Studying California’s Deep History

This article explores why many California-based anthropologists were slow to repatriate Native American ancestral remains and cultural objects in the late twentieth and early twenty-first centuries and how the situation has dramatically changed in recent years. It examines how California’s unusual mix of tribes—more than half of which are not federally recognized—made it possible for academic researchers and administrators to delay repatriation and consultation processes, even after the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990 and the California NAGPRA (CalNAGPRA) in 2001. For some, there are lingering concerns about the viability of researching ancient history following recent revisions to CalNAGPRA—namely, assembly bill (AB) 275 (requiring universities to engage in meaningful consultation with tribes, complete inventories of collections, and repatriate ancestral remains and cultural objects) and AB 389 (requiring expedited accountability for California public universities holding collections and prohibiting the use of Native American ancestral remains and cultural objects for teaching and research). This article begins by refuting the argument that repatriation laws are leading to a decline in bioarchaeological research. It then reviews disciplinary changes that are reshaping anthropology, including collaborative projects in which descendant communities are key stakeholders and participants and a transformation of ethical norms related to handling ancestral remains and cultural objects.