The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Toward Legal, Ethical, and Culturally Informed Care of Animal Remains in American Museum Collections
Abstract
Repatriation of human remains and associated funerary objects under NAGPRA and the increased use of culturally informed curation practices for sacred, religious, and ceremonial objects are important steps toward restoring control over cultural patrimony to Native Nations in the United States. Many museums holding Indigenous belongings have begun a collaborative care approach involving Indigenous community voices and improving access to collections. However, this framework has not been applied to many animal remains curated in American archaeology museums, which remain broadly beyond the care or administrative purview of Native people. Because many Indigenous worldviews do not hold a clear separation between the human and animal spheres, common practices applied to animal remains are not congruent with the idea of respectful or culturally informed care. Here we outline steps to shift the treatment of animals through the application of Indigenous knowledge to museum collections.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The decolonizing ethos and practices outlined in the duty of care provisions have been influential in shaping methodologies and approaches such as co-curation, collaborative exhibit design, descendant/community-based research, and descendant community-informed institutional integrity.
“Both emerged in scholarly literature around the time NAGPRA was passed (Carter 1995;Riding In 1996) and have been influential in shaping methodologies and approaches such as co-curation (Shannon et al. 2017;Ward et al. 2024), collaborative exhibit design (Phillips 2003), descendant/community-based research (Atalay 2012;Silliman 2008), and descendant community-informed institutional integrity (Thom”
From Perspectives, Policies, and Practices: Challenges and Pathways for Culturally Sensitive Collections Care (2025) · cites this paper as Ward et al. 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
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 25
- Tai, 2023, Reinventing the Museum: Relevance, Inclusion, and Global Responsibilities, 349
- Nepstad-Thornberry, 2002, Addressing the Curation Crisis in Colorado: An Assessment for the Executive Committee of the Colorado Council of Professional Archaeologists
- Campbell, Emmy-Lou . 2010. The Transformative Power of T'xwelátse: A Collaborative Case Study in Search of New Approaches to Indigenous Cultural Repatriation Processes. Master's thesis, Department of Human and Social Development/School of Public Administration, University of Victoria, BC, Canada. Electronic document, http://dspace.library.uvic.ca/handle/1828/2895, accessed July 31, 2024.
- 10.1177/155019061701303-402 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/RDC.2017.68 · DOI
- Kreps, 2008, Intangible Heritage, 207
- Ogden, 2004, Caring for American Indian Objects: A Practical and Cultural Guide
- Odegaard, 2005, Old Poisons, New Problems: A Museum Resource for Managing Contaminated Cultural Materials
- 10.1080/07256868.2019.1704229 · DOI
- 10.1038/s41598-019-50443-2 · DOI
- 10.5325/jeasmedarcherstu.3.1.0042 · DOI
- 10.1017/aap.2023.2 · DOI
- 10.1525/mua.2001.25.1.31 · DOI
- 10.7183/0002-7316.76.1.24 · DOI
- 10.1353/hpu.2010.0233 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1111/j.1548-1379.2010.01092.x · DOI
- 10.1017/S0033822200042120 · DOI
- Ornstein, Leslie . 2010. Poisonous Heritage: Pesticides in Museum Collections . Master's thesis, Program in Museum Professions, Seton Hall University, South Orange, New Jersey.
- Ainsworth, 2020, The House of the Cylinder Jars: Room 28 at Pueblo Bonito, Chaco Canyon, 104
- 10.5334/oq.ag · DOI
- 10.1080/00934690.2024.2318532 · DOI
- 10.1111/mec.15918 · DOI
- Pereira, 2001, Chronology of Pesticides Used on National Park Service Collections, Conserve O Gram, 2, 16
- Harris, 2005, Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonizing Theory and Practice, 33
- Wheat, 1972, The Olsen-Chubbuck Site: A Paleo-Indian Bison Kill. Memoirs No. 26
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Bowers, K. J., & Elmore, J. R. (2025) · Advances in Archaeological Practice · doi:10.1017/aap.2025.10098 · Cited by 1
Metadata
- Authors
- Ward, C., Arterberry, J., Aguilar, J., Patton, N., Cain, C., Jones, E. L., & Taylor, W. T. T.
- Venue
- Advances in Archaeological Practice
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2024-11
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 416-423
- ISSN
- 2326-3768
- Cited by
- 7
- References
- 0
- 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