The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA; United States Code 1990) was a radical break from the status quo in archaeological and museum practices, introducing a new set of legal responsibilities for the identification and repatriation of Native American Ancestors and cultural items. NAGPRA applied to Indian Tribes, including Alaska Native villages and Native Hawaiian Organizations (collectively referred to as “Tribes” in this article), as well as federal agencies and institutions that receive federal funds, including museums, universities, state agencies, and other organizations (collectively referred to as “museums” in this article). These parties faced new and completely unfamiliar responsibilities. The professional standards, capacity to do the work, and state of collections were not aligned with NAGPRA, creating numerous challenges and unexpected barriers as the first generation of practitioners worked to implement this new law. The statutory deadlines necessitated that solutions be developed quickly.
Here, we review the work conducted between 1990 and 1995 to comply with the summary and inventory provisions of the law. Much of the published literature about the early years of NAGPRA focused on important legal, epistemological, and ethical dimensions of NAGPRA (e.g., Mihesuah Reference Mihesuah2000; Trope and Echo-Hawk Reference Trope, Echo-Hawk and Devon2000; Tsosie Reference Tsosie1999). Less attention has been given to the substantial work on inventories and summaries that was accomplished to meet the deadlines and requirements established in the law. This work was shaped by the law and its interpretation; professional ethics and practices at the time; the state of collections when NAGPRA was passed; and the capacity that Tribes, museums, federal agencies, and the Department of the Interior (DOI) had to do the work. We argue that this early work created the foundation for ongoing NAGPRA efforts. These include the inventories and summaries that were generated and the cataloging of collections and records that they required; working with professional codes that needed updating to reflect a new responsibility and work ethic; capacity-building in terms of staff, funding, and processes; and the opening of a dialogue between museums, federal agencies, and Tribes.
While most of the work discussed in this thematic issue of Advances in Archaeological Practice is recent, this article is intentionally focused on past work to contextualize current NAGPRA practices and needs. There are striking parallels between the early years of NAGPRA work and ongoing work under the 2024 regulations (Department of the Interior [DOI] 2024), such as tight deadlines, requirements that were not previously contemplated by practitioners, and the changing understanding of what it means to comply with the law. The implementation work of the early 1990s provides a framework for solving these problems by demonstrating that the work can get done, although it often has its own timeline that is not anticipated by the law or regulations; that people can build the capacity for work, especially if given resources; and that the development of relationships is key to successful NAGPRA compliance, as well as successful museum and curation work in general. By understanding the foundations that were established in the early years, current practitioners can take advantage of an existing set of best practices and avoid past mistakes.
The Law and Its Interpretations
When NAGPRA was passed, there was no federal precedent and few state or institutional precedents. Only four states (Arizona, Hawaii, Kansas, and Nebraska) had reburial laws (Trope and Echo-Hawk Reference Trope and Echo-Hawk1992:53), and just a small number of museums had policies regarding the display or repatriation of human remains (Boyd and Haas Reference Boyd and Haas1992:253). In fact, some museums and state institutions had policies that legally restricted the ability to deaccession collections, a problem that was discussed at the very first meeting of the NAGPRA Review Committee (NAGPRA Review Committee 1992a:13).
NAGPRA required promulgations of regulations by November 16, 1991. The deadline proved impracticable, because the regulations could not be completed without participation by the NAGPRA Review Committee, yet funds to establish the committee were not available until October 1991. After much discussion, public comment, and revision, the final regulations (DOI 1995) went into effect on January 3, 1996, more than three years after the deadline for summaries (November 16, 1993) and nearly two months after the deadline for inventories (November 16, 1995; McKeown Reference McKeown, Chari and Lavallee2013). Minutes of the NAGPRA Review Committee provide information on reasons for the delay, including a government-wide moratorium on new regulations, insufficient funding, ambiguities in the law, and lengthy draft reviews (e.g., NAGPRA Review Committee 1992a:3, 1995a:5).
In the interim, the National Park Service provided preliminary interpretations of the law in a memo that was circulated within the DOI. The memo cautioned that “the exact means of implementing the statute must await formal regulations developed using the public review process” (National Park Service 1991:1). The guidance included discussion of key terms related to inventories and summaries (Table 1). The definitions of these terms were reiterated in a publication in the Arizona State Law Review (McManamon and Nordby Reference McManamon and Nordby1992) and used in the initial draft of the regulations. They reflect the level of uncertainty about the law, including what it meant to receive “federal funds,” what should be included in a summary, what types of information and documents must be submitted to the DOI, the definition of human remains, and which Tribes had standing under the Act. Minutes of the 1992 and 1993 Review Committee reflect additional uncertainty over the determination of cultural affiliation (e.g., NAGPRA Review Committee minutes 1992b:7–12, 1993a:5–9, 13).
Interpretations of NAGPRA.
In 1993, after the Review Committee recommended that the Department Consulting Archaeologist (DCA) provide interim guidance to museums and agencies, a new document was created to assist with implementation of the Act. It provided more details on inventories, summaries, and key terms. However, the guidance also made clear that “museums and Federal agencies may wish to consider these processes in any repatriation actions they take prior to promulgation of the required regulations, but this document does not have the force and effect of a regulation and is not legally binding on any museum or Federal agency” (National Park Service 1993:2). The guidance was distributed to more than 1,200 museums, federal agencies, and Tribes (NAGPRA Review Committee 1993b:5).
