CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 13Cultural Identity and HeritageIndigenous Cultures and HistoryCultural Heritage Management and Preservation

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 10 of the 10 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Beyond NAGPRA/Not NAGPRA

Wheeler, Ryan, Arsenault, Jaime, Taylor, Marla·2022·Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals
DOI 10.1177/15501906211072916
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Institutions have been slow to respond to calls from Indigenous nations, organizations, and scholars to require free, prior, and informed consent before authorizing use of their cultural heritage materials in publications, exhibition, and research. In the United States, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 fundamentally changed the relationship between museums, archaeologists, and Indigenous nations, requiring institutions to inventory their collections and consult with descendant communities on repatriation of specific Indigenous collections. In response, institutions and their personnel have come to view Indigenous collections as those subject to NAGPRA and those that are not—NAGPRA/Not NAGPRA. Many Indigenous nations, however, do not accept this demarcation, resulting in continued frustration and trauma for those descendant communities. This case study follows the evolving relationship between the White Earth Band of the Minnesota Chippewa Tribe and the Robert S. Peabody Institute of Archaeology. Beginning with repatriation, the relationship has expanded to consider how the museum and Indigenous nation can collaborate on the care and curation of cultural heritage materials that remain at the Peabody Institute. Most recently, White Earth and the Peabody have executed an MOU that governs how the museum will handle new acquisitions, found-in-collections materials, and donor offers. The relationship with the White Earth also has influenced how the Peabody Institute approaches its holdings of Indigenous cultural heritage materials more broadly, blurring the line between NAGPRA and Not NAGPRA collections. The Peabody Institute is working to revise its collections policy to require free, prior, and informed consent prior to use of Indigenous cultural heritage materials in publications, exhibitions, and research.

Verifying this paper

8 of 9 steps done · this page updates itself — you can leave and come back

  1. Registry recordVerified
  2. Full textFetching the open-access text — a few minutes for a paper we haven’t read before
  3. Reference list10 references found
  4. Reference check10 of 10 references checked
  5. StatisticsNeeds the full text
  6. ClaimsNeeds the full text
  7. Cited sourcesNeeds claims to check
  8. Self-checkNeeds the full text
  9. VerificationFindings verified

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 · 10.1177/15501906211072916

Cites

10 of 10 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?

  • In practice, many institutions separate their collections into "NAGPRA / not NAGPRA" categories using their own (typically, non-Native institutional) knowledge or assumptions about what might be significant to Native Nations, without full engagement in consultation.

    “In practice, many institutions separate their collections into “NAGPRA / not NAGPRA” categories using their own (typically, non-Native institutional) knowledge or assumptions about what might be significant to Native Nations, without full engagement in consultation (see Wheeler et al. [2022] and Seidemann [2009] regarding NAGPRA / not NAGPRA discernment in museums).”

    From NAGPRA in Archaeological Practice: Implementing Duty of Care (2025) · cites this paper as Wheeler et al. [2022]

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: 2

  1. Bacon Anabel, 2009, Andover Bulletin, 102
  2. Seidemann Ryan. 2008. “Altered Meanings: The Department of the Interior’s Rewriting of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act to Regulate Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains.” Accessed July 1, 2021. https://www.academia.edu/30027274/Altered_Meanings_The_Department_of_the_Interior_s_Rewriting_of_the_Native_American_Graves_Protection_and_Repatriation_Act_to_Regulate_Culturally_Unidentifiable_Human_Remains.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Metadata

Authors
Wheeler, R., Arsenault, J., & Taylor, M.
Affiliations
  • Phillips Academy (US)
  • White Earth Nation (US)
Corresponding author
Wheeler, Ryan
ORCID
Wheeler, Ryan
Venue
Collections: A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2022-03
Volume
18
Issue
1
Pages
8-17
ISSN
1550-1906 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1177/15501906211072916
OpenAlex
W4214822291
Cited by
12
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2
FWCI
9.42
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Collections A Journal for Museum and Archives Professionals (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Cultural Identity and Heritage
  • Social Sciences › Anthropology › Indigenous Cultures and History
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Cultural Heritage Management and Preservation
Keywords
NAGPRA, free, prior and informed consent, repatriation, museum ethics

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