1932

Abstract

On November 16, 1990, US President George H.W. Bush signed into law the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). This federal legislation marked the culmination of decades of debate among scientists, curators, and Native American leaders and activists over the control of ancestral human remains and sacred, funerary, and communally owned objects. Anthropologists have now investigated myriad aspects of NAGPRA, from its underlying philosophical arguments; to its legislative history, its legal ramifications and political effects, and the methods of its implementation; to how it has remade American museums, archaeologists, tribes, and federally funded repositories; and to how it has ushered in a new (even if imperfect) period of collaboration and partnership. This article reviews the last 50 years of scholarship on repatriation, with a particular focus on NAGPRA's last 30 years.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-010220-075435
2020-10-21
2024-05-21
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/anthro/49/1/annurev-anthro-010220-075435.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-010220-075435&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Alfonso MP, Powell J. 2007. Ethics of flesh and bone, or ethics in the practice of paleopathology, osteology, and bioarchaeology. Human Remains: Guide for Museums and Academic Institutions V Cassman, N Odegaard, J Powell 5–19 Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Alonzi E. 2016. SAA repatriation survey results. SAA Archaeol. Rec. 16:415–20
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aranui AK. 2018. Te Hokinga Mai O Ngā Tūpuna: Māori perspectives of repatriation and the scientific research of ancestral remains PhD Diss., Victoria Univ. Wellington:
  4. Arnold B, Jeske RJ. 2014. The archaeology of death: mortuary archaeology in the United States and Europe: 1990–2013. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 43:325–46
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Atalay S. 2018. Repatriation and bearing witness. Am. Anthropol. 120:3544–45
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Atalay S. 2019. Braiding strands of wellness: how repatriation contributes to healing through embodied practice and storywork. Public Hist 41:178–89
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Atalay S, Shannon J, Swogger JG 2017. Journeys to complete the work: stories about repatriations and changing the way we bring Native American ancestors home. NAGPRA Comics https://blogs.umass.edu/satalay/repatriation-comic/
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Bardill J. 2014. Native American DNA: ethical, legal, and social implications of an evolving concept. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 43:155–66
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bardill J, Bader AC, Garrison NA, Bolnick DA, Raff JA et al. 2018. Advancing the ethics of paleogenomics. Science 360:6387384–85
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Beckenhauer E. 2003. Redefining race: Can genetic testing provide biological proof of Indian ethnicity. ? Stanford Law Rev 56:1161–90
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Birkhold MH. 2011. Tipping NAGPRA's balancing act: the inequitable disposition of “culturally unidentified” human remains under NAGPRA's new provision. William Mitchell Law Rev 37:42046–96
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Boast R, Enote J. 2013. Virtual repatriation: It is neither virtual nor repatriation. Heritage in the Context of Globalization, Vol. 8 PF Biehl, C Prescott 103–13 Springer Briefs Archaeol New York: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Bradley JW. 2018. Negotiating NAGPRA: rediscovering the human side of science. Glory, Trouble, and Renaissance at the Robert S. Peabody Museum of Archaeology MS Blustain, RJ Wheeler 159–72 Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Bray TL 2001. The Future of the Past: Archaeologists, Native Americans, and Repatriation New York: Garland
  15. Bray TL, Killion TW 1994. Reckoning with the Dead: The Larsen Bay Repatriation and the Smithsonian Institution Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
  16. Breske A. 2018. Politics of repatriation: formalizing Indigenous repatriation policy. Int. J. Cult. Prop. 25:347–73
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Bruchac MM. 2010. Lost and found: NAGPRA, scattered relics, and restorative methodologies. Mus. Anthropol. 33:2137–56