The lack of regulations meant that NAGPRA practitioners had to rely on the law as the roadmap for the work. The statute provided definitions for most terms, and laid out a process for summaries and inventories in a stepwise progression. For clarification of the law, practitioners could turn to the Congressional reports that accompanied NAGPRA’s passage (US House of Representatives 1990; US Senate 1990). These reports clarified various definitions and requirements in the law, such as the definitions for sacred objects and the types of information that can be used to determine cultural affiliation. However, neither report discussed the definition of human remains. The background section of the House report (US House of Representatives 1990) attributed the presence of Native American human remains and funerary objects in museums to the looting of Native American burial sites and the Army Surgeon General’s 1868 order for the collection of Native American skeletons for scientific inquiry (Bieder Reference Bieder1990; Juzda Reference Juzda2009), suggesting that the House intended to address the repatriation of human remains removed from burial sites, recent graves, or during military actions. This language aligns with the bill’s title, and the relation between burial sites and human remains is discussed in the 1991 guidance. During the drafting of regulations, reference to burial locations was removed, and the definition was modified to address concerns about whether or not human remains incorporated into an object should be considered human remains and reported in an inventory.
Without regulations in place, binding court decisions interpreting the law, or precedents, NAGPRA practitioners had a limited basis on which to understand and comply with the law. Each museum, agency, and Tribe could interpret the law differently (NAGPRA Review Committee 1992c:12, 1995a:5). Nonetheless, they worked in good faith to complete the required summaries and inventories, publish notices, and begin repatriations (e.g., NAGPRA Review Committee 1993b, 1995a). By November 16, 1993, 525 museums and agencies had submitted summaries. Over 100 more were received within another year; some may have been completed by the deadline but not provided to the DOI because it was not required by law (Chari and Lavallee Reference Chari, Lavallee, Chari and Lavallee2013:10; NAGPRA Review Committee 1994a:3). By November 16, 1995, a total of 599 museums and federal agencies had submitted inventories. An additional 56 museums were granted extensions. However, it remains unclear how many museums should have reported collections but did not. Additionally, there were many federal agencies with large collections that did not submit inventories by the deadline, a fact that was quickly realized by the Review Committee (NAGPRA Review Committee 1996a) and later detailed in a Government Accountability Office (2010) report.
A key indicator of success can be found in the congressional reports of the NAGPRA Review Committee, which was tasked with monitoring the inventory process. These reports consistently noted that most museums acted in good faith to comply with NAGPRA’s requirements. This was recognized in the first report to Congress and repeated in subsequent reports (NAGPRA Review Committee 1993b, 1995a, 1998). Another important measure of NAGPRA’s early accomplishments lies in the stories of successful repatriations. Newspaper articles, conference presentations, and scholarly publications provide numerous examples of these successes and the progress made under the Act (e.g., Robbins Reference Robbins1999; West et al. Reference West, Lomawaima, Harjo, McKeown and Isaac2000; Yellowman Reference Yellowman1996).
In addition to the foundations established by the early consultations, summaries, inventories, and notices, the legislation itself established important principles. First, the law recognized the rights of Native Americans to the remains of their Ancestors, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. At the urging of Native people involved in its drafting, the law also provided a vocabulary that differed from standard archaeological terms—for example, “human remains” rather than “skeletons,” or “funerary objects” rather than “grave goods” (West et al. Reference West, Lomawaima, Harjo, McKeown and Isaac2000:45). It also introduced a new requirement to museum and collections work: consultation.
While a great deal was accomplished by the early NAGPRA practitioners, there were difficulties that had not been resolved by the end of 1995. Many of these continue to present barriers to implementation, such as a lack of adequate support and how to include Tribes without federal recognition. Additionally, the disposition of culturally unaffiliated human remains and associated funerary objects had yet to be addressed. The Review Committee advocated an approach that would first seek to reduce the number of human remains and associated funerary objects that were included on the culturally unaffiliated list. They proposed a disposition process that was centered on regional consortia of Tribes (e.g., NAGPRA Review Committee 1995b:9–10, 1995c:9), but regulations for disposition were reserved for future promulgation when the final regulations were published in December 1995. Another 15 years passed before they were finalized.
There are also important lessons learned during the early years of NAGPRA implementation. First, the process would take time, regardless of the statutory deadlines. As Trope and Echo-Hawk (Reference Trope and Echo-Hawk1992:37) explained, “A lengthy implementation period can be expected for this human rights legislation. . . . Human rights laws that seek to alleviate widespread civil rights violations usually take a long time to implement.” The requirement to meet deadlines meant that practitioners had to submit whatever information they had, even if it had not been thoroughly checked or if there had not been sufficient opportunities for meaningful consultation. It was expected that more consultation, work, and time would lead to the identification of more cultural affiliations (e.g., NAGPRA Review Committee 1995c:3–6). The varying interpretations of the law underscored the need for a set of regulations that provided clear, consistent guidelines and a common understanding of the law to prevent frustration, confusion, and misunderstandings that would undermine trust. Furthermore, the consultation process demonstrated the critical importance of relationship-building, which requires time and transparent communication, and cannot be rushed or based on incomplete information.
The Ethical Framework
Museums play a role in society that is grounded in the values that society holds. Those values are reflected in the ethics of museum organization and practice in the areas of curation, preservation, public programing, and education. In the 1990s, museum ethics were deeply rooted in a commitment to public service, with institutions focused on collecting, preserving, and interpreting the world’s diverse cultural and natural heritage (American Association of Museums 1994). Museums aimed to serve society not only by safeguarding cultural objects but also by promoting an informed appreciation of those objects through educational programming. Their role was to foster a deeper understanding of the world and to preserve this knowledge for future generations. Scholarship guided exhibitions, publications, and educational activities, ensuring that museum work maintained credibility and accuracy. There was a long-standing presumption that museums had rightful ownership of their collections. The stewardship of those collections was viewed as a profound public trust, with management of them focused on preservation, documentation, and accessibility that aligned with the institution’s mission and public responsibilities (American Association of Museums 1984). The passage of NAGPRA forced museums to rethink their focus on scholarship and fiduciary trust, issues that quickly came before the NAGPRA Review Committee (e.g., NAGPRA Review Committee 1993a:4).
The evolution of ethical standards for museums reflects shifting societal values and the growing complexity of museum operations (see Table 2 for a comparison of ethical codes). Museums have become more responsive, representing diverse perspectives and updating ethical principles. In 2000, the American Association of Museums revised its code of ethics, incorporating changes primarily related to human remains, funerary objects, sacred items, and the growing number of competing ownership claims (American Association of Museums 2000). The updated code emphasized that decisions regarding these sensitive matters should be handled with openness, seriousness, and respect for the dignity of all parties. Acknowledging the special nature of human remains and sacred objects in decisions became important. Consideration of the voices and needs of the communities from which these objects originated—ranging from Indigenous groups to other ethnic, religious, and community groups—was regarded (Association of Registrars and Collections Specialists 2021). The stewardship of collections remained a fundamental responsibility. Ethical acquisition and disposal practices were paramount in navigating the delicate issues surrounding repatriation and restitution, underscoring the importance of integrity and care in museum work.
Museum and Archaeological Ethics.
The Society for American Archaeology (SAA) established ethical guidelines in 1961 to address key issues in the field, including methods, ethics, and training in archaeology. These early ethics emphasized the importance of making collections available to qualified scholars, the responsibility of archaeologists to report their findings, the prohibition of buying and selling artifacts, and the need for landowner consent before excavating a site being studied by others (Society for American Archaeology [SAA] 1961). In 1991, the SAA initiated a review of these guidelines, leading to the creation of the SAA Principles of Archaeological Ethics in 1996. This updated framework focused on the responsibility of stewardship, stressing the importance of accountability, preventing commercialization, promoting public education and outreach, respecting intellectual property, ensuring proper reporting and publication, and maintaining the preservation of archaeological records. The overarching goal was to protect the archaeological record rather than building relationships with descendant communities (SAA 1996).
In 1986, the SAA addressed the sensitive issue of how archaeologists should handle human remains in response to repatriation legislation that was being debated by Congress and the growing movement among Tribes to reclaim control over ancestral remains (Lovis et al. Reference Lovis, Kintigh, Steponaitis, Goldstein, Richman and Forsyth2004; McKeown Reference McKeown2012; Riding In Reference Devon2000; SAA 1986). The SAA’s 1986 “Statement concerning the Treatment of Human Remains” highlighted the need for a balance between Native and scientific perspectives, recognizing the cultural significance of human skeletal materials and the importance of treating them with dignity and respect. The statement advocated for a determination of cultural affiliation based on evidence rather than assertions, ensuring decisions are grounded in facts. Repatriation should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the varying levels of information available and the unique relationships contemporary Tribes have with the remains (SAA 1986). The statement recognized that ongoing, direct communication between all stakeholders was crucial for fostering trust and mutual understanding. While agreement may not always be reached, such dialogue promotes greater respect for differing viewpoints (SAA 1986).
Like museums, the practice of archaeology is shaped by societal values, necessitating continuous review and revision of archaeological ethics to ensure they reflect these evolving values. In response to these changes, the SAA updated its “Statement concerning the Treatment of Human Remains” (SAA 2021) and its “Principles of Archaeological Ethics” (SAA 2024). These revisions are grounded in ideal values and behaviors that all SAA members should aspire to, reflecting the collective voice of the membership. In revising its ethics, the SAA drew on key international frameworks, such as the United Nations’ “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (United Nations 1948) and “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples” (United Nations 2006) to guide its approach. These revisions emphasize the importance of collaboration, transparency, and respect for Indigenous and descendant communities, and highlight the ethical conduct, collaborative spirit, and cultural respect that archaeologists must uphold in their work.
As repatriation efforts progress, a significant challenge remains in reconciling past practices with contemporary ethical standards. The integration of Indigenous perspectives and a strong emphasis on cultural sensitivity are reshaping museum and archaeological practice. These changes signal a transformative era, where ethical stewardship encourages deeper community engagement and healing. The active involvement of Indigenous communities in these processes is increasingly recognized as essential, as emphasized in the Indian Arts Research Center (IARC)’s Guidelines for Collaboration (Community; Museums) for Native communities (Indian Arts Research Center 2019). Today, the fields of museums, archives, and archaeology are influenced by practitioners advocating for cultural competency, collaboration, and data governance, striving to build stronger relationships with Tribal communities, and fostering more ethical and inclusive practices (Autry Museum of the American West 2022; Engseth Reference Engseth2018; First Archivists Circle 2007; Global Digital Data Alliance 2019; Indian Arts Research Center 2023). These approaches are also discussed by Bryant and colleagues (Reference Bryant, Taylor and Cruz2025) as it pertains to the development of the Indigenous Collections Care Guide.
