The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Creating a new future: Redeveloping the tribal-museum relationship in the time of NAGPRA
Abstract
The hope has long been that the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) would finally bring ancestors and their cultural items home to their communities to be reconnected and rest. However, 30 years later, museums and academics still fear losing control of research and access in their intellectual pursuits. Far from true, museums have benefited in working with tribes in telling stories around their cultural history, present and future. This article shares experiences over the authors’ careers and counters the alarmist calls to arms against compliance with NAGPRA.
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
Figures
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“however, it is far more likely that the duty of care provisions herald a resurgence of interest in archaeological legacy collections outside the scope of NAGPRA and collaborative projects with potentially broader impacts (Teeter et al. 2021).”
From NAGPRA in Archaeological Practice: Implementing Duty of Care (2025) · cites this paper as Teeter et al. 2021
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredIn the citing paper
“The updated regulations are timely, in that some museums and federal agencies were already making large-scale changes toward decolonization and organizational fairness, access, representation, and belonging.”
From Pathways to Repatriation for NAGPRA Practitioners: Introduction (2025) · cites this paper as Teeter et al. 2021
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: 15
- Hemenway, 2013, Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, edited by Sangita Chari and Jaime Lavallee, 83
- Sullivan, 2003, Curating Archeological Collections: From the Field to the Repository
- Marsa, 2014, Reinterpreting an Ancient Island, American Archaeology, 19
- Nicholas, 2010, Being and Becoming Indigenous Archaeologists
- 10.1353/aiq.2006.0030 · DOI
- 10.7208/chicago/9780226299044.001.0001 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1548-1379.2010.01089.x · DOI
- Martinez, 2010, Being and Becoming Indigenous Archaeologists, edited by George Nicholas, 210
- Childs, 2004, Our Collective Responsibility: The Ethics and Practice of Archaeological Collections Stewardship
- Chari, 2013, Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
- 10.1002/9781444396065.ch8 · DOI
- Wobst, 2016, Indigenous Archaeologies: A Reader on Decolonization
- Atalay, 2012, Community-Based Archaeology
- Teeter, 2009, Archaeology in America Encyclopedia, 20
- 10.1111/cura.12061 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The NAGPRA Nexus, Institutional Integrity, and the Evolving Role of Archaeological Laboratories
Roberts Thompson, A., Thompson, V. D., Garland, C. J., Butler, R. A., deBeaubien, D., Panther, M., Hunt, T., Wendt, L., Fontenot, R., Langley, L., et al. (2023) · Advances in Archaeological Practice · doi:10.1017/aap.2022.43 · Cited by 21
NAGPRA in Archaeological Practice: Implementing Duty of Care
Haas, J. R., Morgan, B., Lofaro, E., Thomas, J.-L., O’Donnell, S., Schreiner, N. M., & Panther, M. (2025) · Advances in Archaeological Practice · doi:10.1017/aap.2025.14 · Cited by 4
Pathways to Repatriation for NAGPRA Practitioners: Introduction
Yann, J., Domeischel, J., Roberts Thompson, A., & Schreiner, N. M. (2025) · Advances in Archaeological Practice · doi:10.1017/aap.2025.10107 · Cited by 2
Garland, C. J., Alapisco, D. M., Arbolino, R., Sieg, L., Covell-Murthy, A., Edwards, B., & Yann, J. (2025) · Advances in Archaeological Practice · doi:10.1017/aap.2025.10079 · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Teeter, W. G., Martinez, D., & Lippert, D.
- Venue
- International Journal of Cultural Property
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2021-05
- Volume
- 28
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 201-209
- ISSN
- 0940-7391
- 1465-7317
- Cited by
- 16
- 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
