Legal remedies for Native American ancestral graves and artifacts

These remains were buried, not put on display. It's easy to understand why a community might object to having ancestral graves excavated and their contents placed in a museum. But the opening quickly moves from that objection to a narrower question: what legal remedies are available?

The word “if” matters. Communities may have remedies if they can establish standing. Here, standing means having a recognized basis to bring the claim. Feeling that the excavation is wrong doesn't by itself answer whether this particular person or group can bring this particular case.

The three categories help make that concrete. An heir can have a connection through the deceased. A landowner can have one through the property. And an organization or distant relative can have a clear interest in preserving a particular grave. That third category is broader, but it still requires a connection to the grave. It isn't simply permission for anyone who objects to sue.

The next comparison explains why that connection may be harder to establish for ancient graves. A recent grave associated with an identifiable community gives us a clearer link. An ancient grave in an area where the relevant community has not recently lived makes the standing problem harder. Notice the cautious language: “less likely,” not impossible. We shouldn't turn a difficulty into an absolute ban.

The end of paragraph 1 moves us forward. If standing can be established, common law may help. That separates two questions we need to keep straight: can you bring the claim, and what legal basis might support it?

Paragraph 2 gives us an example involving property. The abandonment rule lets a finder claim abandoned property, but Charrier v. Bell says that burying an object with someone doesn't make it abandoned. Think of jewelry buried with a relative. Did the family mean, “We no longer care who takes this,” or, “This should remain with the person we've buried”? Those are very different intentions. The ruling rejects the first interpretation, giving tribal representatives with standing a possible basis for recovering burial artifacts.

The final paragraph raises a different ownership problem. Property belonging to the community isn't necessarily the personal property of one member. Suppose a member sells a communal artifact to a museum. Even if both sides honestly believe the sale is proper, did that person have the right to sell it? Membership in the community doesn't automatically make its shared property yours to sell. So the museum cannot assume that paying in good faith gives it valid ownership.

We now have both a limit and some available paths: standing can be difficult, especially for ancient graves, but existing law can support certain claims. We're learning what these legal routes are, not being promised that every claim will succeed.