The State of Collections
From the late 1800s to the 1920s, there was a concerted and systematic effort to collect Native American artifacts, fueled by the belief that Native cultures were disappearing. This period was driven by the goal of preserving a material record of the “romantic past” of Indigenous peoples. Intense global competition among national, regional, and university museums of anthropology and natural history led to an increase in the collection of materials from Indigenous communities (Krech Reference Krech, Krech and Hail1999; Sturtevant Reference Sturtevant, Krech and Hail1999). Personal collecting, including the purchase of artifacts and crafts at train stops, became widespread during this time. Economic challenges faced by Tribal groups frequently led to the sale of cultural items as a means of income (Krech Reference Krech, Krech and Hail1999; Sturtevant Reference Sturtevant, Krech and Hail1999). The actions of collectors and dealers during this period alienated much of the valuable cultural material from Native communities, stripping these items of their original cultural context and often depriving Tribes of their heritage (Krech Reference Krech, Krech and Hail1999). Additionally, archaeology has placed significant emphasis on excavation, often at the expense of utilizing existing collections for scientific and educational purposes.
It is crucial to examine the aims, purposes, and acquisition processes of these collections, as well as the proximity of the original makers and users to the collectors. Documentation regarding an object’s history plays a significant role in understanding context. NAGPRA compliance heavily depends on context, but this information is often difficult to trace within museum records. Catalogs and accession records are frequently lacking in detail, and their contents are not always properly transcribed into working catalogs. Consequently, it is necessary to seek additional sources—such as printed materials, manuscripts, and oral histories—about the collectors and their collections to fully comprehend the significance of the context (Sturtevant Reference Sturtevant, Krech and Hail1999).
Past collection practices have led to a substantial imbalance between the generation of collections and their long-term care and management. The sheer volume of existing collections—many of which are in poor condition—combined with the constant influx of new materials has led to a significant backlog of cataloging and housing. Many institutions lack the personnel, space, and resources to properly care for these collections “in perpetuity,” putting preservation and access at risk (Childs Reference Childs and Childs2004:v). Numerous studies and publications have underscored the ongoing nature of this curation crisis, highlighting the consequences of inadequate curation and management of collections (Childs and Sullivan Reference Childs, Lynne and Childs2004; Ford Reference Ford1977; General Accounting Office 1987; Lindsay et al. Reference Lindsay, Williams-Dean and Haas1979, Reference Lindsay, Williams-Dean and Haas1980; Marquardt Reference Marquardt1977, Reference Marquardt and Childs2004; Marquardt et al. Reference Marquardt, Montet-White and Scholtz1982). For example, a regional survey of collections across eight states by the US Army Corps of Engineers revealed these significant shortcomings (Jelks Reference Jelks1989). There was a lack of awareness among federal agencies about what they owned and where it was located, an absence of adequate inventories in museums, and an urgent need for agencies and museums to act quickly to address these shortcomings in order to comply with NAGPRA (Childs and Sullivan Reference Childs, Lynne and Childs2004).
In 1990, the DOI published 36 CFR 79, “Curation of Federally Owned and Administered Archeological Collections,” which outlined necessary standards for curation. However, despite these efforts, many institutions housing archaeological collections failed to meet even these minimum guidelines, grappling with challenges such as inadequate facilities, lack of security, insufficient staff, and poorly tracked or inaccessible collections. Older collections, in particular, continue to suffer from neglect, underscoring the need for a more balanced and comprehensive approach to collections care (e.g., Trimble and Marino Reference Trimble, Marino, Zimmerman, Vitelli and Hollowell-Zimmer2003).
When NAGPRA was passed, many museums and federal agencies faced daunting challenges in producing summaries and inventories due to the curation crisis. This problem was evident even when NAGPRA was being drafted—there was no accurate count of the number of Native American human remains held by museums and agencies, with estimates ranging from tens of thousands to over one million individuals (Congressional Budget Office estimates and caveats provided in Harjo Reference Harjo1989; Harris Reference Harris1991:195–196n3; Spotted Elk Reference Spotted Elk1989; Trope and Echo-Hawk Reference Trope and Echo-Hawk1992:39; US House of Representatives 1990:22; US Senate 1990:13).
NAGPRA served as an important wake-up call for museums and federal agencies. They were now required to account for their Native American collections. The law also mandated that museums share records related to summaries and inventories when requested by Tribes (25USC32§3003(b)(2) and §3004(b)(2)). However, such documentation was often uncataloged, lacked proper finding aids, was disorganized and not readily accessible, or even housed within the same facility as the collections. Technology was woefully inadequate at that time: none of this information was digitized or available online. This created barriers to information-sharing, limited museums’ ability to reunite records with human remains and cultural items, and prevented the identification of related documentation in other repositories.
Another pressing issue was the lack of complete, accurate, and accessible catalogs that used standardized terminology and were vetted by qualified personnel. Without such catalogs, museums and federal agencies were often unaware of the collections under their care. Tribes were provided with incomplete information, and universities often failed to recognize that human remains and cultural items could be curated outside of anthropology departments. The summaries and inventories submitted to the DCA varied greatly in terminology, content, and format.
