When the American Museum of Natural History in New York City suddenly closed two major halls exhibiting Native American objects in January, it shone a national spotlight on the challenges such institutions now face in complying with updates to the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). Here, Elizabeth Rule explains the legislation, which requires consent from tribes to display and research Indigenous cultural items.
Q. What does the updated policy entail?
A. The new regulations give teeth to the original NAGPRA. It requires “free, prior, and informed consent” from Indigenous communities to publicly exhibit items connected to that tribe or nation. It also shortens to five years the window by which institutions must complete an inventory of items covered by NAGPRA—including human remains, funerary and sacred objects, and items of cultural patrimony—that could be repatriated. Finally, it eliminates a loophole known as “culturally unidentifiable” items that institutions used to avoid repatriation and creates other paths for establishing a connection to an Indigenous community.
Q. What message do the gallery closures send to other museums?
A. I hope that other museums look at it as an example of how important this issue is. They’re going to have to grapple with such questions as, “In what ways are we providing misinformation to public visitors? How do we display these items in the best way? How can we share Indigenous knowledge around these objects in ways that will illuminate new facets?” It goes back to that sense of, “Nothing about us without us.” When Indigenous peoples are included in these processes, it strengthens museums overall and helps reconcile some of the historic injustices that carry over to today.
Q. How can museums work with Native Americans to share their histories and stories?
A. I hope these institutions will better collaborate with Indigenous communities at every step—specifically by hiring them to fill some of these new roles, including leadership positions—and that people will respect and respond to repatriation requests with a greater sense of urgency. But for all the great work that this update to NAGPRA does, it only extends to public institutions. Those working with or holding private collections also must think about these issues in a new way and invite Indigenous peoples to help steward those collections.
Q. What are some of the challenges in identifying items that qualify as objects of cultural patrimony under NAGPRA?
A. In some ways, an object of cultural patrimony could be anything. It’s a place where people who are resistant to NAGPRA, who might not understand the intent of the act, may say, “How could this seemingly everyday object fall under repatriation requirements?” That’s because they’re looking at these items without an Indigenous knowledge or perspective informing the interpretation of that object. They don’t understand what that object means.
It’s important to note that in society at large we are inundated with images and depictions that fetishize Indigenous objects. For example, headdresses have become part of pop culture—something that people wear as a Halloween costume or for music festivals. When we have a broader culture that devalues these objects, it can be challenging to then understand what they really mean for Indigenous communities and, consequently, how they are relevant and covered by NAGPRA.
Q. Is there a particular resource you recommend for readers interested in learning more about this topic?
A. There’s a fantastic novel called Warrior Girl Unearthed by Angeline Boulley, an Ojibwe woman. It does a great job of capturing the importance of these issues.