Ask SAM: Navigating NAGPRA Challenges in Museums, with a Focus on the Seattle Art Museum
April 25, 2024
By Claire Killian
What is NAGPRA?
In the ecosystem of cultural heritage and museum governance, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) stands as the pivotal piece of legislation shaping the landscape of museum practices and indigenous rights in the United States.[1] Enacted in 1990, NAGPRA mandates the repatriation of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony to affiliated Native American organizations and applies to museums, agencies and universities to compile detailed summaries and inventories[2]. Its implementation has brought to light complex ethical and legal considerations, particularly for institutions like the Seattle Art Museum (SAM) and other public institutions (museums, universities, and beyond) across the nation. As SAM confronts contemporary challenges pertaining to NAGPRA compliance, it offers a microcosm through which to examine broader issues of cultural sensitivity, institutional accountability, and indigenous sovereignty within the museum sector.
The roots of NAGPRA trace back to decades of activism and advocacy by Indigenous leaders, scholars, and communities, who sought to address the widespread desecration of Native American burial sites, the unauthorized excavation of ancestral remains, and the commodification of sacred objects. These violations were symptomatic of a broader pattern of colonial dispossession and cultural erasure that has characterized the history of Indigenous peoples in North America.
Against this backdrop, NAGPRA represents a significant legislative response to the systemic injustices faced by Indigenous communities and the urgent need to redress historical wrongs. At its core, NAGPRA embodies principles of sovereignty, self-determination, and cultural autonomy, affirming the inherent rights of Indigenous peoples to their ancestral lands, sacred objects, and human remains. The passage of NAGPRA marks a pivotal moment in the recognition of Indigenous sovereignty and the acknowledgment of Indigenous knowledge systems, spiritual beliefs, and cultural practices within the legal framework of the United States.
Curating Indigenous Art Under the New NAGPRA
NAGPRA reflects a paradigm shift in the relationship between museums, federal agencies, and Indigenous communities, foregrounding principles of cultural equity, mutual respect, and collaborative stewardship. By mandating the repatriation of Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony to affiliated tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations, NAGPRA seeks to restore dignity to Indigenous peoples, honor their cultural traditions, and facilitate healing and reconciliation. There is also a concerted effort to reclassify the ways American museums have treated indigenous artifacts. Historically, indigenous art objects have been treated as anthropological items, to be found in natural history museums rather than art museums. Indigenous art historians and activists have long cited this as a dehumanizing and devaluing curatorial practice, which reinforces cultural biases against indigenous arts and cultures. The new NAGPRA guidelines encourage institutions, such as universities or museums, to identify indigenous art objects as being true art pieces, and to place them within larger narratives and networks of continuous culture – rather than isolated lab specimens[3] – by connecting them to contemporary indigenous art practices and communities. As such, NAGPRA represents not only a legal statute but also a moral imperative—a testament to the enduring resilience, sovereignty, and cultural vitality of Indigenous peoples in the face of historical adversity.
In December 2023, the Biden Administration introduced new standards for the Department of the Interior and the Bureau of Indian Affairs, among a number of other branches of the government involved in NAGPRA cases, which have had a dramatic impact on NAGPRA-related issues[4]. For example, in an interview with The Seattle Times, Sara Gonzalez, a University of Washington associate professor of anthropology and archaeology curator at the Burke Museum said that “by best estimates, before this revision to the NAGPRA regulations, it was expected to take … about 200 years or more to successfully complete repatriation…that time is [now] shortened to a more reasonable time frame.”[5] More specifically, museums and public institutions must have updated inventories of human remains by, at the latest, 2029, which significantly speeds up the process[6]. Prior to these new clarifications, there was no deadline for inventories to be updated, pushing the potential for restitution far into an indefinite future.
