¹In this chapter, “Native American” will be used to refer to Indians. Native Alaskans, and Native Hawaiians. “First Nations” are the indigenous people of Canada.

²Public Law 101-185; 20 U.S.C. §§80q–80q-15.

³Public Law 101-601; 25 U.S.C. §§3001 et seq.

⁴Rose and colleagues (1996) report two Native American remains, although this is not reflected in the Anderson et al. (1978) discussion.

⁵Bass (1981) reports that the site was discovered in the spring of 1978. Thus, the nearly 500 individuals had to be excavated and analyzed within a time frame insufficient for thorough skeletal analysis.

⁶Public Law 74-292; 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq.

⁷This National Museum of the American Indian opened its public space on Washington, DC’s mall during September of 2004.

⁸Although Donald Ortner, acting director of the National Museum of Natural History’s repatriation program, pressed for convening the Repatriation Review Committee (RRC) to consider the Larsen Bay repatriation request, secretary Adams made this decision without consulting the RRC (Bray and Killion, 1994:xiv).

⁹McKeown (2002:108) describes the legal complexity of NAGPRA as follows: “Congress sought to reconcile four major areas of federal law. As civil rights legislation, Congress wished to acknowledge that over the nation’s history, Native American human remains and funerary objects suffered from differential treatment as compared with the human remains and funerary objects of other groups. They also wanted to recognize that the loss of sacred objects by Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations to unscrupulous collectors negatively impacted on Native American religious practices. As Indian law, Congress founded their efforts on an explicit recognition of tribal sovereignty and the government-to-government relationship between the United States and Indian tribes. As property law, the Congress wanted to clarify the unique status of the dead as well as highlight the failure of American law to adequately recognize traditional concepts of communal property still in use by some Indian tribes. Lastly, as administrative law, Congress would direct the Department of the Interior to implement Congress’ mandate, including the promulgation of regulations to ensure due process, awarding of grants and assessment of civil penalties.” Legal background issues are also discussed in Trope and Echo-Hawk (1992).

¹⁰Approximately one-third of the United States is either federally or tribally controlled. In other circumstances, state laws apply (Rose et al., 1996).

¹¹Attempts to link oral traditions and archaeological inquiry have considerable time depth. As noted in Chapter 1 of this volume, Cushing earnestly solicited Zuni opinion concerning symbolic meanings of pictographic and other art in relationship to his archaeological “test” of the myth of the Lost Others (Hinsley and Wilcox 2002:89, 101). Similarly, McGregor (1943:295) solicited opinions from traditional Hopi concerning the ceremonial nature of an elaborate interment discovered within a Pueblo III ruin approximately 20 miles east of Flagstaff, Arizona.

¹²Cook (Chapter 2) reports that in 1790, Blumenbach remarked upon the Caucasian features of an archaeologically recovered skull from Illinois. Similarly, John Collins Warren (1822:135) reports that a skull from Ohio found in a cavity of a rocky bank 60 miles from Marietta, Ohio, appeared upon initial inspection to be a “young female of European origin.”

¹³Robson Bonnischsen, C. Loring Brace, George W. Gill, C. Vance Haynes, Jr., Richard L. Jantz, Douglas W. Owsley, Dennis J. Stanford, and D. Gentry Steele.

¹⁴While it is tempting to trace the history of liberal attitudes to Sir Daniel Wilson’s attitude toward Native Americans, Wilson left no direct anthropological legacy (Trigger, 1966).