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Bruning SB. 2006. Complex legal legacies: the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, scientific study, and Kennewick Man. Am. Antiq. 71:3501–21
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Burke H, Smith CE, Lippert D, Watkins JE, Zimmerman LJ 2008. Kennewick Man: Perspectives on the Ancient One Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press
  20. Callaway E. 2015. Genome results rekindle legal row: “Kennewick Man” sequencing shows Native American roots. Nature 522:404–5
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Chari S. 2010. Journeys to repatriation: 15 years of NAGPRA grants, 1994–2008. Mus. Anthropol. 33:2210–17
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Chari S, Lavallee JMN 2013. Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act Corvallis: Or. State Univ. Press
  23. Chatters JC. 2001. Ancient Encounters: Kennewick Man and the First Americans New York: Simon & Schuster
  24. Clark GA. 1996. NAGPRA and the demon-haunted world. Soc. Am. Archaeol. Bull. 14:53
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Clark GA. 1999. NAGPRA, science, and the demon-haunted world. Skeptical Inq 23:44–48
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Claw KG, Lippert D, Bardill J, Cordova A, Fox K et al. 2017. Chaco Canyon dig unearths ethical concerns. Hum. Biol. 89:3177–80
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Colwell C. 2014. The sacred and the museum: repatriation and the trajectories of inalienable possessions. Mus. Worlds 2:110–24
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Colwell C. 2015. Curating secrets: repatriation, knowledge flows, and museum power structures. Curr. Anthropol. 56:S12263–75
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Colwell C. 2017. Plundered Skulls and Stolen Spirits: Inside the Fight to Reclaim Native America's Culture Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  30. Colwell C. 2019. Can repatriation heal the wounds of history. ? Public Hist 41:190–110
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Colwell C, Nash SE. 2015. Repatriating human remains in the absence of informed consent. SAA Archaeol. Rec. 15:114–16
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Colwell-Chanthaphonh C. 2012. The work of repatriation in Indian Country. Hum. Organ. 71:3278–91
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Colwell-Chanthaphonh C, Maxson R, Powell J 2011. The repatriation of culturally unidentifiable human remains. Mus. Manag. Curatorship 26:127–43
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Colwell-Chanthaphonh C, Powell J. 2012. Repatriation and constructs of identity. J. Anthropol. Res. 68:2191–222
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Cordell LS, Kintigh KW. 2010. Reply to Schillaci & Bustard. PoLAR 33:2378–83
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Cryne JA. 2010. NAGPRA revisited: a twenty-year review of repatriation efforts. Am. Indian Law Rev. 34:199–122
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Curtis NGW. 2006. Universal museums, museum objects, and repatriation: the tangled stories of things. Mus. Manag. Curatorship 21:2117–217
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Daehnke J, Lonetree A. 2011. Repatriation in the United States: the current state of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Am. Indian Cult. Res. J. 35:187–97
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Dongoske KE. 1996. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: a new beginning, not the end, for osteological analysis—a Hopi perspective. Am. Indian Q. 20:2287–96
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Dongoske KE, Yeatts M, Anyon R, Ferguson TJ 1997. Archaeological cultures and cultural affiliation: Hopi and Zuni perspectives in the American Southwest. Am. Antiq. 62:4600–8
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Downey R. 2000. The Riddle of the Bones: Politics, Science, Race and the Story of Kennewick Man New York: Springer-Verlag
  42. Dumont CW Jr 2011. Contesting scientists’ narrations of NAGPRA's legislative history: rule 10.11 and the recovery of “culturally unidentifiable” ancestors. Wicazo Sa Rev 26:15–41
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Dussias AM. 2005. Kennewick Man, kinship, and the “dying race”: the Ninth Circuit's assimilationist assault on the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Neb. Law Rev. 84:155–161
