Repatriating Indigenous Human Remains
Repatriating Indigenous Human Remains
Repatriating Indigenous Human Remains
Millions of artifacts from Native American cemeteries and other sacred locations are housed in museums globally. Human remains abound in those collections, the consequence of nearly a century of professional archeology and physical anthropology, hardly mentioning a considerably longer, interspersed history of collection by serious amateurs, tourists, and grave thieves. Human remains have been crucial in stitching together Native American societies’ biological and cultural histories (Licata, 2020). Most scholars interested in these artifacts despise the hobbyist collectors and scavengers; however, over the last twenty years, research scientists and museum professionals have found themselves at the heart of heated debates over the continuation of their own Native American materials-related endeavors.
The repatriation of human remains and sacred materials makes archeology increasingly political, particularly in the United States, Canada, and Australia, where indigenous people hold concerns over the removal of human remains from their burial sites. International and US laws have forced a change in perspectives and a significant cultural shift on the side of archeologists and museums regarding the repatriation of human remains, which will have a pervasive impact on archeology, indigenous communities, and the role and responsibilities of museums (Goldstein, 2015). Conclusively, archeology will remain within the confines of political influence.
(Repatriating Indigenous Human Remains)
Some Native American groups see the collection of human remains as part of a long history of political and racial abuses against the continent’s indigenous peoples. Researchers, on the other hand, argue that these physical relics are critical for unique data collection that offers insight into the past, demographics, and health of aboriginal peoples (Licata et al., 2020). Similarly, museum personnel contrast their facilities’ security and custodial care with unguarded (and lootable) reburial grounds. Towards the end of the 1980s, requests for the repatriation of human remains and sacred items to descendants were increasingly vociferous, prompting congressional hearings and federal action (Buikstra, 2017). The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), which became law in 1990, established a new ethical norm in authority over the handling of human remains and holy artifacts. The essential principles are straightforward: burial grounds are sacred spaces that ought not to be disturbed; removing human remains from graves under any conditions is an act of desecration; remains taken out of graves must be returned to descendants, who possess the right to determine how ancestral remains and sacred artifacts will be handled (Buikstra, 2017). The obligation for researchers and institutions to return ownership of human remains to their closest ancestral or cultural relatives lies at the heart of NAGPRA’s regulatory framework (Buikstra, 2017). Those descendants may opt for remains to be reburied in the ground rather than in museum boxes, or they may select any alternative approach, including storage in a museum. The emphasis here is that the choice is entirely theirs.
The NAGPRA-mandated repatriation is a complex administrative process, but the ethical foundation is clear: Museums and universities do not hold the authority to regulate human remains; whenever a grave is disturbed, its nearest lineal or cultural descendants presume ownership and the right to choose the way those human remains should be handled (Buikstra, 2017). Although the majority of archaeologists and museum experts agree with this fundamental premise, conducting repatriation on a daily basis puts them in several legal and ethical binds. Despite NAGPRA prohibiting activity and disputes over repatriation raging on, time does not stand still, work must be completed, and researchers must continue with their jobs.
Research shows archeologists remain core advocates in the control and return of human remains and cultural property, although they still hold an interest in investigating the past through the lens of human remains. According to Fforde (2020), archeologists have a public responsibility to ensure the protection and return of human remains once they are studied. It is important to note that not only archeologists’ access indigenous cemeteries but also grave thieves and other looters. It is the archeologists’ interest to protect these sites from destruction and theft; hence they find themselves advocating for laws that limit operations at the burial sites. Archeologists hope that these policies and laws will counter and discourage illicit looting and archeological sites’ destruction (Bauer et al., 2016). However, so far these laws have not indicated clearly whether they have been effective in protecting the burial sites, although significant strides have been made in the control and repatriation of human remains. Archeologists also advocate for developing and implementing these laws from a moral perspective or lesson because they see them as appropriate measures to correct past injustices committed through colonization and imperial activities.
Archeologists aim to empower groups linked to human remains by advocating for repatriation, which has emerged as a significant moral concern in the international community (Bauer et al., 2016). Allowing Indigenous people to control their patrimony is a privileged right today, and it will act as the basis for negotiations of identities and an approach to mediate between historical perpetrators and victims (Licata et al., 2020). Archeologists join the criticism of the Western hegemonic power structures that were dominant in the world in the 19th and 20th centuries and which facilitated the looting and removal of human remains from their indigenous settings (Bauer et al., 2016). Postcolonial criticism is perceived as a way archeologists show respect for other people’s culture and history and somehow as sympathy for the less powerful.
(Repatriating Indigenous Human Remains)
Research concludes that the repatriation of human remains will remain a subject of discussion and at the heart of archeology. Human remains maintain their dignity regardless of how back they date and allow the community to reflect on the ethical issues associated with their removal from burial sites and their analysis, curation, and display in public (Licata et al., 2020). Archeologists should continue to give voice to multiple approaches and identity-shared routes on managing human remains, ensuring they are treated with dignity and that individuals involved respect the cultural values of the communities. Human remains should be treated as culturally sensitive materials, acquired and handled with respect regardless of how old they are or whether they can legitimately be proven of their descendants. There should be increased awareness of the ethical issues and guidelines attached to the repatriation of human remains and ensure the respect of human dignity and cultural values. Conclusively, the discussion should continue to devise ways and solutions to this sensitive matter.
References
Bauer, A. A., Lindsay, S., & Urice, S. (2016). When theory, practice, and policy collide, why do archaeologists support cultural property claims? In Archaeology and Capitalism (pp. 45-58). Routledge.
Buikstra, J. E. (2017). Repatriation and bioarchaeology: Challenges and opportunities. Bioarchaeology, 411-438.
Fforde, C. (2020). Vermillion accord on human remains (1989)(indigenous archaeology). In Encyclopedia of global archaeology (pp. 11016-11019). Cham: Springer International Publishing. https://archaeologicalethics.org/book/vermillion-accord-on-human-remains-1989-indigenous-archaeology-reference-work/
Goldstein, L. (2015). Archaeology, Politics of. International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.13024-7
Licata, M., Bonsignore, A., Boano, R., Monza, F., Fulcheri, E., & Ciliberti, R. (2020). Study, conservation, and exhibition of human remains: the need of a bioethical perspective. Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis, 91(4), e2020110. https://doi.org/10.23750/abm.v91i4.9674
