Chance Ward knew something was wrong as soon as he started opening the boxes.
Inside were the remains of horses—bones jumbled together in plastic bags, packed without care, sometimes broken from the journey. These weren’t just scientific specimens. They were the remains of animals deeply intertwined with the histories and cultures of Indigenous communities. Yet here they were, reduced to anonymous objects, stored without thought, stripped of context.
“You care for horses. You not only feed and water them, but you connect with them on a personal, spiritual level,” Ward explained. “Even when they pass on, you still respect and honor them as non-human relatives. You don’t throw them in plastic bags or boxes.”
Ward, a member of the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, has spent years working in museums, but this experience reinforced what he and many Indigenous scholars have long known—many institutions need to rethink how they handle animal remains. In a new paper published in Advances in Archaeological Practice1, Ward and his colleagues are calling for museums to take a more ethical, culturally informed approach to caring for the bones of animals, particularly those tied to Indigenous traditions.
A System in Need of Change
In 1990, Congress passed the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), a landmark law requiring museums and institutions to return human remains, sacred objects, and funerary items to Indigenous communities. But NAGPRA does not apply to animal remains, leaving museums without clear guidelines on how to treat these collections.
That’s a problem, says William Taylor, curator of archaeology at the University of Colorado Museum of Natural History and co-author of the study.
“We need to reframe the way we think about museums. Are they places where we treat archaeological objects as inanimate things? Or are they places of living stewardship that come with responsibilities, some of which include connecting and listening?”
For many Indigenous cultures, animals are not merely resources or tools; they are kin. Horses, bison, and other creatures hold deep cultural and spiritual significance. Treating their remains with respect is not just a matter of best practices in collections management—it’s an issue of ethics and acknowledgment.
Listening to Indigenous Voices
Ward, now the NAGPRA Coordinator for the State of Colorado, grew up in the Cheyenne River Reservation, where horses were central to daily life. He recalls his father putting him on a horse for the first time when he was eight years old.
“There was no riding lesson. It was just ‘get on, and let’s go.’ I remember telling myself, ‘I’m not going to fall off no matter what’ because I didn’t want to disappoint anyone.”
This deep relationship with animals is something that many Western institutions have failed to fully grasp. In archaeology’s early days, animal remains were often ignored, discarded, or treated as unimportant compared to human burials and artifacts. That disregard has persisted in many collections today.
Museums frequently house thousands of animal bones, yet many institutions lack a complete inventory of what they have.
"Why are you keeping them if you're not going to care for them?" asked study co-author Jimmy Arterberry, a tribal historian for the Comanche Nation.
The paper argues that the first step in addressing this issue is thorough documentation—museums need to know what they have and where it came from. More importantly, institutions must engage with Indigenous communities to understand how these remains should be cared for.
A Case Study in Respect
One of the largest collections at the CU Museum consists of thousands of bison bones excavated from an ancient hunting site in Kit Carson, Colorado. These animals were killed and butchered by Indigenous peoples over 11,000 years ago, their remains stored in plaster and burlap casts for decades. But time took its toll—many of the casts were breaking down, threatening the integrity of the bones inside.
Over several months, museum staff carefully transferred nearly 200 bison skulls into more stable storage, ensuring they were properly preserved. When a delegation of Lakota elders visited in February 2024, they provided a critical perspective on how the remains should be cared for.
"One of their suggestions was to keep these animals together as a herd in the museum, as they might have been in life," Taylor said.
That idea—treating these remains as part of a whole rather than as isolated specimens—reflects the kind of shift the authors of the study are advocating for.
What Comes Next?
Ward and his colleagues emphasize that there is no single solution for how to care for animal remains. With over 570 federally recognized Tribes in the U.S., each with distinct traditions and relationships with animals, a one-size-fits-all approach would be inadequate. But some basic steps could go a long way:
Cataloging remains – Museums need to assess and document what they have in their collections.
Consulting Indigenous communities – Institutions should not assume they know best but should ask Native groups how these remains should be handled.
Updating storage practices – Simple changes, like providing better cushioning for bones in transit, can prevent further damage.
Reconsidering display ethics – Some bones may not belong in exhibits at all, especially if their presence conflicts with Indigenous values.
“The old way of doing archaeological methods is outdated and in need of fresh perspectives,” Ward said.
For Taylor, the issue is about more than just museums—it’s about how institutions relate to the communities they serve.
"It takes both sides, the horse and human, to connect with each other and be comfortable—but not so comfortable that we dominate them."
That philosophy, of mutual respect and understanding, could serve as a model not just for museum collections, but for archaeology and anthropology as a whole.
Related Research
Luby, E. M., & Nelson, S. M. (2008). "Rethinking the Role of Archaeological Repatriation: A Case Study of Fish Remains from Native American Sites in California." American Anthropologist, 110(4), 517-526.
Discusses the ethical treatment of non-human remains in archaeology.
DOI: 10.1111/j.1548-1433.2008.00092.x
Colwell-Chanthaphonh, C., & Ferguson, T. J. (2008). "Virtue Ethics and the Practice of History: Native Americans and Archaeologists Along the San Pedro Valley of Arizona." Journal of Social Archaeology, 8(1), 92-117.
Explores how archaeologists can engage ethically with Indigenous communities.
DOI: 10.1177/1469605307086085
Turner, S. E., & Peacock, E. (2018). "Whose Bones Are These? Ethical Issues in the Curation of Faunal Remains." Advances in Archaeological Practice, 6(4), 331-343.
Investigates ethical considerations surrounding the storage and study of animal remains.
DOI: 10.1017/aap.2018.35
Museums have long been places where objects are stored, studied, and displayed. But they are also places of responsibility. The way institutions handle the remains of animals—especially those with deep cultural significance—says a lot about their commitment to ethical stewardship.
Ward, C., Arterberry, J., Aguilar, J., Patton, N., Cain, C., Jones, E. L., & Taylor, W. T. T. (2025). Toward legal, ethical, and culturally informed care of animal remains in American museum collections. Advances in Archaeological Practice, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1017/aap.2024.25
Share this post