For Tribes visiting collections, the lack of knowledge about what was held in these collections created risks, as proper protocols could not be followed. Tribes were confronted with curation and collections management practices that they found disrespectful and hurtful, adding further difficulty to the already challenging process of conducting collection reviews (e.g., NAGPRA Review Committee 1994b:16). The information-sharing and consultations required by NAGPRA also had an impact on Tribes. Tribes began to engage more widely with museums and federal agencies to discuss collections. Many Tribes developed their own processes for tracking, organizing, and prioritizing their NAGPRA-related work (e.g., NAGPRA Review Committee 1994a:3).
As imperfect as it may have been, the collections care necessitated by NAGPRA marked a significant leap forward and laid the foundation for the work that continues today. Improved standards for collections care, along with greater sensitivity to Tribal guidelines, enhanced stewardship (Sullivan Reference Sullivan1992). The cataloging done during the creation of inventories and summaries established a baseline for understanding the scope of collections and identifying human remains or cultural materials that may fall under NAGPRA. The identification and cataloging of records provided a means of connecting them to the corresponding collections. The inventories and summaries generated through this process brought greater transparency and accountability to institutions, offering some long-awaited answers to Tribes seeking to locate their Ancestors and cultural items.
The need to address the requirements of NAGPRA while simultaneously grappling with the curation crisis has provided valuable lessons. Clear and accurate inventories are essential for building trust and fulfilling fiduciary responsibilities. Accurate inventory work requires that collections be physically viewed or checked in person; records cannot always be relied upon, especially for collections that did not have adequate curation. Early practitioners also learned that, even when information seemed limited, a closer examination and good collaboration often revealed that much more could be learned about an item. Tribal guidance on appropriate care can and should be integrated into established collections management practices. Early practitioners also realized that collections work is an iterative and ongoing responsibility; there will always be a need for updates based on new understandings from consultations, improved documentation, the discovery of new records, additional information from online sources, and new research, among other factors.
Capacity for the Work
The implementation of NAGPRA brought forth significant challenges for various stakeholders, including federal agencies, museums, and Tribes. Assigned to the Secretary of the Interior, the responsibility for NAGPRA was largely delegated to the Archaeological Assistance Division (AAD). The law’s mandates required museums, federal agencies, and Tribes to create inventories, conduct consultations, and facilitate repatriations of cultural items and human remains. However, these tasks were complicated by inadequate funding, lack of staff, limited training, and technological limitations. From struggling to track collections in nonfederal repositories to facing emotional and logistical burdens during consultations, the early years of NAGPRA implementation exposed the critical need for additional resources and systems to support the involved parties. Despite these obstacles, the law prompted meaningful progress toward the respectful repatriation and stewardship of Native American ancestral remains and cultural heritage.
DCA/AAD
Congress assigned responsibility for NAGPRA to the Secretary of the Interior, who delegated most of the duties to the AAD, particularly the DCA. Only one new staff member, the Program Lead, was added. Despite these limited resources, the DCA and AAD moved quickly to begin establishing the framework for NAGPRA implementation. Within 18 months, they created a charter for the Review Committee, appointed its members, issued early guidance on how to interpret the law, hired a program lead, and began drafting regulations (NAGPRA Review Committee 1992a:2–5).
The DCA and NAGPRA program lead worked to create guidance and sample documents, compiled a list of 759 Tribal officials (few of whom were cultural heritage or cultural resource officials), sent notifications to over 15,000 museums, published notices, and, when Congress appropriated funding in fiscal year 1994, implemented a grant program (NAGPRA Review Committee 1993c:4, 1994a:4, 1994c:4). They also offered workshops in conjunction with annual professional association meetings and hosted a three-day training at the University of Nevada (NAGPRA Review Committee 1994a:4). The program staff reviewed submitted summaries to ensure museums were contacting the appropriate Tribes. Additionally, they compiled a list of culturally unidentified human remains and associated funerary objects for the Review Committee and began developing a database of summaries and inventories to support the committee’s work.
The creation of databases proved to be a significant challenge. The AAD received a large volume of documents, most of which were in paper form (NAGPRA Review Committee 1996b:17). Electronic versions of the documents were difficult to use owing to the different systems employed by museums (NAGPRA Review Committee 1992c:6). It was not until 2000 that additional staff were added to the program, adding significantly to the capacity of what is now known as the National NAGPRA Program (see Government Accountability Office [2010:12–13] for an overview of the office’s history).
Federal Agencies
Federal agencies faced significant challenges in completing summaries and inventories. They lacked dedicated staff and funding (Government Accountability Office 2010:17), and many archaeological collections were housed in nonagency repositories, in accordance with the permits issued for excavations on federal lands. These permits allowed collections to be housed in repositories outside the agency’s control. Many of the nonfederal repositories cataloged collections using their own terminology and systems, which further complicated the identification of federal agency collections.
Not long after NAGPRA was passed, concerns were raised about an agency’s ability to track the locations of its collections (NAGPRA Review Committee 1992b:12). However, locating these collections was crucial, as agencies were responsible for NAGPRA compliance regardless of where their collections were housed. While federal agencies did submit summaries and inventories by the deadline, many were incomplete or lacked adequate consultation (Government Accountability Office 2010:18–22). The Review Committee immediately recognized this problem (NAGPRA Review Committee 1996a:4), which persisted for decades (see GAO [2010] for a review of federal agency efforts up to 2010). The 2024 regulations (DOI 2024) aimed to resolve this problem by requiring museums to contact federal agencies for collections housed in their repositories and report these collections to National NAGPRA.
