In “Building a Foundation: A Retrospective on NAGPRA Collections Compliance 1990–1995” (Sieg and Neller Reference Sieg and Angela2025) in issue 13(3) of Advances in Archaeological Practice, the statement on page 365 that “When NAGPRA was passed . . . only four states (Arizona, Hawaii, Kansas, and Nebraska) had reburial laws” is incorrect. Only three states had general repatriation laws that mandated repatriation of human remains already present in state collections: Iowa, Nebraska, and Arizona (Pearson Reference Pearson2000; Trope and Echo-Hawk Reference Trope and Walter R.2000:135). Passed in 1976, Iowa’s State Burial Law (Iowa Code 263B.8, originally 305A.8) pioneered a comprehensive approach to Native American ancestral remains that included both burial site protection and repatriation of those in existing collections. Iowa’s law, which was drafted and passed because of the advocacy of Maria Pearson (sometimes referred to as the “Founding mother of the modern Indian repatriation movement”; see Gradwohl Reference Gradwohl2005:13), became a model for NAGPRA (Pearson Reference Pearson2000:141; Schermer and Green Reference Schermer and William2005:46).

The authors sincerely apologize for the error, which was unintentional. Many thanks to William Green, John F. Doershuk, Lara K. Noldner, and Elizabeth C. Reetz for noting the omission of Iowa’s important reburial law and reminding the authors of its significance to NAGPRA.