Repatriation of Indigenous Human Remains
Repatriation of Indigenous Human Remains
Contemporary Social Justice Issue: Repatriation of Indigenous Human Remains
The repatriation of indigenous human remains has been a contentious issue for decades. Many indigenous communities have been forcibly removed from their ancestral lands and have had their cultural heritage stolen or destroyed. Archaeologists and museums have been accused of stealing and exploiting indigenous artifacts and human remains. In recent years, there has been a movement toward repatriating these items to their rightful owners. This research project will explore the issue of the repatriation of indigenous human remains through the lens of archaeology. The study will focus on the history of repatriation efforts, the ethical considerations of repatriation, and the role of archaeologists in repatriation efforts.
Research Question
What is the role of archaeology in repatriating indigenous human remains, and how can it contribute to social justice?
History of Repatriation Efforts
Archeologists have obtained human remains from different parts of the world, but in the last several decades, it has been subject to new discussions. Human remains hold insights and records of past life useful to current and later generations (Licata et al., 2020). Despite their importance, there is a need to ensure human dignity, a reason that prompted discussions on the repatriation of human remains to their respective points of origin. Most communities treated their ancestral remains as sacred and secret valuables, increasing the need to repatriate remains to promote social justice and respect for cultures. In line with human remains repatriation, communities began to work with the national museums and archeologists on accessing, safe-keeping, and unconditional return of indigenous human remains.
In the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, the United States began listening to repatriation requests from indigenous societies and began returning human remains and sacred objects before establishing any laws to govern human remains repatriation. Passing the NMAIA (20 United States Code (U.S.C.) 80q et seq.) and the NAGPRA (25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq.) were significant and revolutionary to human remains repatriation efforts (Buikstra, 2017). This initiative transformed the repatriation nature and process and had consequential effects internationally. Repatriation under these laws began in the 1980s after an establishment that modern ethics differ from those of the past, and museums had to consider changing accordingly. However, repatriation did not follow any request because there were conditions, for instance, repatriating human remains to only living descendants (Goldstein, 2015). If a group forwarded a request for repatriation, the group had to present convincing evidence of religious and cultural values that outweighed scientific interests. Repatriation was done on a case-by-case basis. With time, the repatriation of indigenous human remains has become a human rights issue based on the argument that human bodies should be treated with dignity and respect, which is not the case when excavated and placed in a museum.
Ethical Consideration of Repatriation
Native tribes, organizations, and some archeologists believe that repatriation is a moral and ethical duty for the archeological profession, even if it means losing access to the remains and artifacts. There was never a consistent national policy dictating repatriation and consultation with indigenous groups until the 1990s despite the increasing requests by native people, who posit repatriation as a human right. For the longest time, indigenous groups have perceived archeologists as looters because they saw no difference. For instance, the incident in Iowa angered many, including some archeologists, after a road construction project led to a cemetery being excavated (Goldstein, 2015). These remains were sent to the museum, and the government insisted they belonged in the museum, implying there was something wrong with archeology and museums. The case in Iowa made more archeologists uncomfortable regarding the concept of study and curation, indicating an ethical issue in archeology involving human remains.
The Western belief system and science have imposed themselves on indigenous people’s belief system regarding their past and how they treat or consider their ancestors and their remains. There was insignificant resistance from indigenous groups against archeologists for a long period, making them assume that the people concurred with their initiatives or did not object. However, archeologists were wrong, shown in the past 30 to 40 years, where polls have indicated the general public supports repatriation calls and the position of the Native Americans (Goldstein, 2015). Moreover, archeology did not consider the centrality of a human and the protection of dignity, raising multiple ethical concerns. The ethical issues surrounding archeology and with respect to repatriation are popular in the international community today. In this regard, reconciliation policies were developed at the international level to guide the return of human remains to the requesting indigenous groups.
According to the ICOME Code of Ethics for Museums, human remains are culturally sensitive materials. Per the code, the collection of human remains is justifiable by compelling evidence that they will be placed in a safe space and treated with respect and dignity (Licata et al., 2020). Furthermore, research involving human remains must follow professional standards and adhere to the beliefs and interests of community members and ethnic and religious groups from where the materials were collected. Additionally, displaying sensitive materials, comprising human remains and related sacred objects, must comply with professional standards. Archeologists must expose human remains with high-level respect and comply with the moral principles of the community (Licata et al., 2020). The code also guides the withdrawal of public display of human remains with non-certified origin. Conclusively, codes, policies, and regulations surrounding the collection, preservation, and repatriation of human remains have placed the interest of indigenous communities and ethnic and religious groups before scientific interests, which is ethically and morally right.
Role of Archeologists in Repatriation
Archeologists are integral to repatriation efforts because they bare a preexisting working relationship with the local people and tribal governments. Most indigenous people would rather have archeological sites like cemeteries left undisturbed or studied and restored instead of transferring materials to museums (Fforde, 2020). Human remains and sacred materials attached to them should belong to the communities and regions they came from, or it would be considered looting and stealing, which has been the case for centuries. Archeology has been accused of stripping communities of their cultures as antiquities are taken from and displayed publicly. Conventionally, developed countries like the US and UK have claimed that human remains and materials are safer in developed countries because of stable and better equipment and environment of preservation, and archeologists are accountable for such suggestions. This attitude patronizes individuals trying to maintain their culture and heritage in their respective places.
Collection of human remains begins with archeologists, and so can repatriation. Most communities are not against conducting a study but the transfer of human remains from their indigenous settings. Archeologists can act as advocates of repatriation to balance the scientific interests and cultural interests of indigenous people (Bauer et al., 2016). Archeologists should lead repatriation efforts of human remains and materials with historical and cultural roots to honor those roots and the people attached to them. It is an issue of cultural sensitivities that should be a competency of every archeologist. As such, archeologists can enhance community research and build respectful relationships by engaging in community-led studies and repatriation projects (Bauer et al., 2016). Archeologists can be at the center of consultations and agreements with indigenous communities regarding the study of human remains and restoration of sites they were obtained from after completing a study, promoting social justice. Emphatically, archeologists can help repatriation efforts through advocacy and promote social justice.
Conclusion
Archeology has been accused of cultural insensitivities and taking from people their cultures and heritage. Archeologists have been compared to looters, and most indigenous communities continue to fight for the return of human remains and other sacred objects. Repatriation should be considered an ethical and moral responsibility of archeology. Archeologists can bolster repatriation efforts through advocacy, building respectful relationships with communities, promoting community-led studies and repatriation projects, and being at the center of negotiations and consultations with communities to protect the interests of indigenous people before their own.
References
Bauer, A. A., Lindsay, S., & Urice, S. (2016). When theory, practice and policy collide, or 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.
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