Museums
Museums faced significant capacity issues related to staff, funding, time, expertise, and institutional support. The lack of financial and staff resources was the primary reason museums were unable to complete inventories by 1995 (NAGPRA Review Committee 1996b:22). Inadequate records, uncataloged or poorly documented collections, and the long history of collecting all created challenges in understanding the collections (e.g., Ambler and Goff Reference Ambler, Goff, Chari and Lavallee2013:202–203; Goff Reference Goff, Childs and Warner2019:28). Only some of the materials in the collections had specific Tribal identification in museum records, and many of those identifications were made by third parties whose expertise was unclear. Often, responsibilities were delegated to staff members or graduate students who already had other duties and may have lacked the necessary background to identify items or determine the appropriate Tribes to consult.
There was no Tribal directory for repatriation officials and traditional religious leaders (e.g., NAGPRA Review Committee 1993a:4). The only available listing of Tribes was the Bureau of Indian Affairs list, which was not published in the Federal Register until 1995. museums had to subscribe to the register to receive hard copies or locate them in a subscribing library, because the Federal Register was not readily available online. (The AAD eventually created a directory, as noted above.) Museums also lacked the information needed to identify lineal descendants (NAGPRA Review Committee 1992b:3, 1993c:3). As there were no precedents for this work, museums requested sample documents and training (NAGPRA Review Committee 1992b:12, 1994a:8–9).
Institutional support for the work was limited, with small budgets, little administrative assistance, and low prioritization by management. While museums understood their mission and public trust responsibilities, many were cautious about identifying cultural items and affiliations (e.g., NAGPRA Review Committee 1993a:4). There was a deep concern about ensuring the work was done correctly, particularly in avoiding repatriation to the wrong groups (e.g., NAGPRA Review Committee 1994b:6, 1995b:6).
Despite these challenges, museum NAGPRA practitioners worked diligently throughout the early 1990s to complete summaries and inventories, consult with Tribal representatives, and issue public notices. They searched for efficient and innovative ways to perform their work competently and ethically. This involved physically checking collections, reviewing primary documents, and organizing related records. Many advocates also pushed for additional staff and resources. As a result of consultation, some museums began integrating Tribal guidance on the proper care of items in their collections. By the end of 1995, museums had a much better understanding of their collections, had established relationships with Tribal representatives, and recognized the value of Tribal expertise and knowledge. While capacity issues persisted, museums were better equipped to address their ongoing NAGPRA responsibilities because of this work.
Tribes
Tribes also faced significant capacity challenges, some of which were similar to issues experienced by other institutions, such as inadequate staff and funding (e.g., NAGPRA Review Committee 1993a:11–12, 1994c:6, 1995c:11, 15). There were no Tribal Historic Preservation Officers (THPOs), and few Tribal archaeologists or Tribal members had experience with museums and museum collections. The THPO program wasn’t established until 1992, and THPOs did not exist until 1996 (National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers 2024). Many individuals assigned responsibility for NAGPRA also had other duties (e.g., Hemenway Reference Hemenway, Chari and Lavallee2013:88; NAGPRA Review Committee 1995c:11).
Other capacity-related challenges were unique to Tribes. Tribes receiving summaries and inventories faced the overwhelming task of reviewing, evaluating, organizing, and tracking an enormous volume of materials (e.g., Colwell Reference Colwell2017:109, 113; Hemenway Reference Hemenway, Chari and Lavallee2013:88; NAGPRA Review Committee 1994a:3). For example, the Hopi Tribe received so much material that it had to be stored in three trailers (West et al. Reference West, Lomawaima, Harjo, McKeown and Isaac2000:44). These inventories and summaries often contained deeply unsettling information, requiring time for emotional and spiritual healing in addition to the time needed for review (e.g., Carter Reference Carter1993:5–6; Ferguson et al. Reference Ferguson, Anyon and Edmund1996:271; Hemenway Reference Hemenway, Chari and Lavallee2013:86; NAGPRA Review Committee 1993c:7, 1994a:14, 1994b:10, 1995c:11). This task was further complicated by the lack of standardized formats or nomenclature across museums and federal agencies, language barriers, incomplete or incorrect information, and very limited time to complete the work (e.g., Colwell Reference Colwell2017:112). There were frequent requests for Tribal training during Review Committee meetings (e.g., NAGPRA Review Committee 1993c:13, 1994b:5). NAGPRA grants to fund staff dedicated to reviewing summaries and inventories didn’t exist until 1994.
Tribes also encountered additional challenges during consultations and repatriations. Visits to museums and repositories were expensive and time-consuming, and they took individuals away from their families and other responsibilities. Representatives were sometimes exposed to dangerous situations and suffered harm because museums were unprepared to inform them about what they would encounter (e.g., NAGPRA Review Committee 1993a:10). The sensitive nature of the information that needed to be discussed, a history of having their voices ignored during federal agency consultations, and a legacy of laws and treaties being overlooked made representatives reluctant to engage in consultations (e.g., NAGPRA Review Committee 1993c:17, 1994b:10). Tribal approaches to identifying cultural affiliation and cultural items differed from museum approaches (Liebmann Reference Liebmann, Liebmann and Rizvi2008:76, 82; Watkins Reference Watkins and Timothy2012:30, 33–34). Reburials and repatriations were not part of existing cultural practices, forcing Tribes to determine appropriate measures to take (NAGPRA Review Committee 1995c:16; West et al. Reference West, Lomawaima, Harjo, McKeown and Isaac2000:47).