New NAGPRA Stipulations Are Implemented at the Seattle Art Museum
The Seattle Art Museum (SAM) is located in the Pacific Northwest, which is home to an array of indigenous nations, most notably the Coastal Salish, whom SAM mention specifically in a land acknowledgement,[7] as well as non-indigenous communities. SAM has long served as a custodian of diverse art forms, including significant holdings of indigenous artifacts and ancestral remains. However, SAM, like many institutions, continues to grapple with the intricacies of NAGPRA compliance and the ethical imperatives it entails. Recent controversies and legal disputes have cast a spotlight on SAM’s handling of NAGPRA-related matters, exposing tensions between institutional interests, legal obligations, and indigenous community concerns. One such instance revolves around the efforts to repatriate cultural artifacts held within SAM’s collections. Specifically, this particular push to remove five objects (three headdresses, a dagger, and a staff) of Tlingit origin[8]. While SAM has not released an official statement yet, it appears as if the curators did not properly consult with the Tlingit people on the care and curation of these pieces, leading to the challenge which has led to their ultimate removal[9]. These efforts are emblematic of broader struggles within the museum field to reconcile historical acquisitions with contemporary understandings of cultural stewardship and indigenous rights.
The complexities of NAGPRA implementation extend beyond mere legal requirements, encompassing profound questions of cultural heritage, sovereignty, and the fraught legacies of colonialism. In fact, immediately following the enactment of the new NAGPRA statutes, many U.S. museums simply covered up their indigenous displays, waiting to understand more about what changes to NAGPRA meant for them before continuing to exhibit certain pieces.[10] For SAM, navigating these complexities involves engaging in meaningful dialogue with indigenous stakeholders, respecting tribal protocols, and fostering reciprocal relationships grounded in mutual respect and understanding.
In recent years, SAM has faced criticism for its perceived lack of transparency in repatriation processes, as well as allegations of inadequate consultation with affected tribes and indigenous communities.[11] Specific complaints refer to the lack of action on behalf of the museum regarding chains of provenance that suggest relationships to colonial violence and anti-indigenous donors, who hold power over the museum. SAM is by no means the only institution to grapple with these issues, and just as how colonialism is intrinsic to the nature of modern museums, so too is the work to deconstruct colonial legacies. These criticisms underscore the imperative for museums to adopt more inclusive and collaborative approaches to repatriation, rooted in principles of cultural equity and social justice.
At the heart of SAM’s encounter with NAGPRA lies a delicate balancing act between legal mandates, ethical imperatives, and institutional prerogatives. While NAGPRA provides a legal framework for the repatriation of ancestral remains and cultural objects, its implementation often entails complex legal and ethical dilemmas, particularly in cases where ownership claims are contested or ambiguous. SAM’s experiences both in working with indigenous activists while also dealing with implicit exclusionary and violent museum practices, exemplify the multifaceted nature of these dilemmas, highlighting the tensions between institutional autonomy, indigenous sovereignty, and legal compliance.
Conclusion
The byzantine intricacies of NAGPRA compliance extend beyond legal and ethical considerations, encompassing broader questions of cultural sensitivity, historical accountability, and institutional transformation. SAM’s engagement with NAGPRA reflects broader efforts within the museum sector to reckon with the legacies of colonialism, imperialism, and cultural appropriation. As museums increasingly confront calls for decolonization and restitution, SAM’s experiences offer valuable insights into the complexities of navigating cultural heritage issues in a rapidly evolving socio-political landscape. Many museums see these ongoing NAGPRA developments as ways to continue to strengthen their relationships with indigenous communities, and continue to reflect on what exactly the purpose and being of a museum is. By centering indigenous perspectives, embracing transparency, and fostering collaborative partnerships, SAM and other museums can chart a more equitable and ethical path forward in their engagement with NAGPRA and related initiatives.
SAM’s journey with NAGPRA underscores the imperative for museums to critically examine their roles as custodians of cultural heritage and agents of social change. As SAM confronts the complexities of NAGPRA compliance, it underscores the need for museums to adopt more inclusive, transparent, and accountable practices in their engagement with indigenous communities and cultural stakeholder Moreover, SAM’s experiences with NAGPRA highlight the need for broader systemic reforms within the museum sector, including the development of more robust repatriation policies, enhanced training for museum staff, and greater community engagement initiatives.
