NAGPRA in Archaeological Practice: Implementing Duty of Care

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Indiana University is currently consulting with more than 50 Native Nations on repatriation projects, primarily from archaeological sites from Illinois and Indiana.

“IU is currently consulting with more than 50 Native Nations on repatriation projects, primarily from archaeological sites from Illinois and Indiana.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

As we look to the future, there are growing numbers of NAGPRA communities of practice at the national and regional levels that provide a forum for institutions and Native Nations to discuss successes and challenges of implementing NAGPRA.

“As we look to the future, there are growing numbers of NAGPRA communities of practice at the national and regional levels that provide a forum for institutions and Native Nations to discuss successes and challenges of implementing NAGPRA (see https:// www.nagpracommunityofpractice.com/).”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Access to and research on Ancestors and cultural items have been limited since 2019, and a formal moratorium was enacted in 2021.

“Access to and research on Ancestors and cultural items have been limited since 2019, and a formal moratorium was enacted in 2021.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Indiana University has recommitted to working closely with its Native Nation partners, maintaining strong relationships, and taking direction from Native Nations regarding the speed and manner of repatriation.

“IU has recommitted to working closely with its Native Nation partners, maintaining strong relationships, and taking direction from the Native Nations regarding the speed and manner in which a repatriation proceeds.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Although the revised legislation resulted in some short-term barriers to repatriation at institutions, these were later resolved through guidance from the NNP.

“Although the revised legislation resulted in some shortterm barriers to repatriation at institutions, these were later resolved through guidance from the NNP.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

In 2021, Indiana University completed one of the largest repatriations in US history by returning the Angel Mounds collection and reburying the Ancestors and their belongings at the Angel Mounds National Historic Landmark and State Historic Site in southern Indiana.

“In 2021, IU completed one of the largest repatriations in US history by returning the Angel Mounds collection and reburying the Ancestors and their belongings in the grounds of the Angel Mounds National Historic Landmark and State Historic Site in southern Indiana.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The duty of care provisions bolstered in-progress loan recalls from museum displays at other institutions; the SCIAA found that loan holders responded faster to its requests after the change in the regulations.

“Finally, the duty of care provisions bolstered in-progress loan recalls from museum displays at other institutions; the SCIAA found that loan holders responded faster to its requests after the change in the regulations.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The perspectives provided by the Osage Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the four participating institutions are representative of Native Nations and institutions affected by the revised NAGPRA regulations.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The reported increases in consultation requests and other initial impacts are attributable to the revised NAGPRA regulations rather than to other factors.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The SCIAA, UTK, and ISM note that the legislation provided a stronger rationale for moratoria related to research, teaching, and exhibition.

“The SCIAA, as well as UTK and ISM, also note that the legislation provided a stronger rationale for moratoria related to research, teaching, and exhibition.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Previously, agencies and museums had a narrow scope of what they identified as NAGPRA-eligible cultural items.

“Previously, agencies and museums had a narrow scope of what they identified as NAGPRA-eligible cultural items.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The perspectives provided by the Osage Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the four participating institutions are representative of Native Nations and institutions affected by the revised NAGPRA regulations.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Native Nations expressed concern that collections would be pushed out the door because of new deadlines or media pressure rather than after meaningful consultation and accounting for all ancestral remains and belongings.

“Native Nations also expressed their concern that collections would be just pushed out the door because of new deadlines or pressure from the media, rather than after engaging in meaningful consultation and ensuring that all ancestral remains and their belongings would be accounted for.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The ISM has received an influx of inquiries from institutions and private citizens across Illinois regarding what can and cannot be displayed and how to obtain Native Nation permissions.

“As have its Native Nation partners, the ISM has received an influx of inquiries from institutions and private citizens across Illinois regarding what can and cannot be displayed and how to obtain Native Nation permissions.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The perspectives provided by the Osage Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the four participating institutions are representative of Native Nations and institutions affected by the revised NAGPRA regulations.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The reported increases in consultation requests and other initial impacts are attributable to the revised NAGPRA regulations rather than to other factors.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Native Nations recognize that some museums and federal agencies lack the necessary documentation about their collections, which hinders meaningful consultation.

