell, Chip. Plundered Skulls and Stolen Spirits: Inside the Fight to Reclaim Native

America’s Culture. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2017.

Fforde, Cressida, Jane Hubert, and Paul Turnbull. The Dead and Their Possessions:

Repatriation in Principle, Policy, and Practice. One World Archaeology; 43. London;
New York: Routledge, 2002.

Gulliford, Andrew. Sacred Objects and Sacred Places: Preserving Tribal Traditions. Niwot,

Colorado: University Press of Colorado, 2000.

“Greece Unveils Museum Meant For 'Stolen' Sculptures.” NPR.org. Accessed June 20, 2020.
https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113889188

Karamanski, Theodore J. “State Citizenship as a Tool of Indian Persistence: A Case Study of the

Anishinaabeg of Michigan.” Michigan Historical Review 37, no. 1 (2011): 119–38.

https://doi.org/10.5342/michhistrevi.37.1.0119.

Katz, Brigit. “The F.B.I. Is Trying to Return Thousands of Stolen Artifacts, Including Native

32
 American Burial Remains.” Smithsonian Magazine. March 4, 2019.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/fbi-trying-return-thousands-stolen-artifacts
-including-native-american-remains-amassed-indiana-collector-180971604/

Kunzie, Jenna. “Repatriation Delays A Matter of Priorities, Not Funding, Experts Say.” Native

News Online. January 20, 2022.

https://nativenewsonline.net/sovereignty/repatriation-delays-a-matter-of-priorities-not-fun
ding-experts-say

“Lord Elgin - Saviour or Vandal?.” BBC.co.uk. Accessed June 21, 2020.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/ancient/greeks/parthenon_debate_01.shtml

Mann, Barbara Alice. “Native Americans, Archaeologists, & the Mounds.” American Indian

Studies, v. 14. New York: P. Lang, 2003.

Mihesuah, Devon A. Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? Lincoln:

University of Nebraska Press, 2000.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: After Almost 20 Years, Key Federal

Agencies Still Have Not Fully Complied with Act: Report to Congressional Requesters.
Washington, D.C.]: U.S. Govt. Accountability Office, 2010.

“Notes from the On-Site Tour of the Rosemont Project Area by Representatives from the Four

Southern Tribes.” Fs.usda.gov. Accessed January 16, 2022.

https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5322625.pdf

Painter, Nell. The History of White People. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2010.

Rohde, David. “A Store Owner Pleads Guilty To Selling Skulls of Indians,” New York Times.

March 17, 1998.

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/17/nyregion/a-store-owner-pleads-guilty-to-selling-sk
ulls-of-indians.html

“Sand Creek Massacre.” NPS.gov. Accessed March 16, 2022.

https://www.nps.gov/sand/learn/historyculture/index.htm#:~:text=At%20dawn%20on%2
0November%2029,people%20out%20of%20their%20camp.

Sheker, Valorie. “Tribal Legacy Testimonials [Transcribed].” LC-TribalLegacy.org. Accessed

33
 January 16, 2022.
https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.uoregon.edu/dist/5/13162/files/2019/02/NAGPRA
Testimonials-1ryrbyf.pdf

Skrydstrup, Martin. “Towards Intellectual Property Guidelines and Best Practices for Recording

and Digitizing Intangible Cultural Heritage” A Survey of Codes, Conduct and Challenges
in North America. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), 2006.
https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/resources/pdf/skrydstrup_report.pdf

“Smithsonian Institution, National Museum of Natural History Repatriation Office Case Report

Summaries: Plains Region.” National Museum of Natural History. Revised 2020.

https://naturalhistory.si.edu/sites/default/files/media/file/case-reports-plains-region-rev2-2
020.pdf

“The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA).” National Parks

Service.org. Accessed June 20, 2020.

https://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/nagpra.htm

“The Regulations.” NPS.gov. Accessed January 18, 2022.

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/regulations.htm

Treglia, Gabriella. “Using Citizenship to Retain Identity: The Native American Dance Bans of

the Later Assimilation Era, 1900–1933.” Journal of American Studies 47, no. 3 (2013):
777–800. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24485840.

Trolan, Lindi. “NAGPRA (1990): Tribal Legacy Testimonials [Transcribed].”

LC-TribalLegacy.org. Accessed January 16, 2022.

https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/blogs.uoregon.edu/dist/5/13162/files/2019/02/NAGPRA
Testimonials-1ryrbyf.pdf

Wolfley, Jeanette. “Jim Crow, Indian Style: The Disenfranchisement of Native Americans.”

American Indian Law Review 16, no. 1 (1991): 167–202.

https://doi.org/10.2307/20068694.

34