Abstract With a legal framework in place for decades, NAGPRA repatriations are becoming more common. Yet because of myriad factors, progress can be slow. No universal repatriation models exist for curatorial institutions and Tribes to employ because each repatriation, descendant community, and stakeholder constituency is unique. In this article, the processes associated with the archaeological preparations and reinterment procedures for a major reburial of repatriated remains at the Angel Mounds archaeological site are described. Navigating the needs, goals, and wishes of a diverse group of partners and other stakeholders is discussed. The article begins with a brief overview of the NAGPRA-related literature pertinent to the issues we faced. Because Angel Mounds is a state historic site, a National Register of Historic Places property, and a National Historic Landmark, we were required to follow both state and federal guidelines for breaking ground at the site. It was important to everyone that the new grave not disturb extant archaeological resources or other burial features and be designed to facilitate reinterments of any NAGPRA items discovered in the future. Careful collaborative planning was required in order to identify a grave location, while the archaeological study was intended to minimize the impact of the reburial on in situ cultural resources.
Herrmann et al. (Wed,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: