Cited by 7

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Lessons from NAGPRA: Preparing Institutions for an African American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

Domeischel, Jenna, Neller, Angela·2024·Advances in Archaeological Practice

Abstract

For nearly a decade, there has been recognition of the need for an African American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (AAGPRA) or similar legislation. Experiences from implementing the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) have shed light on challenges that prevent practitioners from achieving the informed, respectful, and expeditious return of remains. Given the likelihood of federal legislation addressing the repatriation of persons of African descent and acknowledging the hurdles that practitioners may face if and when it is passed, we offer a practical model, START, to reorient our understanding of success to recognizing that incremental progress is still forward movement. The model is organized into five stages and is presented with context from NAGPRA, along with suggested steps that practitioners can take at each stage to help build on their success. The START model is a straightforward and practical checklist approach that helps practitioners recognize the victories achieved in small steps that could be hidden or prevented by misguided but well-intentioned attempts at perfection. It is directly applicable to preparation for repatriation but has utility for any curation or collections management context.

Overview

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.2023.40

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • NAGPRA practitioners are in many ways at the forefront of the reorganization and reimagining that will result from these reckonings because successful models for repatriation and restorative justice abound in our history.

    “NAGPRA practitioners in many ways are at the forefront of the reorganization and reimagining that will result from these reckonings because successful models for repatriation and restorative justice abound in our history, even as the need to continue to push the work forward remains (Domeischel and Neller 2024).”

    From A Granular Analysis of Public Comments to the 2022 Proposed NAGPRA Revisions (2025) · cites this paper as Domeischel and Neller 2024

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 25

  1. Bauer-Clapp, 2017, Archaeologists and Archives: Revisiting an Old Challenge, Advances in Archaeological Practice, 5, 220, 10.1017/aap.2017.16 · DOI
  2. Pratt, 2021, Investigative Report Regarding Princeton University's Role in the Handling of Victim Remains from the 1985 MOVE Bombing in Philadelphia
  3. Dumont, 2011, Contesting Scientists' Narrations of NAGPRA's Legislative History: Rule 10.11 and the Recovery of “Culturally Unidentifiable” Ancestors, Wicazo Sa Review, 26, 5, 10.1353/wic.2011.0009 · DOI
  4. Dickey, 2022, “She Was Killed by the Police. Why Were Her Bones in a Museum, New York Times Magazine
  5. Lucas, 2017, Indigenous Relationships and Repatriation at American Museums in a Post-NAGPRA Context, Penn Undergraduate Law Journal, 5, 1
  6. Sullivan, 2003, Curating Archaeological Collections: From the Field to the Repository
  7. Heim, 2022, Final Report of the Independent Investigation into the City of Philadelphia's Possession of Human Remains of Victims of the 1985 Bombing of the MOVE Organization
  8. Bustard, 2022, Museums and Archaeology, 63, 10.4324/9781003341888-6 · DOI
  9. 2022, The Odyssey of the MOVE Remains: Report of the Independent Investigation into the Demonstrative Display of MOVE Remains at the Penn Museum and Princeton University
  10. Dunnavant, 2016, African Americans and NAGPRA: The Call for an African American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
  11. Childs, 2004, Our Collective Responsibility: The Ethics and Practice of Archaeological Collections Stewardship
  12. Marquardt, 1982, Resolving the Crisis in Archaeological Collections Curation, American Antiquity, 47, 409, 10.1017/S0002731600061308 · DOI
  13. Gupta, 2023, The CARE Principles and the Reuse, Sharing, and Curation of Indigenous Data in Canadian Archaeology, Advances in Archaeological Practice, 11, 76, 10.1017/aap.2022.33 · DOI
  14. Benden, 2019, A Long View of Archaeological Collections Care, Preservation, and Management, Advances in Archaeological Practice, 7, 217, 10.1017/aap.2019.22 · DOI
  15. Mize, 2023, Dartmouth Finds Native American Remains in Collections, Valley News
  16. MacFarland, 2016, Dusting off the Data: Curating and Rehabilitating Archaeological Legacy and Orphaned Collections, Advances in Archaeological Practice, 4, 161, 10.7183/2326-3768.4.2.161 · DOI
  17. Meister, 2019, A Guide to the Preventive Care of Archaeological Collections, Advances in Archaeological Practice, 7, 267, 10.1017/aap.2019.7 · DOI
  18. Yellow Bird, 2012, NAGPRA at Twenty: A Report Card, Arizona State Law Journal, 44, 921
  19. Miller Wolf, 2019, Curating Large Skeletal Collections: An Example from the Ancient Maya Site of Copán, Honduras, Advances in Archaeological Practice, 7, 30, 10.1017/aap.2018.46 · DOI
  20. Miles, 2022, The Case for an African American Repatriation Act, Brown Political Review
  21. Hodison, 2022, KU Indigenous Studies Students Call for Action after Ancestral Remains Discovered in Campus Museum Collections, Lawrence Times
  22. Dunnavant, 2021, Craft an African American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, Nature, 593, 337, 10.1038/d41586-021-01320-4 · DOI · Paper page
  23. Quintyn, 2023, Physical Anthropology and Race: A Reckoning for the Newly Renamed “Biological” Anthropology in 2020 and Beyond, Journal of Sociology, 7, 1
  24. Teeter, 2021, Creating a New Future: Redeveloping the Tribal–Museum Relationship in the Time of NAGPRA, International Journal of Cultural Property, 28, 201, 10.1017/S0940739121000242 · DOI · Paper page
  25. Kanatas, 2022, Diginity and Respect at All Times: How Federal Agencies Can Measure up in Complying with NAGPRA and Related Statutes, Duke Environmental Law and Policy Forum, 33, 1

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Domeischel, J., & Neller, A.
Venue
Advances in Archaeological Practice
Published
2024-01-24
Volume
12
Issue
1
Pages
13-19
ISSN
2326-3768
Cited by
7
References
2
Language
en

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