In conclusion, SAM’s encounter with NAGPRA offers valuable insights into the complexities of navigating cultural heritage issues in the museum sector. As museums grapple with the imperatives of legal compliance, ethical stewardship, and cultural sensitivity, SAM’s experiences underscore the need for a more holistic and inclusive approach to museum governance and cultural representation.
About the Author:
Claire Killian is a Center for Art Law Guest Writer. She is currently a sophomore at Barnard College studying Art History and Religion. Her primary interests regard the legal issues pertaining to international art restitution. In addition to writing for the Center for Art Law, Claire has interned at the Ukrainian Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art, and edits Ratrock Magazine.
References:
- “Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (U.S. National Park Service).” National Parks Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, http://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/index.htm. Accessed 7 Mar. 2024. ↑
- “Programs: Cultural Heritage: Archaeology: Archaeology in BLM: Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act: Bureau of Land Management.” Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act | Bureau of Land Management, ↑
- Kate Fitz Gibbon, February 12, 2024. “The New NAGPRA: ‘traditional Knowledge’ in, Artifacts out. – Cultural Property News.” Cultural Property News – Cultural Property News, 6 Mar. 2024, culturalpropertynews.org/the-new-nagpra-traditional-knowledge-in-artifacts-out/. ↑
- “Fact Sheet: Biden-Harris Administration Announces New Actions and Historic Progress Supporting Tribal Nations and Native Communities Ahead of Third Annual White House Tribal Nations Summit.” The White House, The United States Government, 5 Dec. 2023, http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/statements-releases/2023/12/06/fact-sheet-biden-%E2%81%A0harris-administration-announces-new-actions-and-historic-progress-supporting-tribal-nations-and-native-communities-ahead-of-third-annual-white-house-tribal-nations-summit/. ↑
- Vansynghel, Margo. “Seattle Art Museum Removes Native Objects amid New Federal Rules.” The Seattle Times, The Seattle Times Company, 3 Feb. 2024, http://www.seattletimes.com/entertainment/visual-arts/seattle-art-museum-removes-native-objects-amid-new-federal-rules/. ↑
- “Interior Department Announces Final Rule for Implementation of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.” U.S. Department of the Interior, 6 Dec. 2023, http://www.doi.gov/pressreleases/interior-department-announces-final-rule-implementation-native-american-graves. ↑
- “Land Acknowledgement.” Seattle Art Museum (SAM), http://www.seattleartmuseum.org/Exhibitions/Details?EventId=65130. ↑
- Schrader, Adam. “Indigenous Groups Respond after U.S. Museums Cover Native Artifacts.” Artnet News, 2 Feb. 2024, news.artnet.com/art-world/indigenous-groups-respond-display-native-artifacts-museums-2426071. ↑
- Schrader, Adam. “Indigenous Groups Respond after U.S. Museums Cover Native Artifacts.” Artnet News, 2 Feb. 2024, news.artnet.com/art-world/indigenous-groups-respond-display-native-artifacts-museums-2426071. ↑
- Schrader, Adam. “Indigenous Groups Respond after U.S. Museums Cover Native Artifacts.” Artnet News, 2 Feb. 2024, news.artnet.com/art-world/indigenous-groups-respond-display-native-artifacts-museums-2426071. ↑
- SAM, Decolonize. “The Decolonize Sam Movement Is Gaining Momentum, Not Going Away.” Sept. 15-21, 2021 | Real Change, Real Change, 15 Sept. 2021, http://www.realchangenews.org/news/2021/09/15/decolonize-sam-movement-gaining-momentum-not-going-away. ↑
Disclaimer: This article is for educational purposes only and is not meant to provide legal advice. Readers should not construe or rely on any comment or statement in this article as legal advice. For legal advice, readers should seek a consultation with an attorney.