“Additionally, Native Nations recognize that some museums and federal agencies lack the necessary documentation about their collections, which hinders meaningful consultation.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Overall, daily operations have not changed dramatically for the ISM with the updated NAGPRA regulations.

“Overall, daily operations have not changed dramatically for the ISM with the updated NAGPRA regulations.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The perspectives provided by the Osage Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the four participating institutions are representative of Native Nations and institutions affected by the revised NAGPRA regulations.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The reported increases in consultation requests and other initial impacts are attributable to the revised NAGPRA regulations rather than to other factors.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Although these requests are welcome, they have initially placed a significant burden on Native Nation NAGPRA representatives, who must adapt their internal processes to meet the growing demand.

“Although these requests are welcome, they have initially placed a significant burden on Native Nation NAGPRA representatives, who must adapt their internal processes to meet the growing demand.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The Final Rule provided an opportunity to expand the internal NAGPRA policy at SCIAA and supported its relationships with parent and external institutions.

“Overall, the Final Rule provided an opportunity to expand the internal NAGPRA policy at SCIAA and supported its relationships with parent and external institutions.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The perspectives provided by the Osage Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the four participating institutions are representative of Native Nations and institutions affected by the revised NAGPRA regulations.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The reported increases in consultation requests and other initial impacts are attributable to the revised NAGPRA regulations rather than to other factors.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Native Nations have adapted to increasing requests for consultation.

“Native Nations have adapted to increasing requests for consultation.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Since the 2024 update went into effect, the EBCI THPO has been inundated with correspondence from federal agencies and museums across the country inviting it to consult on cultural items under their legal control.

“Since the 2024 update went into effect, the EBCI THPO has been inundated with correspondence from federal agencies and museums across the country inviting it to consult on cultural items under their legal control.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The perspectives provided by the Osage Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the four participating institutions are representative of Native Nations and institutions affected by the revised NAGPRA regulations.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The reported increases in consultation requests and other initial impacts are attributable to the revised NAGPRA regulations rather than to other factors.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

In general, the institutions providing comments in this article did not experience major changes in their NAGPRA workflows, perhaps because of their regional focus and their long-standing relationships with Native Nations.

“In general, the institutions providing comments in this article did not experience major changes in their NAGPRA workflows, perhaps because of their regional focus and their long-standing relationships with Native Nations.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The institutions and Native Nations whose responses are reported are representative of the broader NAGPRA community.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Since 2013, Indiana University has had a separate administrative office dedicated solely to NAGPRA compliance.

“Since 2013, Indiana University (IU) has had a separate administrative office dedicated solely to NAGPRA compliance.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The SCIAA, UTK, ISM, and IU all had active consultation and relationships with Native Nations prior to the revised regulations.

“The SCIAA, UTK, ISM, and IU all had active consultation and relationships with Native Nations prior to the revised regulations.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

By early 2015, Indiana University had repatriated several collections and relationships with descendant communities had begun to improve.

“By early 2015, IU had repatriated several collections, and relationships with these communities had begun to improve.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Public comments about the proposed revisions expressed concerns about ongoing studies on ancestral remains and cultural items that have resulted in lengthy delays for repatriation.

“Public comments about the proposed revisions expressed concerns about ongoing studies on ancestral remains and cultural items that have resulted in lengthy delays for repatriation.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

After consulting with Native Nations in 2021, all funerary objects and potential NAGPRA items were removed from display at ISM-Dickson Mounds.

“After consulting with Native Nations in 2021, all funerary objects and potential NAGPRA items were removed from display at ISM-Dickson Mounds.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The perspectives provided by the Osage Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the four participating institutions are representative of Native Nations and institutions affected by the revised NAGPRA regulations.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Native Nations have been responding to an increasing number of consultation requests from museums and federal agencies.

“Native Nations have been responding to an increasing number of consultation requests from museums and federal agencies.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The exhibition opened in January 2025: it is titled Homelands: Connecting to Mounds through Native Art and features contemporary works by many Native Nation artists.

“The exhibition opened in January 2025: it is titled Homelands: Connecting to Mounds through Native Art and features contemporary works by many Native Nation artists (for more information, see University of Tennessee 2024).”