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Echo-Hawk R. 2010a. The Magic Children: Racial Identity at the End of the Age of Race Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press
  45. Echo-Hawk RC. 2010b. Merciless greetings, wicked servants of the age of archaeoracialism. SAA Archaeol. Rec. 10:321–25
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Echo-Hawk RC. 2011. NAGPRA and the Future of Racial Sovereignties. Seattle: Amazon Digit. Serv.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Echo-Hawk RC, Echo-Hawk WR. 1994. Battlefields and Burial Grounds: The Indian Struggle to Protect Ancestral Graves in the United States Minneapolis: Lerner
  48. Echo-Hawk RC, Zimmerman LJ. 2006. Beyond racism: some opinions about racialism and American archaeology. Am. Indian Q. 30:3,4461–85
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Echo-Hawk W. 1986. Museum rights versus Indian rights: guidelines for assessing competing legal interests in Native cultural resources. N. Y. Univ. Rev. Law Soc. Change 14:437–53
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Edgar HJH, Jolie EA, Powell JF, Watkins JE 2007. Contextual issues in Paleoindian repatriation: Spirit Cave Man as a case study. J. Soc. Archaeol. 7:1101–22
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Erdich HE. 2010. National Monuments. Mus. Anthropol. 33:2249–51
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Ferguson TJ. 2004. Academic, legal, and political contexts of social identity and cultural affiliation research in the Southwest. Identity, Feasting, and the Archaeology of the Greater Southwest edited by BJ Mills 27–41 Boulder: Univ. Press Colo.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Fforde C, Hubert J, Turnbull P 2002. The Dead and Their Possessions: Repatriation in Principle, Policy, and Practice New York: Routledge
  54. Fiedel SJ. 2004. The Kennewick follies: “new” theories about the peopling of the Americas. J. Anthropol. Res. 60:175–110
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Fine-Dare KS. 2002. Grave Injustice: The American Indian Repatriation Movement and NAGPRA Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press
  56. Fox K, Hawks J 2019. Use ancient remains more wisely. Nature 572:581–83
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Garrison NA. 2013. Genomic justice for Native Americans: impact of the Havasupai case on genetic research. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 38:2201–23
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Gonzalez SL, Marek-Martinez O. 2015. NAGPRA and the next generation of collaboration. SAA Archaeol. Rec. 15:111–13
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Graham M, Murphy N. 2010. NAGPRA at 20: museum collections and reconnections. Mus. Anthropol. 33:2105–24
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Hamilton MD. 2009. Adverse reactions: practicing bioarchaeology among the Cherokee. Under the Rattlesnake: Cherokee Health and Resiliency LJ Lefler 29–60 Tuscaloosa: Univ. Ala. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Hanna MG. 2005. The changing legal and ethical context of archaeological practice in Canada, with special reference to the repatriation of human remains. J. Mus. Ethnogr. 17:141–51
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Harding S. 1997. Justifying repatriation of Native American cultural property. Indiana Law J 72:3723–74
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Harms C. 2012. NAGPRA in Colorado: a success story. Univ. Colo. Law Rev. 83:2593–632
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Highet MJ. 2005. Body snatching and grave robbing: bodies for science. Hist. Anthropol. 16:4415–40
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Hill R Sr 1996. Reflections of a Native repatriator. Mending the Circle: A Native American Repatriation Guide B Meister 81–96 New York: Am. Indian Ritual Object Repatr. Found.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Hole B. 2007. Playthings for the foe: the repatriation of human remains in New Zealand. Public Archaeol 6:15–27
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Hollinger RE, John E Jr, Jacobs H, Moran-Collins L, Thome C et al. 2013. Tlingit-Smithsonian collaborations with 3D digitization of cultural objects. Mus. Anthropol. Rev. 7:1–2201–53
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Hurtado D. 1993. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Does It Subject Museums to an Unconstitutional “Taking”. ? Hofstra Property Law J 6:1–83
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Isaac B. 2002. Implementation of NAGPRA: the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard. See Fforde et al. 2002 160–70
  70. Johnson G. 2007. Sacred Claims: Repatriation and Living Tradition Charlottesville: Univ. Va. Press
  71. Jonaitis A. 2017. Tlingit repatriation in museums: ceremonies of sovereignty. Mus. Worlds 5:148–59
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Kakaliouras AM. 2012. An anthropology of repatriation: contemporary physical anthropological and Native American ontologies of practice. Curr. Anthropol. 53:Suppl. 5S210–21
    [Google Scholar]
  73. Kakaliouras AM. 2014. When remains are “lost”: thoughts on collections, repatriation, and research in American physical anthropology. Curator 57:2213–23
    [Google Scholar]
  74. Kelly RL. 2004. Kennewick Man is Native American. SAA Archaeol. Rec. 4:532–37
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Kelsey P, Carpenter CM. 2011. “In the end, our message weighs”: “blood run,” NAGPRA, and American Indian identity. Am. Indian Q. 35:156–74
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Kemp BM, Malhi RS, McDonough J, Bolnick DA, Eshleman JA et al. 2007. Genetic analysis of Early Holocene skeletal remains from Alaska and its implications for the settlement of the Americas. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 132:4605–21
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Kennett D, Plog S, George RJ, Cullerton BJ, Watson AS et al. 2017. Archaeogenomic evidence reveals prehistoric matrilineal dynasty. Nat. Commun. 8:14115
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Killion TW 2008. Opening Archaeology: Repatriation's Impact on Contemporary Research and Practice Santa Fe, NM: Sch. Am. Res. Press
  79. Kintigh KW. 2008. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Encyclopedia of Archaeology DM Pearsall 1657–59 New York: Academic
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Kirsch S. 2011. Science, property, and kinship in repatriation debates. Mus. Anthropol. 34:291–96
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Klesert AL, Powell S. 1993. A perspective on ethics and the reburial controversy. Am. Antiq. 58:2348–54
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Knight E. 2017. Unpacking the museum register: institutional memories of the potlatch collection repatriation. Mus. Worlds 5:135–47
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Krmpotich CA. 2014. The Force of Family: Repatriation, Kinship, and Memory on Haida Gwaii Toronto: Univ. Tor. Press
  84. Kuprecht K. 2012. The concept of “culturally affiliation” in NAGPRA: its potential and limits in the global protection of Indigenous cultural property rights. Int. J. Cult. Prop. 19:133–63
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Leopold R. 2013. Articulating culturally sensitive knowledge online: a Cherokee case study. Mus. Anthropol. Rev. 7:1–285–104
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Liebmann M. 2008. Postcolonial cultural affiliation: essentialism, hybridity, and NAGPRA. Archaeology and the Postcolonial Critique M Liebmann, UZ Rizvi 73–90 Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Liljeblad J. 2017. The Hopi, the katsinam, and the French courts: looking outside the law in the repatriation of Indigenous cultural heritage. Int. J. Herit. Stud. 23:141–51
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Lippert D. 2015. Repatriation and the initial steps taken on common ground. SAA Archaeol. Rec. 15:136–38
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Marquardt WH, Montet-White A, Scholtz SC 1982. Resolving the crisis in archaeological collections curation. Am. Antiq. 47:2409–18
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Marselis R. 2016. On not showing scalps: human remains and multisited debate at the National Museum of Denmark. Mus. Anthropol. 39:120–34
    [Google Scholar]
  91. Mathisen SR. 2017. The three burials of Aslak Hætta and Mons Somby: repatriation narratives and ritual performances. Mus. Worlds 5:122–34
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Matthews M. 2016. Naamiwan's Drum: The Story of a Contested Repatriation of Anishinaabe Artefacts Toronto: Univ. Tor. Press
  93. Mayes AT. 2010. These bones are read: the science and politics of Ancient Native America. Am. Indian Q. 34:2131–56
    [Google Scholar]
  94. McKeown CT. 2002. Implementing a “true compromise”: the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act after ten years. See Fforde et al. 2002 108–32
  95. McKeown CT. 2010. “A willingness to listen to each side”: the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation review committee, 1991–2010. Mus. Anthropol. 33:2218–33
    [Google Scholar]
  96. McKeown CT, Hutt S. 2003. In the smaller scope of conscience: the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act twelve years after. UCLA J. Environ. Law Policy 21:153–212
    [Google Scholar]
  97. McManamon FP. 2002. Repatriation in the USA: a decade of federal agency activities under NAGPRA. See Fforde et al. 2002 133–48
  98. Meighan CW. 1992. Some scholars’ views on reburial. Am. Antiq. 57:4704–10
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Merrill WL, Ladd EJ, Ferguson TJ 1993. The return of the Ahayu:da: lessons for repatriation from Zuni Pueblo and the Smithsonian Institution. Curr. Anthropol. 34:5523–67
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Mihesuah DA. 1996. American Indians, anthropologists, pothunters, and repatriation: ethical, religious, and political differences. Am. Indian Q. 20:2229–37
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Mihesuah DA 2000. Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press
  102. Milun K. 2001. Keeping-while-giving-back: computer imaging and Native American repatriation. PoLAR 24:239–57
    [Google Scholar]
  103. Moreno-Mayar JV, Vinner L, de Barros Damgaard P, de la Fuente C, Chan J et al. 2018. Early human dispersals within the Americas. Science 362:6419eaav2621
    [Google Scholar]
  104. Mountain R. 2017. The future of the past: reclassification of “culturally unidentifiable” human remains under NAGPRA. Ariz. Anthropol. 28:66–75
    [Google Scholar]
  105. Nash SE, Colwell-Chanthaphonh C. 2010. NAGPRA after two decades. Mus. Anthropol. 33:299–104
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Nicholas GP, Welch JR, Goodman A, McGuire RH 2010. Beyond the tangle: repatriation of cultural heritage, bioarchaeological data, and intellectual property. Anthropol. News 51:311–12
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Niesel ZE. 2011. Better late than never? The effect of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act's 2010 regulations. Wake Forest Law Rev 86:837–65
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Noble M. 2015. Beyond 10.11: repatriation of culturally unidentifiable remains from areas unknown. SAA Archaeol. Rec. 15:117–20
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Ousley S. 2010. Comments on Schillaci and Bustard. PoLAR 33:2374–77
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Ousley SD, Billeck WT, Hollinger RE 2005. Federal repatriation legislation and the role of physical anthropology in repatriation. Yearb. Phys. Anthropol. 48:2–32
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Owsley DW, Jantz RL 2014. Kennewick Man: The Scientific Investigation of an Ancient American Skeleton College Station: Tex. A&M Press
  112. Peers L. 2017. The magic of bureaucracy: repatriation as ceremony. Mus. Worlds 5:19–21
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Platt T. 2011. Grave Matters: Excavating California's Buried Past Berkeley, CA: Heyday
  114. Platzman S. 1992. Objects of controversy: the Native American right to repatriation. Am. Univ. Law Rev. 41:517–58
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Poremski KM. 2015. Voicing the bones: Heid Erdrich's poetry and the discourse of NAGPRA. Stud. Am. Indian Lit. 27:11–32
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Powless P, Freiwald C. 2019. The challenges of dealing with human remains in cultural resource management. Adv. Archaeol. Pract. 7:155–59
    [Google Scholar]
  117. Preucel RW. 2011. An archaeology of NAGPRA: conversations with Suzan Shown Harjo. J. Soc. Archaeol. 11:2130–43
    [Google Scholar]
  118. Pullman D. 2018. Bioarchaeology, bioethics, and the Beothuk. Am. Anthropol. 120:111–23
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Putnam JL. 2014. NAGPRA and the Penn Museum: reconciling science and the sacred. Concept 37:1–21
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Rasmussen M, Sikora M, Albrechtsen A, Korneliussen TS, Moreno-Mayar JV et al. 2015. The ancestry and affiliation of Kennewick Man. Nature 523:455–58
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Ray KP. 2016. NAGPRA and its limitations: repatriation of Indigenous cultural heritage. John Marshall Law Sch. Rev. Intellect. Prop. Law 15:472473–85
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Rewolinski D. 2014. Remains to be seen: the disparate disposition of culturally unidentified human remains under NAGPRA's final rule MA Thesis, N. Y. Univ.
