It would depend on the circumstances, if you were intentionally raiding grounds owned or occupied by native tribes then I would be on the side with the native population as what should be done. But if we are speaking about areas no one would suspect that an artifact would be found then it would be more public than private.

Study and keep in a museum, so everyone could benefit, and experience the wonder these artifacts bring. My son in law in Alaska found a mastodon tusk about 10 years ago about 4 feet long and 40 lbs.

In the U.S., Native American remains are protected by NAGPRA, the Native American Graves Protection Act, which stipulates that they must be re-interred by the nearest tribe. Many forensic anthropologists argue that they need time to examine them. This causes friction with the tribes (e.g. the "Kennewick Man' controversy of twenty-plus years ago). Still others argue over who the remains should be returned to, pointing out that Native American tribes seldom lived in the same area for longer than 100-150 years. So, someone in Arizona finds remains.And they date back 5,000 years. Do they go to the Dine (Navajo)? The Apache?, the Hopi? (None of whom were living there 5,000 years ago). NAGPRA, as written, probably needs to be re-written.

I was building a mansion for a client back in the 90's for a client on Vancouver Island on a waterfront lot. We hit midden which is a bad sign and just before we completed the excavation for the foundation we pulled up a human skull in the bucket of the excavator, shut things down right away and called the Royal Archeological Society. The project was delayed by 6 months while the skeleton and 3 others were excavated with small trowels and paint brushes, several members of the local band got jobs paying top dollar to screen the surrounding midden and the remains were interred with full native ceremony by the local band. The chief made a terrible stink about rich white men digging up the bones of his ancestors and the whole bill went to my client. Twice the work that we could do away from the bones was stopped by the RCMP when neighbours who were going to lose their view when the house was completed, called in false complaints about my workers disturbing the burial site.
The final verdict was that the 3 skeletons were the bodies of slaves that were unceremoniously dumped in the rubbish pit of the adjacent fishing camp by a band that had inhabited the area several hundred years before the current band conquered the area. All the fuss about white oppressors went suddenly quiet when it became clear that this was a native on native desecration of remains. My client was a Queen's Counsel Lawyer and successfully sued the Royal Archeological Society for costs and delays to his home being built. It was a complete farce.

I believe the skeletons of caucasian human oddities like say, the elephant man were returned and interred a long time ago but for some reason there is resistance about doing the same when the bones belong to native peoples. Why is that?

I worked on some human remains that were collected from a burial site (dated approximately 2500 BP) back in the 1970s and had been sitting in storage at the university for decades with only preliminary work done on them (artifact numbers, basic identification). The whole collection were of juvenile and infant bones. My Human Osteology class worked on them for our term project because they were going to be repatriated. We were instructed to treat the bones with respect. Many of the university collections of burial material had been slated for repatriation. I do understand that people would not want the remains of their ancestors treated like nothing but scientific specimens. To be dug out and kept in storage for decades is rather disrespectful.

When I was still active in Archaeology, the common thing was to hope that we did not run into burial sites. If we accidentally came across burials (or any human remains), everything had to stop right then and there pending further communication with the authorities, the heritage department, and the indigenous communities. My work was mostly with historical sites (Canada and the US) so we knew from maps and records where the cemeteries and other burial locations were supposed to be, and we avoided them!!!

There are cases where burial sites might have to be excavated and the remains collected, such as where there are erosion concerns, highway and other construction, etc. What happens to the remains collected I guess would differ in each case. They would have to be examined at least to determine if they are recent (as a result of a crime or accident) or much older (and therefore "archaeological" ).

Study then give back other tribes have accepted that they are curious about their ancestry too

Study and return them for burial. Haven't we stolen enough from them?

Native americans are imo a special case because they are the true natives to america. And their burial sites have spiritual ties. When I die I'll be cremated. Nothing spiritual about me.

Honestly if someone told me my great grandfather's bones had been dug up and some archaeologist had them to study, i don't think it would bother me a bit. Im not sure i would even feel that i had any right to them.
The ancient Egyptians thought that as long as the body and its organs were preserved, the soul would live on in the afterlife. And they would have the use of all the goodies buried with them. I have no such delusions. (Of course the one organ they never preserved was the brain. If they were right, there was a lot of comatose Egyptians wandering around the afterlife.)

I wondered about it too. At what stage are bones deemed to be simply historical interest? Perhaps I'm asking that question because I more or less accept this is how we learn about the past and it hurts nobody. Then I find out to my surprise that Native Americans aren't seeing it the same way. Are they wrong? Darned if I know what their religious beliefs about the dead and death in general are. I wonder, too, if they see a point in time where human bones are less personal to them.

I was a field archaeologist from 1975 to 1983. I worked for the University of Arizona and the state Anthropology Museum field team. I now teach Science on the Navajo Reservation. I have 20 years of experience teaching Native American schools.

My first teaching job was on the Hopi Reservation. It was there that I learned to respect the people who belong to those antiquities. Later I taught for 14 years at the Santa Fe Indian School where my colleagues were involved in getting the Indian Repatriation Act passed and instituted. Today I teach on the Navajo Reserve in wrstern NM.

To answer your question, I would leave the remains in place unless they were in immenent danger of destruction or vandalism. Then contact the State Archaeologists Office with detail description and location. Also contact Navajo Nation Archaeologists Office in Window Rock, AZ.

There are many non-invasive ways to get significant scientific/cultural information without excavating or removing. Thats for professionals who have the technology at their disposal.

Return the bones and artifacts to the peoples of whom they were their ancestors, would like some archaeologists coming along, digging up the remains of your parents/grandparents/great grandparents, etc, etc, and then displaying them in a museum for all and sundry to see?

As long as all funeral artifacts are treated the same, there should be no problem.