• cites University of Tennessee 2024Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

All 11 Native Nations with ancestral land ties to Knox County, Tennessee, were invited to participate, and the Cherokee Nation, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation all agreed to co-curate.

“All 11 Native Nations with ancestral land ties to Knox County, Tennessee, were invited to participate, and the Cherokee Nation, Coushatta Tribe of Louisiana, Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the Muscogee (Creek) Nation all agreed to co-curate.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

With the implementation of the new regulations and the duty of care considerations, the Office of Repatriation at UTK paused work to consult again with Native Nations, in particular reviewing the preferred treatment of Ancestors and ways to identify funerary, sacred, and patrimonial objects.

“With the implementation of the new regulations and the duty of care considerations, the Office of Repatriation (OR) at UTK paused work to consult again with Native Nations, in particular reviewing the preferred treatment of Ancestors and ways to identify funerary, sacred, and patrimonial objects.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The perspectives provided by the Osage Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the four participating institutions are representative of Native Nations and institutions affected by the revised NAGPRA regulations.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The reported increases in consultation requests and other initial impacts are attributable to the revised NAGPRA regulations rather than to other factors.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The duty of care provision has exposed the limited application or complete lack of such activity since 1990.

“It has exposed the limited application or complete lack of such activity since 1990.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The NAGPRA deadlines provided in the new regulations have panicked some, with institutions "throwing the kitchen sink" at duty of care and consent compliance by mailing voluminous collection reports and requesting feedback within 30 days.

“The NAGPRA deadlines provided in the new regulations have panicked some, with institutions “throwing the kitchen sink” at duty of care and consent compliance by mailing voluminous collection reports and requesting feedback within 30 days.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The perspectives provided by the Osage Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the four participating institutions are representative of Native Nations and institutions affected by the revised NAGPRA regulations.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The reported increases in consultation requests and other initial impacts are attributable to the revised NAGPRA regulations rather than to other factors.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

In this brief time, institutions have reevaluated their NAGPRA policies, identified areas of disconnect within the regulations, and have reengaged with Native Nations.

“In this brief time, institutions have reevaluated their NAGPRA policies, identified areas of disconnect within the regulations, and have reengaged with Native Nations.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The ISM and UTK highlighted how their institutions incorporate cultural item identification into their duty of care protocols.

“The ISM and UTK highlighted how their institutions incorporate cultural item identification into their duty of care protocols.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

By early 2024 all objects had been removed from the large museum gallery in preparation for a new collaborative exhibition-five years in the making-with four Native Nation partners.

“By early 2024 all objects had been removed from the large museum gallery in preparation for a new collaborative exhibition-five years in the making-with four Native Nation partners.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Native Nations seemed to be overwhelmed by requests not only to consult for repatriation but also from museum staff seeking permission to display objects or researchers wanting access.

“Native Nations seemed to be overwhelmed by requests not only to consult for repatriation but also from museum staff seeking permission to display objects or researchers wanting access.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The duty of care provisions in the new regulations have not significantly affected or changed recent NAGPRA work at UTK but instead have helped strengthen the procedures put in place through earlier extensive consultations with Native Nation partners.

“In short, the duty of care provisions in the new regulations have not significantly affected or changed recent NAGPRA work at UTK but instead have helped strengthen the procedures put in place through earlier extensive consultations with Native Nation partners.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

For some institutions, exhibit closures and moratoria in the immediate aftermath of the revised regulations' effective date recalled the long-standing fear that NAGPRA would spell the end of scientific research.

“For some institutions, exhibit closures and moratoria in the immediate aftermath of the revised regulations' effective date recalled the long-standing fear that NAGPRA would spell the end of scientific research”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The introduction of NAGPRA duty of care requirements has resulted in an exponential increase in the number of first-time consultation requests and opportunities to readdress long-standing issues at institutions that previously claimed to have engaged in consultation.

“The introduction of NAGPRA duty of care requirements has resulted in an exponential increase in the number of first-time consultation requests and opportunities to readdress long-standing issues at institutions that previously claimed to have engaged in consultation.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The perspectives provided by the Osage Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the four participating institutions are representative of Native Nations and institutions affected by the revised NAGPRA regulations.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The reported increases in consultation requests and other initial impacts are attributable to the revised NAGPRA regulations rather than to other factors.

