This case study examines the repatriation of three Native American shields discovered in 1926 in Utah. The shields were eventually acquired by the Capitol Reef National Park. After the passing of NAGPRA, the question was raised if these shields would qualify as sacred or ceremonial objects. The national park began consultations with local tribes and it soon became apparent that there would be competing claims for the shields. The shields were eventually repatriated to the Navajo Nation because of proof of cultural affiliation through storytelling evidence. This case study examines how multiple claims for repatriation can cause an increase in tensions between local tribes. It also examines the relationship between law and archeology.
The researcher’s research question was, “How did the disconnection between legal and anthropological determinations of cultural affiliation effect the dispute over the Capitol Reef National Park shields?” The topic of the article was repatriation disputes of cultural objects post-NAGPRA. She used a case study research logic. She utilized reports of acts, behaviors, and events and collected them through public and private records. Threedy analyzed the data in a qualitative analysis.
This was an interesting case study, and I think the researcher provided thorough analyses of the data. She compared the shields case with the famous Kennewick Man case and explained how competing tribes differ than a tribe competing against scientists for ownership of an object or human remain. Threedy provided historical evidence of division between the Navajo and the Utes and how this case further intensified their relationship. She also gently critiqued some sections of NAGPRA.

Threedy, Debora, Claiming the Shields: Law, Anthropology, and the Role of Storytelling in a NAGPRA Repatriation Case Study (2009). Journal of Land, Resources & Environmental Law, Vol. 29, No. 1, p. 91, 2009. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1531700