Implementation

NAGPRA has had a dramatic effect on the day-today practice of archaeology and physical anthropology in the US. For ongoing excavations, Federal agencies have often routinized repatriation from lands under their jurisdictions through formal agreements with tribes. Because of these agreements, the process typically operates smoothly, although determinations of cultural affiliation seem more often assumed than demonstrated (as the law requires). Archaeologists’ consultation with tribes is now commonplace, even when excavation of human burials is not anticipated. In part, this is due to legal requirements, in part to archaeologists’ changing views of their ethical obligations and in part to a realization of the mutual benefits of this increased dialog (see Politics of Archaeology; Who Owns the Past?).

In museum contexts, NAGPRA helped stimulate interactions of archaeologists and museum professionals with Native Americans that were felt to be constructive by all parties. These relationships have frequently led to Native involvement with museums extending beyond repatriation to exhibit design, curatorial practice, and other museum activities. To date, the proportion of disputed repatriation claims has been very small.

However, considerable criticism has been leveled at individual federal agencies and some museums, both by Native Americans and archaeologists, for their failure to follow the provisions of the Act. A more fundamental criticism comes from some scientists who argue that scientific progress should not be subordinated to what they describe as essentially religious concerns of Native Americans. From a different angle, some Native Americans and some archaeologists argue that repatriation of Native American human remains and objects is an ethical or human rights issue in which science should have no say. Milder critics would say either that NAGPRA goes too far to accommodate the interests of scientists or it is overly favorable to Native Americans.