It may state two separate claims as one.

For the SCIAA, the final rule strengthened and expanded its NAGPRA policy and has resulted in more consultation with Native Nations over a broad range of collections issues, including research, access, and housing.

“For the SCIAA, the final rule strengthened and expanded its NAGPRA policy and has resulted in more consultation with Native Nations over a broad range of collections issues, including research, access, and housing.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Only a few changes were requested to the previous procedures, but the check-in did help ensure fully informed consent and clarity from and with Native Nation partners.

“Only a few changes were requested to the previous procedures, but the check-in did help ensure fully informed consent and clarity from and with Native Nation partners.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The perspectives provided by the Osage Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the four participating institutions are representative of Native Nations and institutions affected by the revised NAGPRA regulations.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The SCIAA, IU, ISM, and UTK acknowledged that the revised regulations reinforced existing policies and procedures, providing a stronger rationale for ongoing institutional actions, as well as guiding responses to researchers and requests from other institutions.

“The SCIAA, IU, ISM, and UTK acknowledged that the revised regulations reinforced existing policies and procedures, providing a stronger rationale for ongoing institutional actions, as well as guiding responses to researchers and requests from other institutions.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

In response to requests by consulting Native Nations, a teaching and research moratorium has been in place on Ancestors and cultural items housed at UTK since 2017.

“In response to requests by consulting Native Nations, a teaching and research moratorium has been in place on Ancestors and cultural items housed at UTK since 2017.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The perspectives provided by the Osage Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the four participating institutions are representative of Native Nations and institutions affected by the revised NAGPRA regulations.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

After the revised regulations took effect, Indiana University spoke with several Native Nation partners about the need to ensure that IU was not inundating them with requests for consultation.

“After the revised regulations took effect, IU spoke with several Native Nation partners about the need to ensure that IU was not inundating them with requests for consultation”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

At the time of this writing, the revised regulations have been in effect for less than a year.

“At the time of this writing, the revised regulations have been in effect for less than a year.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Federal agencies appear just now to be realizing that most of their collections do not meet federal curation standards (36 CFR Part 79) and that they cannot provide the necessary documentation of their collections to initiate a substantive NAGPRA consultation.

“In addition, federal agencies appear just now to be realizing that most of their collections do not meet federal curation standards (36 CFR Part 79) and that they cannot provide the necessary documentation of their collections to initiate a substantive NAGPRA consultation.”

• cites 36 CFR Part 79Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The perspectives provided by the Osage Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the four participating institutions are representative of Native Nations and institutions affected by the revised NAGPRA regulations.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Many of the museums that contacted the EBCI THPO after the 2024 update had never previously contacted the EBCI office.

“Many of these museums had never previously contacted the EBCI office.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The perspectives provided by the Osage Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the four participating institutions are representative of Native Nations and institutions affected by the revised NAGPRA regulations.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

There are more than 300 institutions involved in NAGPRA matters that are relevant to the Osage Nation, and this number is steadily increasing since publication of the revised regulations.

“There are more than 300 institutions involved in NAGPRA matters that are relevant to the Osage Nation, and this number is steadily increasing since publication of the revised regulations.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The perspectives provided by the Osage Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the four participating institutions are representative of Native Nations and institutions affected by the revised NAGPRA regulations.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The duty of care provision has legally bolstered the ISM's ability to deny requests to access NAGPRA collections as advised by consulting Native Nations.

“Most significantly, the duty of care provision has legally bolstered the ISM's ability to deny requests to access NAGPRA collections as advised by consulting Native Nations.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The perspectives provided by the Osage Nation, the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, and the four participating institutions are representative of Native Nations and institutions affected by the revised NAGPRA regulations.
• AssumptionRests on an assumption: The reported increases in consultation requests and other initial impacts are attributable to the revised NAGPRA regulations rather than to other factors.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.

Despite the substantial uptick in consultations, this is a desired outcome because more consultations will ultimately translate into more repatriations.

