2017年，臺灣發生了「馬遠布農族遺骨返還事件」。對此，論者紛紛呼籲政府效法美國「原住民族墓葬保護暨返還法」（TheNativeAmericanGravesProtectionandRepatriationActof1990;NAGPRA)，盡速制訂出一套系統的制度性安排，以便全面解決遺骨問題。即便該法受到廣泛的關注，國內相關的討論卻相對有限。論者在提及或引介之餘，多未就其規範意旨、條文內容、實施細節、各項爭議等予以檢視；該法30年來實際運作的成效與評估，更是付之闕如。有鑑於此，本文擬從規範與實務這兩個側面來對NAGPRA進行分析，並嘗試反思該法對未來我國立法上的啓示。本文認爲，遺骨返還的問題涉及部落認同、倫理情感、文化傳承、科學研究等多重面向，且必然會觸及族人、遺族、博物館、行政機關等多方行動者。有鑑於此，本文指出任何一項制度選擇都會有相應的後果（ramification)。對我國而言，瞭解NAGPRA的優勢與限制，並在本土情境中妥適借鏡，就是對該法施行30年週年最好的紀念。

In recent years, indigenous remains and their repatriation have become contentious issues in Taiwan. Although there are no simple solutions to this problem, one way to move forward is by learning from other countries. Intriguingly, although most Taiwanese scholars agree that NAGPRA (The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) is an exemplar of repatriation, there is a paucity of literature on this topic. This study analyzes NAGPRA from a legal-political perspective. After studying it in-depth, it becomes evident that NAGPRA is by no means a clear-cut success. In retrospect, it is true that NAGPRA has brought a lot of indigenous remains back to the tribes; nevertheless, under the category of culturally “unidentified/ unidentifiable”，thousands of remains are still legally curated or “detained” in museums. As an act which attempts to balance different interests, a delay seems to be an inevitable consequence. This article further argues that the best way to celebrate the 30th anniversary of NAGPRA is to learn from its strengths and limitations and, in turn, to apply it to our local context.