Cited by 21Cultural Heritage Management and PreservationIndigenous Cultures and HistoryArchaeology and Cultural Heritage

The NAGPRA Nexus, Institutional Integrity, and the Evolving Role of Archaeological Laboratories

Open access
Roberts Thompson, Amanda, Thompson, Victor D., Garland, Carey J., Butler, RaeLynn A., deBeaubien, Domonique, Panther, Miranda, Hunt, Turner, Wendt, LeeAnne, Fontenot, Raynella, Langley, Linda, Schenk, Kristine L., Porter Freeman, Mary E., Auerbach, Claire, Saunders, Chris·2023·Advances in Archaeological Practice

Abstract

In November 1995, the Laboratory of Archaeology at the University of Georgia submitted inventories and summaries of Indigenous ancestors and funerary objects in its holdings to comply with the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). However, after this submission, the Laboratory attempts at consultation with federally recognized descendant Tribal communities who have cultural ties in the state of Georgia were not successful, and NAGPRA-related activities essentially stalled at the Laboratory. Beginning in 2019, the Laboratory's staff recognized a lack of formal NAGPRA policies or standards, which led to a complete reevaluation of the Laboratory's approach to NAGPRA. In essence, it was the Laboratory's renewed engagement with NAGPRA and descendan tribal communities that became the catalyst for change in the Laboratory's philosophy as a curation repository. This shift in thinking set the Laboratory on a path toward building a descendant community–informed institutional integrity (DCIII) level of engagement with consultation and collaborative efforts in all aspects of collections management and archaeological research. In this article, we outline steps that the Laboratory has taken toward implementing meaningful policies and practices created with descendant Tribal communities that both fulfill and extend bounds of NAGPRA compliance.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/aap.2022.43

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Clark, 1999, NAGPRA, Science, and the Demon-Haunted World, Skeptical Inquirer, 23, 44
  2. Bryant, 2017, The MASS Action Toolkit, 11
  3. Peers, 2003, Museums and Source Communities: A Routledge Reader

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roberts Thompson, A., Thompson, V. D., Garland, C. J., Butler, R. A., deBeaubien, D., Panther, M., Hunt, T., Wendt, L., Fontenot, R., Langley, L., Schenk, K. L., Porter Freeman, M. E., Auerbach, C., & Saunders, C.
Affiliations
University of Georgia (US)
Venue
Advances in Archaeological Practice
Published
2023-03-29
Volume
11
Issue
2
Pages
232-245
ISSN
2326-3768 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4361304717
Cited by
21
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 3
FWCI
18.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Advances in Archaeological Practice (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Archaeology and Cultural Heritage
Keywords
NAGPRA, archaeological laboratory, institutional integrity, curation, repatriation, consultation, collection management, grave goods, collaborative engagement

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review