“Finally, it is worth emphasizing that, despite the substantial uptick in consultations, this is a desired outcome because more consultations will ultimately translate into more repatriations.”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: More consultations will ultimately translate into more repatriations.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

At the core of this care is consultation and collaboration with Native Nations with a shared responsibility to facilitate the respectful return of Ancestors and cultural items.

“At the core of this care is consultation and collaboration with Native Nations with a shared responsibility to facilitate the respectful return of Ancestors and cultural items.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The purpose of the duty of care provision is to hold institutions accountable to Native Nations as they care for, safeguard, and house Ancestors and cultural items in their custody, possession, or control, not to ensnare NAGPRA-complying institutions.

“The purpose of the duty of care provision is not to ensnare NAGPRA-complying institutions but rather to hold institutions accountable to Native Nations as they care for, safeguard, and house Ancestors and cultural items in their custody, possession, or control (43 CFR 10.1(d)).”

• cites 43 CFR 10.1(d)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Research, teaching, and exhibition are now explicitly covered under the duty of care definition in the revised regulations.

“Research, teaching, and exhibition are now explicitly covered under the duty of care definition in the revised regulations.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

When meaningful consultation does occur, Native Nations can provide unique information about collections that cannot be found elsewhere.

“However, when meaningful consultation does occur, Native Nations can provide unique information about collections that cannot be found elsewhere.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.

The initial determination can be perceived as privileging institutions as the experts, thus not recognizing that Native Nations are the primary experts on their cultural heritage.

“this can be perceived as privileging institutions as the”

• AssumptionRests on an assumption: Native Nations are the primary experts on their cultural heritage.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

The new regulations have highlighted Native Nation sovereignty and emphasized the need for continued, ongoing, honest, and transparent collaboration and cooperation with Native Nations.

“The new regulations have also highlighted Native Nation sovereignty and emphasized the need for continued, ongoing, honest, and transparent collaboration and cooperation with Native Nations.”

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.

The revised NAGPRA regulations have far-reaching implications for the care and management of Ancestors and cultural items.

“The revised NAGPRA regulations have far-reaching implications for the care and management of Ancestors and cultural items.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

As articulated by Senator Inouye, for museums that have acted in good faith with Native Nations, the revised legislation will have negligible impact; for those that have consistently ignored the requests of the Native Nations, the legislation gives those Native Nations greater ability to negotiate.

“As articulated by Senator Inouye during congressional review of the bill that became NAGPRA, for museums that have acted in good faith with Native Nations, the revised legislation will have negligible impact.For those that have consistently ignored the requests of the Native Nations, the legislation gives those Native Nations greater ability to negotiate (136 Cong.Rec.35678).”

• cites 136 Cong.Rec.35678Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The duty of care provision is not intended to hamper progress for institutions engaged in NAGPRA work; instead, it compels museums to defer to Native Nations on culturally appropriate care while Ancestors and cultural items are in the museum's custody, possession, or control.

“The duty of care provision is not intended to hamper progress for institutions engaged in NAGPRA work; instead, it compels museums to defer to Native Nations on culturally appropriate care while Ancestors and cultural items are in the museum's custody, possession, or control (43 CFR 10.1(d)).”

• cites 43 CFR 10.1(d)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The revised NAGPRA regulations have far-reaching implications for the care and long-term management of Ancestral remains and cultural items.

“The revised NAGPRA regulations have far-reaching implications for the care and long-term management of Ancestral remains and cultural items.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

According to National NAGPRA Program guidance, research is broadly defined to include any activity to generate new or additional information beyond the information that is already available.

“research incorporates the term “scientific study” in the act and is broadly defined to include “any activity to generate new or additional information beyond the information that is already available” (National NAGPRA Program 2024:3).”

• cites National NAGPRA Program 2024:3Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

Working with Native Nations over several years has engendered trust that otherwise would not exist and has resulted in more efficient collaboration between curatorial institutions.

“Working with Native Nations over several years has engendered trust that otherwise would not exist and has resulted in more efficient collaboration between curatorial institutions.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The advance booking of consultations reduced the speed and frequency of consultation meetings and lengthened repatriation timelines.