Tribes have worked to overcome capacity issues to engage in NAGPRA processes. Staffing and funding limitations have been alleviated through NAGPRA grants and the creation of THPO offices. Decades of engagement with museums, efforts to improve consultation experiences (such as the IARC’s guidelines for collaboration), and the development of better relationships with museum and federal agency staff have enhanced information-sharing and in-person consultations. Many Tribes now have protocols for reburials and repatriations. Tribal authority over cultural heritage in the context of repatriation has led to interest in exercising Tribal authority in other areas, such as research policies, access, and more (Nason Reference Nason1996; Strickland and Supernaw Reference Stickland and Supernaw1993).
Funding
NAGPRA required significant expenditures by museums, federal agencies, and Tribes, and a lack of funding presented a barrier to implementation. The expenses were numerous and included staff, supplies, travel, postage, equipment, and communications. Even a long-distance phone call could be costly for small organizations and Tribes, with rates averaging between $0.10 and $0.25 a minute during the 1990s. (If the same long-distance pricing system existed in 2025, the rate would be approximately double that amount.) A lack of grant funding for consultations had a major impact on the ability to conduct meaningful consultations before the deadlines for summaries and inventories. No NAGPRA grant funds were available until 1994, leaving little time for museums and Tribes to receive the support needed to carry out this work.
Once consultation funds were available, approximately $4.6 million was appropriated for use before the inventory deadline. However, this amount was far less than what Tribes and museums had requested. The discrepancy between grant needs and the amount of money that was appropriated revealed that the initial Congressional Budget Office estimates for federal expenditures to ensure compliance over five years—ranging from $20 to $55 million—were far too conservative for full compliance, particularly in light of problems with federal agency collections noted above. NAGPRA grants were not available to federal agencies to help with compliance.
The NAGPRA Review Committee frequently highlighted the need for additional grant funding in its reports to Congress (NAGPRA Review Committee 1993b, 1998). The lack of consultation grants significantly limited the opportunity for substantive discussions and deliberations on inventories. The open-ended timeline for consultations, after the completion of summaries, allows for these in-depth conversations to take place. However, even with a bigger window for consultations on summaries, the amount allocated by Congress was far too low.
Training
NAGPRA was a new law with no process, plan, or guidelines for how to do the work. There was no established curriculum, educational materials, or funding for classes and workshops. Training could only be done in person. Tribal and institutional practitioners needed in-depth training, a fact that was recognized early on by the NAGPRA Review Committee (e.g., NAGPRA Review Committee 1993a:15, 1994a:4). To address this need, the AAD organized a series of workshops at professional conferences and meetings, and held one three-day training in Nevada starting in 1993. However, many smaller museums and Tribes were not able to attend these workshops. As a result, the need for training continued after deadlines for inventories and summaries passed.
Information Technology (IT)
One seemingly obvious approach to creating summaries and inventories was to leverage technology. However, when NAGPRA was passed, most museum records were still kept on paper. Although digital management of information had been an interest of museums since the 1970s, commercially available databases specifically designed for collections management did not become widely available until the late 1990s, and their costs were often prohibitive for many organizations (Carpinone Reference Carpinone2010; Chenhall Reference Chenhall1978; Sher Reference Sher1978; Solomon Reference Solomon1998; Wentz Reference Wentz1989, Reference Wentz and Fahy1995). Early efforts to create collections databases frequently relied on spreadsheets rather than relational databases or specialized software, and the storage capacity of these systems was modest at best. Additionally, desktop computers and software were expensive for small offices, and their functionality often depended on the availability of in-person technical support. As a result, many museums lacked the resources to implement collections databases.
Minutes from the early Review Committee meetings revealed concerns about the lack of IT resources for small institutions (NAGPRA Review Committee 1992b:7). Additionally, use of different systems led to a lack of interoperability, and electronic file-sharing services were not widely available. Attempts to provide NAGPRA-related information online also posed challenges. At that time, the infrastructure for the internet was not universally accessible, and the costs of setting up such systems were prohibitive for many practitioners.
Despite these technological limitations, early NAGPRA practitioners made the most of the resources available, creating spreadsheets or relational databases to manage collections. While these systems were not so robust or complete as the ones in use today, they represented a significant improvement over relying solely on paper records. In the following decades, these systems were refined, updated, corrected, and improved. Today, digital record-sharing is an essential part of NAGPRA work, and electronic files have become a valuable archival resource. However, maintaining these digital records requires ongoing attention, and organizations must factor this work into their budgets and staffing. If neglected or forgotten, these records risk suffering the same fate as many paper records before the advent of databases.
To summarize, the implementation of NAGPRA presented significant challenges, not just in terms of technological limitations but also in how the law required individuals to take on entirely new roles and responsibilities. Many practitioners, especially in smaller museums and Tribal organizations, found themselves juggling multiple duties, with NAGPRA work often being added on top of existing tasks. This created a heavy burden, as the work required a completely new set of skills and a reorganization of how museum collections and consultations were managed. There were no established precedents or processes for how to navigate these responsibilities, and the added duties came without the necessary training, funding, or resources. As a result, many practitioners struggled to balance the urgent demands of compliance with their other responsibilities, further highlighting the systemic challenges faced during the early years of NAGPRA implementation. This context of limited resources and overwhelming workload underscores the resilience of those who worked tirelessly to advance the law’s intent, even in the face of considerable obstacles.
