Native Americans are not uniformly opposed to archaeology. At least 57 tribes are currently carrying out their own archaeological research and historic preservation programs, some with non-Indian archaeology staff. Important new discoveries are often collaborative efforts between scientists and tribal leaders. One example is research carried out in consultation with the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe on an 11,000-year-old skeleton known as Buhl woman, discovered in Idaho in 1989. Other communities have been opposed to research on human remains.

"The American Indian community has argued that the remains of our ancestors could not be held legitimately or morally by institutions under any circumstances and should be reburied in a culturally appropriate manner by the appropriate religious body of a specific tribal group. For many Indian people, the position that scientific study needs to be conducted on these osteological materials does not carry much weight....If individuals of good will from the Indian community and scholars continue to enter into a positive dialogue on issues relevant to repatriation, we may eventually achieve an accommodation where both science and the interests of the native community can be served."
- George H. J. Abrams, Seneca, Anthropologist and Museum Director, 1998

The events following the discovery of Kennewick Man have aroused opposition even among tribes with a long history of archaeological research and collaboration, as they believe that they were not adequately consulted in this case.

"We're not anti-science. We just want a say in what happens to our ancestors."
- Jeff Van Pelt, Umatilla, Cultural Resources Director, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, 1998

"Where are we going, generally speaking, with all these craniometrics-based assumptions about Kennewick Man? Whether or not the Kennewick skeleton is truly Caucasoid is a moot point. It would be an argument from ignorance to suggest that simply because no known data exists to directly connect this skeleton to Native America that there is, in fact, no direct connection."
- Gary White Deer, President, Keeper of the Treasures, 1998.

Native American leaders are convinced that the passage of NAGPRA was essential. Some say in both the handling of their dead ancestors and the conduct of scientific research.

"They [museums and scientists] argue that retention of the human remains of American Indians is essential to the progress of science and is of great benefit in educating the American people about Indians. The human remains of American Indians are, to this way of thinking, an important national resource over which they alone must have custody. They do not and will not admit the proposition that Indians have any sentiment at all towards their dead."
- Vine Deloria, Jr., Standing Rock Sioux, Professor of History and American Indian Studies, University of Colorado, 1989

"We don't accept any artificial cut-off date set by scientists to separate us from our ancestors. What Europeans want to do with their dead is their business, we have different values"
- Walter Echo-Hawk, Pawnee, Attorney, Native American Rights Fund, 1994

"These are the remains of someone that we cherish as one of our own....We bow our head in shame and sorrow for the treatment of the remains of the Ancient One, who has endured this kind of action since his discovery."
- Kathy Womer, Colville, Business Council, Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, 1998

"Every tribe has sad stories about graves being pillaged, the offerings and skeletons removed. Scientists always had one standard for themselves and another for Indians."
- Leigh Jenkins, Hopi, Director, Hopi Cultural Preservation Office, 1994