Abstract In any NAGPRA effort, the perspectives of Tribal Nation and institutional representatives—even when mutually acknowledged and respected—differ. We are each informed by our own histories and guided by our own concerns. Tribal representatives may identify clear cultural echoes in the archaeological evidence of mortuary behavior and feel kinship to the corporal remains of the ancestors themselves. Even in the absence of those associations, Tribal representatives may see NAGPRA work as fulfilling their obligations as indigenous stewards and as active proponents for cultural sovereignty. Some institutional representatives may simply see NAGPRA collections as problematic items to divest the institution of as soon as possible. Some representatives, as well as scholars and museum staff and the like, may see in their institution's NAGPRA collections the hard evidence that has revealed the human past to science and the foundation of research and exhibits, evidence that will now be lost to such pursuits. In NAGPRA collections, as well as in the manner in which they and the information generated by them have been stored and studied, these same professionals also may see the material referents of the very history of American archaeology, anthropology, and museology. Yet, regardless of any divergence of Tribal and institutional perspectives, the Angel Mounds repatriation resulted not only in the return of the ancestors and their belongings to the earth. It is also an exceptional example of consensus building and collaborative NAGPRA work.
Hawkins et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: