Creating a new future: Redeveloping the tribal-museum relationship in the time of NAGPRA

Desiree Martinez,Dorothy Lippert,Wendy Giddens Teeter

doi:10.1017/s0940739121000242

Abstract

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

Highlights

Since the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990, many Native American, Native Hawaiian, and Alaska Native community members thought that their ancestors and their cultural items would be removed from museum shelves and returned to their communities for reburial under the force of law
Creating NAGPRA inventories requires knowing what research and analysis has been previously completed, their results, and what has happened to the samples as well as if they were sent to another institution for specialized research
When co-author Wendy Teeter was hired to assist with the compliance of NAGPRA at University of California Los Angeles (UCLA), the archaeology collections were stored on old wooden trays, objects were directly inked with a catalog code, and hand-written field catalogs were the only reference to where objects came from and where they were stored within the museum

Summary

Acknowledgment of subpar curation standards

NAGPRA charged museums and other institutions that received federal funds to create inventories and summaries of human remains and NAGPRA-eligible items (funerary objects, objects of cultural patrimony, and sacred items) under their control As these inventories and summaries were completed, the subpar conditions of archaeological collections were exposed, most remaining in their original disintegrating paper bags. The condition of academically excavated material continued to lag behind CRM objects unless the repositories demanded these minimal curatorial standards prior to accessioning into their collections. Otherwise, it was often only well-staffed and funded museums that could re-catalog and safely re-house older collections and appropriately register the associated documentation.. Using existing museum collections to answer research questions, let alone asking permission and collaborating with the affiliated descendent community prior to engaging with the material was almost never considered an option

Discovery of missing provenance and provenience of collections

Renewed interest in research potential of collections

Exploring the impacts of repatriation to tribal communities and beyond

Findings

Conclusion