“This reduced the speed and frequency in which consultation meetings could occur and lengthened repatriation timelines.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

The requirement to obtain free, prior, and informed consent from Native Nations before any research is conducted or there is any exhibition of or access to Native ancestral remains and objects should reduce the amount of unauthorized research or image publication.

“In addition, the requirement to obtain free, prior, and informed consent from Native Nations before any research is conducted or there is any exhibition of or access to Native ancestral remains and objects should reduce the amount of unauthorized research or image publication.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The duty of care revisions reflect the growing acknowledgment of the importance of collaborative stewardship in the museum and archaeological fields.

“In many ways, the duty of care revisions reflect the growing acknowledgment of the importance of collaborative stewardship in the museum and archaeological fields (Indian Arts Research Center 2019, 2023;Isaac et al. 2025;School for Advanced Research 2023;Thompson et al. 2023;Wali and Collins 2023).”

• cites Indian Arts Research Center 2019, 2023Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Isaac et al. 2025Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites School for Advanced Research 2023Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

It is far more likely that the duty of care provision heralds a resurgence of interest in archaeological legacy collections outside the scope of NAGPRA.

“It is far more likely, however, that the duty of care provision heralds a resurgence of interest in archaeological legacy collections outside the scope of NAGPRA.”

Probably not a substantial claim.

Because research is now defined to mean any study, analysis, examination, or other means of acquiring or preserving information, consultation is necessary before engaging in common collections care activities such as osteological analysis, physical inspection, examinations of commingled material, and rehousing.

“because research is now defined to mean any study, analysis, examination, or other means of acquiring or preserving information, consultation is necessary before engaging in common collections care activities, such as the osteological analysis of human remains, the physical inspection or review of collections, examinations of commingled material, and rehousing of collections.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.

This goal is consistent with the congressional intent of the act to prevent culturally insensitive treatment of Native American peoples and support open, cooperative relationships between museums and Native Nations.

“This goal is consistent with the congressional intent of the act to prevent culturally insensitive treatment of Native American peoples and support open, cooperative relationships between museums and Native Nations (88 FR 86462, 86460).”

• cites 88 FR 86462, 86460Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The goal of the duty of care provision is consistent with the congressional intent of the act to prevent culturally insensitive treatment of Native American peoples and to support open, cooperative relationships between museums and Native Nations.

“This goal is consistent with the congressional intent of the act to prevent the culturally insensitive treatment of Native American peoples and to support open, cooperative relationships between museums and Native Nations (88 FR 86462, 86460).”

• cites 88 FR 86462, 86460Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The duty of care provision is designed to ensure that all Native American Ancestors and cultural items are cared for, safeguarded, and preserved until completion of the disposition and repatriation process.

“The provision is designed to ensure that all Native American Ancestors and cultural items are cared for, safeguarded, and preserved until completion of the disposition and repatriation process.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The increased number of requests directly derives from the requirement in the revised regulations to acquire consent prior to research, exhibition, or both; the broad definition of research; updated definitions of cultural items; and the January 2029 deadline to publish notices of inventory completion for human remains or associated funerary objects listed in an inventory.

“The increased number of requests directly derives from the requirement in the revised regulations to acquire consent prior to research, exhibition, or both; the broad definition of research; updated definitions of cultural items; and the January 2029 deadline to publish notices of inventory completion for human remains or associated funerary objects listed in an inventory (43 CFR 10.10(d)(3)).”

• cites 43 CFR 10.10(d)(3)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim.

The duty of care clause requires museums to make a reasonable and good-faith effort to incorporate and accommodate Native American traditional knowledge in the storage, treatment, or handling of human remains or cultural items.

“Make a reasonable and good-faith effort to incorporate and accommodate the Native American traditional knowledge of lineal descendants, Indian Tribes, or Native Hawaiian organizations in the storage, treatment, or handling of human remains or cultural items;”

• cites 43 CFR 10.1(d)Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The revised regulations address these concerns through the duty of care provision, requiring consent prior to further research.

“The revised regulations address these concerns through the duty of care provision, requiring consent prior to further research.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

In January 2024, updated NAGPRA regulations (43 CFR Part 10) went into effect, establishing a duty of care for institutions holding Ancestors and cultural items subject to repatriation.

