Long before the federal Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) passed in 1990, North American Indigenous leaders and culture bearers had begun the campaign to obtain the respect that NAGPRA was intended to codify. Maria Pearson, a member of the Yankton Dakota, is credited with leading the charge beginning in the 1970s to demand the kind of protective legislation that NAGPRA was established to be.
NAGPRA has gradually—indeed, in some cases, glacially—moved toward the intended goal of restoring to Indigenous peoples their own ancestors’ remains, ceremonial objects, and other artifacts of sacred cultural importance. A few of the imperfections of this federal legislation are glaring. It applies only to federally recognized tribes and only to institutions that receive federal funding. It does not apply to individuals or private institutional collectors who receive no federal funding. California is among the states that have passed their own legislation to address some of these gaps in part, the latest iteration being AB-275 (passed in 2020), which applies to all Indigenous peoples in California, not just federally recognized tribes. Dubbed “Cal-NAGPRA” and building on legislation that was first passed in 2001, AB-275 provides more clarity regarding what to do and when but, like all other legislation mandating tribal consultation toward the goal of repatriation, it provides no funding for either party to complete the processes.
Nationwide, the responses to NAGPRA and related legislation over the decades have varied. The desire of institutions to comply runs the gamut, and the process itself for repatriating resources has not always been crystal clear. Aligning resources with the right tribal entities is complicated by insufficient documentation at the collection-holding institutions and competing tribal claims, to mention just a couple of the realities that can slow the process. Many institutions fought compliance—and still do—and many more haven’t complied on the grounds that they lack the staff, funding, or expertise to do so. For institutions with large collections, it can be true that responding is a costly undertaking. Many tribes want their resources repatriated, and some do not. Many tribes have worked long and hard to establish their own resource centers to receive repatriated resources. Further, upon occasion, an institution wishes to repatriate but cannot identify a tribal entity able or willing to accept the resources.
The Museum of Riverside, a department of the City of Riverside, stands on the traditional and ancestral lands of the Cahuilla Nation; Gabrielino-Tongva People; Payomkawichum /the Luiseño Indians; and Yuhaaviatam, clan of Maara’yam /the Serrano. For many millennia, these Indigenous peoples lived and thrived despite experiencing great adversity with the arrival of non-native peoples. Inland Empire Indigenous peoples shared a common environment and were linked through many cultural practices. The Museum holds collections relating to these peoples as well as other North American Indigenous peoples, primarily Californian.
The Museum of Riverside has been actively involved in repatriation efforts since the passage of NAGPRA in 1990. Since that time, the Museum has completed more than 400 repatriations, including sacred objects and human remains. The Museum completes the physical return of resources to each tribal entity in person and with a great sense of privilege and responsibility. These repatriations have ranged from Montana to northern Alaska although the majority have been within California. The process continues as the Museum works to complete repatriations for resources that are not tribally specific or that are subject to competing claims. The Museum of Riverside has always complied willingly with the spirit and intent of repatriation legislation and is proud to have reinforced good relationships with California’s tribes through these actions. The process continues to evolve, and the Museum of Riverside evolves with it.
