Repatriation and reburial of human remains is a practice that has been debated within American archaeology and biological anthropology more generally for decades. With the passing of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in 1990, a shift toward pro- ductive problem solving and negotiation has gradually replaced the more heated tone that dominated the exchanges in the early years. Since 1990, repatriation has fundamentally affected archaeological and museum practices in the United States, and most would argue, for the better. But it remains a compromise with unresolved issues for many stakeholders. One could expect that decades after NAGPRA was signed into law, repatriation would have reached a stage of maturity that allows us to move the debate forward by critically examining aspects of it, while at the same time learning from experiences and acknowledging its crucial role in building sustainable relationships and democratizing archaeology and museum practices. With similar concrete actions to decolonise heri- tage in other fields on the rise, most notably with repatriation and return of human remains and artefacts from museums to communities worldwide, but also in activist movements to remove con- federate (in the USA), and colonialist monuments, including the Rhodes Must Fall movement in South Africa and the toppling and removal of the Statue of Edward Colston in Bristol, it would seem that archaeology (for once) could play the role as a precursor in social movements and decolonisation. However, with the publica- tion of the book Repatriation and Erasing the Past by Elizabeth Weiss (a professor of anthropology) and James W. Springer(a retired attorney and anthropologist), it appears that we might be facing a backlash rather than a progressive way forward.