“In January 2024 updated NAGPRA regulations (43 CFR Part 10) went into effect, streamlining the requirements and process for repatriation, requiring updates from museums, eliminating the category of “culturally unidentifiable human remains” and establishing a “duty of care” for institutions holding Ancestors and cultural items subject to repatriation (Final Rule 88 FR 86452).”

• cites Final Rule 88 FR 86452Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The duty of care provision reflects a growing acknowledgment of the importance of collaborative stewardship in the museum and archaeological fields.

“In many ways, the duty of care provision reflects a growing acknowledgment of the importance of collaborative stewardship in the museum and archaeological fields (Indian Arts Research Center 2019, 2023;Isaac et al. 2025;School for Advanced Research 2023;Thompson et al. 2023;Wali and Collins 2023).”

• cites Indian Arts Research Center 2019, 2023Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Isaac et al. 2025Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites School for Advanced Research 2023Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

Now that agencies and museums must consult with Native Nations on what constitutes a cultural item, requests for consultations will continue to increase.

“Now that they must consult with Native Nations on what constitutes a cultural item, requests for consultations will continue to increase.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Institutions and Native Nations have long recognized consultation as a key component of NAGPRA implementation.

“Institutions and Native Nations have long recognized consultation as a key component of NAGPRA implementation.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

These heavy-handed responses may have reflected a prior lack of due diligence to identify sensitive materials in consultation with Native Nation NAGPRA representatives.

“These heavy-handed responses may have reflected a prior lack of due diligence to identify sensitive materials in consultation with Native Nation NAGPRA representatives (see comments reported in Kunze 2024).”

• cites Kunze 2024Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The requirement to obtain free and prior consent strengthens the rights of Native Nations and underscores the primacy of Native American traditional knowledge in caring for Ancestors and cultural items.

“The requirement to obtain free and prior consent strengthens the rights of Native Nations (as intended by the act) and underscores the primacy of Native American traditional knowledge in caring for Ancestors and cultural items (FR Volume 88, No. 238, page 86461).”

• cites FR Volume 88, No. 238, page 86461Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The duty of care provision was included in the legislation based on guidance received during consultation and the congressional intent of the act.

“The duty of care provision was included in the legislation based on guidance received during consultation and the congressional intent of the act (Federal Register [FR] Volume 88, No. 238, page 86461; Senate Report 101-473, at 3).”

• cites FR Volume 88, No. 238, page 86461Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

• cites Senate Report 101-473, at 3Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

It may state two separate claims as one.

The fact that institutions provide an initial determination of cultural items has the potential to reinforce colonialist perspectives and uphold museum staff as gatekeepers.

“this has the potential to reinforce colonialist perspectives and uphold museum staff as gatekeepers.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

The revised regulations are designed to encourage an open and more cooperative relationship between Native Nations and institutions.

“The revised regulations are designed to encourage an open and more cooperative relationship between Native Nations and institutions.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

Under the act, although Native Nations may identify cultural items through consultation, museums make the initial decision as to what to consult on.

“However, under the act, although Native Nations may identify cultural items through consultation, museums make the initial decision as to what to consult on (FR Volume 88 No.238 Page 86467)”

• cites FR Volume 88 No.238 Page 86467Not matched

  Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.

For other museums, especially those holding assemblages removed from multiple regions of the United States, implementing duty of care may not be as seamless.

“For other museums, especially those holding assemblages removed from multiple regions of the United States, implementing duty of care may not be as seamless.”

It may state two separate claims as one.

The revised regulations have emphasized the incorporation of and deference to Native American traditional knowledge throughout the repatriation process, as well as highlighting the need for trusting, collaborative relationships between institutions and Native Nations.

“The revised regulations have emphasized the incorporation of and deference to Native American traditional knowledge throughout the repatriation process, as well as highlighting the need for trusting, collaborative relationships between institutions and Native Nations.”

Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.

Under the duty of care, institutions must obtain free, prior, and informed consent prior to institutional access to, exhibit of, or research on cultural items.

“Under the duty of care, institutions must obtain free, prior, and informed consent prior to institutional access to, exhibit of, or research on cultural items.”