The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Ritual Processes of Repatriation
Abstract
What do those who participate in repatriation—on behalf of the museums and the communities to whom there is return—most want people to know about it? Nine prominent scholars provide short commentaries in response to this special section on the ritual processes of repatriation. The discussants are museum professionals, Indigenous community members, repatriation claimants, and repatriation officers; these are not mutually exclusive categories. They discuss the transformative power of repatriation on museums, communities, and our individual selves, and provide models for appropriate cultural practice and how to demonstrate respect. Their contributions call us to ceremony, to restorative justice, to engage in repatriation, and to witness how it has changed them.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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 Shannon et al. 2017
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
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
- Shannon, J., Atalay, S., Collison, J. N., Herewini, T. H., Hollinger, E., Horwood, M., Preucel, R. W., Shelton, A., & Tapsell, P.
- Venue
- Museum Worlds
- Publisher
- Berghahn Books
- Published
- 2017-01-01
- Volume
- 5
- Issue
- 1
- ISSN
- 2049-6729
- 2049-6737
- Cited by
- 3
- References
- 0
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