Conclusion
The passage of NAGPRA marked a paradigm shift for museums, federal agencies, and Tribes. It facilitated the long-overdue return of ancestral remains and significant cultural items. Moreover, a key shift occurred as practitioners from Tribes, museums, and federal agencies began to build relationships through consultation, a central objective of the legislation, as outlined in the House and Senate reports. Congress intended for NAGPRA to foster ongoing dialogues and deepen mutual understanding (NAGPRA Review Committee 1993c:15; Trope and Echo-Hawk Reference Trope and Echo-Hawk1992:60), while also providing a “framework for creating long-term partnerships between museums and tribes” that extends beyond the law itself (Sullivan Reference Sullivan1992:291).
Consultation is a legally mandated and essential part of the NAGPRA process, but the statute provided limited guidance on how it should be carried out. It only specified that inventories be “completed” in consultation with Tribes and that summaries be shared with them. The House report offered the only further clarification prior to the regulations, defining “consultation” as a process involving “open discussion and joint deliberations with respect to potential issues, changes, or actions by all interested parties” (US House of Representatives 1990:16). This suggests that Congress envisioned consultation as more than a formal exchange of letters or phone calls. Early on, the NAGPRA Review Committee emphasized the importance of consultation and urged the DCA to develop guidelines for museums (NAGPRA Review Committee 1993c:17, 1994a:8). However, developing such guidelines proved difficult, owing to the wide array of challenges faced by Tribes, museums, and federal agencies.
Initial consultation efforts were hindered by numerous constraints, including time pressures, logistical barriers, and cultural sensitivities. The deadlines for completing inventories and summaries left little time for meaningful deliberation, especially when museums were still determining the scope of their collections just before the inventories were due. Tribal leaders and representatives were overwhelmed with consultation requests, inventories, and summaries, often without sufficient time to consider them thoroughly. Consultation was further complicated by the deep emotional and cultural sensitivities surrounding human remains and cultural items, the need to honor and create cultural protocols, and the historical trauma of the separation of Ancestors and belongings. Additionally, past experiences of consultations where Tribal perspectives were dismissed led to a general mistrust of the legal system (e.g., NAGPRA Review Committee 1993c:8).
Given the limited guidance, early NAGPRA practitioners had to innovate and figure out effective methods for consultation. Many were the first to openly discuss sensitive, painful topics with one another, requiring patience, empathy, humility, and understanding. Establishing trust required museums to engage with their collections transparently, respect Tribal perspectives, and prioritize mutual respect. The relationships forged between the Pueblo of Zuni and multiple museums, some of which predated NAGPRA, exemplify the trust and collaborations built during consultations (Ferguson et al. Reference Ferguson, Anyon and Edmund1996).
As museums began to engage in NAGPRA consultations, new understandings emerged. Sullivan (Reference Sullivan1992:291) noted this transformation, recognizing that “museums dealing with traditional and indigenous cultures are beginning to create a new paradigm of stewardship, based more on ethics than on legal requirements.” Repatriation, while addressing historical grievances, also paved the way for new collaborations based on informed consent and continuous consultation. This shift has played a key role in the collaborative partnerships that continue to develop post-1990 (e.g., West et al. Reference West, Lomawaima, Harjo, McKeown and Isaac2000:44). Notably, NAGPRA did not prevent the creation of other agreements between Tribes and museums (Trope and Echo-Hawk Reference Trope and Echo-Hawk1992:68). Museums could implement their own policies for items not covered under NAGPRA, allowing for greater flexibility and opportunities for further partnership (Boyd and Haas Reference Boyd and Haas1992:274–279). Museums could also integrate consultation into other aspects of their work, such as collections care, exhibits, and programming.
This new era of collaboration has led to significant developments, including large gallery renovations at institutions such as the American Museum of Natural History, the Field Museum, and the University of Pennsylvania (Angeletti Reference Angeletti2022; Reporter Online 2021; Thorsberg Reference Thorsberg2022). The nature of research with collections has shifted, with many institutions now requiring collaborative approaches. Collections management practices have been transformed, incorporating Tribal protocols. New partnerships have emerged, creating opportunities for shared stewardship and a more inclusive narrative of cultural heritage. These evolving relationships will continue to influence museum practices moving forward.
Today, museums are increasingly acknowledging the need to transition from a traditional, collection-centered model to one that prioritizes community engagement and cultural preservation, especially for Indigenous peoples. As these communities assert their rights to self-determination, museums must confront their colonial legacies and reframe their practices to ensure they contribute positively to the preservation of Indigenous heritage. This shift involves not only returning physical artifacts but also valuing intangible cultural elements such as traditions, stories, language, and customs, and engaging Indigenous communities as active partners in curating and interpreting their own history. As Galla (Reference Galla and Edson1997:151) noted, adopting a more inclusive and participatory approach, museums can foster mutual respect and empowerment, restore cultural self-esteem, and strengthen the connection between Indigenous peoples and their heritage.
Acknowledgments
We gratefully acknowledge all of the individuals who assisted with NAGPRA implementation in its early years. No permits were required for this work.
Funding Statement
This research received no specific grant funding from any funding agency, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Data Availability Statement
No original data were used.
Competing Interests
The authors declare none.
Open access