  123. Riley AR. 2002. Indian remains, human rights: reconsidering entitlement under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Columbia Hum. Rights Law Rev. 34:49–94
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Roberts JC. 2016. Unwinding non-native control over Native America's past: a statistical analysis of the decisions to return Native American human remains and funerary objects under the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 1992–2013. Univ. Hawaii Law Rev. 38:2337–408
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Rose JC, Green TJ, Green VD 1996. NAGPRA is forever: osteology and the repatriation of skeletons. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 25:81–103
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Rowley S. 2013. The reciprocal research network: the development process. Mus. Anthropol. Rev. 7:1–222–43
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Schillaci MA, Bustard WJ. 2010. Controversy and conflict: NAGPRA and the role of biological anthropology in determining cultural affiliation. PoLAR 33:2352–73
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Seidemann RM. 2010. NAGPRA at 20: What have the states done to expand human remains predictions. ? Mus. Anthropol. 33:2199–209
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Shannon J, Atalay S, Collison JN, Herewini TH, Hollinger E et al. 2017. Ritual processes of repatriation: a discussion. Mus. World 5:188–94
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Smith JA. 2012. NAGPRA at 20: a selective annotated bibliography. Leg. Ref. Serv. Q. 31:11–36
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Sterling RL. 2011. Genetic research among the Havasupai: a cautionary tale. Virtual Mentor 13:2113–17
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Thomas DH. 2000. Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, and the Battle for Native American Identity New York: Basic Books
  133. Thompson RH. 2000. ‘An old and reliable authority’: introduction. J. Southwest 42:2191–95
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Thoms AV. 2015. Of foodways, human remains, and health: NAGPRA as a catalyst for common-ground research. SAA Archaeol. Rec. 15:139–42
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Thornton R. 2002. Repatriation as healing the wounds of the trauma of history: cases of Native Americans in the United States of America. See Fforde et al. 2002 17–24
  136. Travis J. 2010. Honoring his ancestor by studying his DNA. Science 330:6001172
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Tsosie R. 2012. NAGPRA and the problem of “culturally unidentifiable” remains: the argument for a human rights framework. Ariz. State Law J. 44:809–905
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Turner CG. 1986. What is lost with skeletal reburial. Q. Rev. Archaeol. 7:11–3
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Tweedie AM. 2002. Drawing Back Culture: The Makah Struggle for Repatriation Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press
  140. Watkins J. 2002. Artefactual awareness: Spiro Mounds, grave goods and politics. See Fforde et al. 2002 149–59
  141. Watkins J. 2004. Becoming American or becoming Indian? NAGPRA, Kennewick and cultural affiliation. J. Soc. Archaeol. 4:160–80
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Watkins J. 2011. Taking an account of NAGPRA: review of the Government Accounting Office's Report GAO-10–768. Am. Anthropol. 113:2348–49
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Weiss E. 2008. Reburying the Past: The Effects of Repatriation and Reburial on Scientific Inquiry New York: Nova Sci.
  144. Welch JR, Ferguson TJ. 2007. Putting patria back into repatriation: cultural affiliation assessment of White Mountain Apache tribal lands. J. Soc. Archaeol. 7:2171–98
    [Google Scholar]
  145. Wilcox M. 2010. NAGPRA and Indigenous peoples: the social context and controversies, and the transformation of American archaeology. Voices in American Archaeology W Ashmore, D Lippert, BJ Mills 178–92 Washington, DC: Soc. Am. Archaeol. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  146. Wunderlich CS. 2017. Museum sector policy deficit: repatriation from United States museums. Mus. Sch. 1:1 http://articles.themuseumscholar.org/vol1no1wunderlich
    [Google Scholar]
  147. Zimmerman LJ. 2010. Deconstructing Roger Echo-Hawk (sort of). SAA Archaeol. Rec. 10:34–5
    [Google Scholar]
  148. Zimmerman LJ. 2014. Repatriation acts: before NAGPRA. Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology C Smith 6298–303 New York: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Zimmerman LJ, Clinton RN. 1999. Case notes: Kennewick Man and Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act woes. Int. J. Cult. Prop. 8:1212–28
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-anthro-010220-075435
Loading
  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error