scholarly journals SCuLE Response for the EMRIP Report on Repatriation of Ceremonial Objects and Human Remains Under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mathilde Pavis ◽  
Andrea Wallace
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Human Remains

The repatriation of human remains – problem or opportunity?

Antiquity ◽  
2004 ◽  
Vol 78 (300) ◽  
pp. 404-413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurajane Smith
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
North America ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Culture Media ◽  
Human Remains ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Publicly Funded ◽  
Cultural Groups ◽  
Historical Continuity

The editor’s question “who do human skeletons belong to?” (Antiquity 78: 5) can be answered positively, but it must be answered in context. The question was prompted by reports from the Working Group on Human Remains established by the British government’s Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) in 2001 to review the current legal status of human remains held in all publicly funded museums and galleries, and to consider and review submissions on the issue of the return of non-UK human remains to their descendent communities (DCMS 2003: 1-8). In effect, the report was primarily concerned with human remains from Indigenous communities, using a definition which follows the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples as “distinct cultural groups having a historical continuity with pre-colonial societies that developed on their territories” (DCMS 2003:7). Consequently, the report deals primarily with the Indigenous communities of Australia, New Zealand and North America.

A Perspective on Ethics and the Reburial Controversy

1993 ◽  
Vol 58 (2) ◽  
pp. 348-354 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony L. Klesert ◽  
Shirley Powell
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Cultural Heritage ◽  
Academic Freedom ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Professional Ethic ◽  
Human Remains ◽  
Indigenous Groups ◽  
Right Of Access ◽  
Proper Context ◽  
Grave Goods

It is our opinion that archaeologists have no inherent right of access to human remains, grave goods, or objects of cultural heritage; that respecting diverse cultural views does not amount to an abdication of academic freedom; that historically archaeologists have been unanthropological in their approach to living populations and inconsistent in their treatment of indigenous peoples; and that archaeologists are fighting a losing battle when they ignore public opinion and clash with indigenous groups in the name of science. We offer some guidelines that we feel will alleviate much of the current tensions between archaeologists and indigenous peoples. A professional ethic must be devised that is consciously anthropological, values the rights of those studied and their cultural descendants in their own terms, and places academic pursuits in their proper context.

scholarly journals Regaining Authority: Setting the Agenda in Maori Heritage through the Control and Shaping of Data

2006 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerard O'Regan
Keyword(s):  
New Zealand ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Rock Art ◽  
Human Remains ◽  
Common Theme ◽  
The South ◽  
The Future ◽  
And Control ◽  
Associated Data

Conflict or a reconciliation of it is a common theme in discussions on indigenous peoples’ heritage. Whereas conflict is often expressed in claims of ownership and control, sometimes legally contested, this article suggests that the pragmatic issue of possessing and shaping the associated data is equally important to indigenous peoples’ attempt to reclaim their treasures. This idea is explored through case studies of the experience of the Ngai Tahu tribe of the South Island of New Zealand regarding the future of ancestral human remains and their rock art heritage.

Cultural affiliation is not enough: the repatriation of Ainu human remains

Polar Record ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 220-224 ◽  
Author(s):  
Naohiro Nakamura
Keyword(s):  
Native American ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Human Remains ◽  
Ethical Challenges ◽  
Legal Cases ◽  
Cultural Affiliation ◽  
Legal Case ◽  
The Us ◽  
Legal Frameworks ◽  
The University

ABSTRACTThe challenges faced by indigenous peoples in repatriation negotiations vary across the globe. In 2012, three Ainu individuals launched a legal case against Hokkaido University, demanding the return of the human remains of nine individuals and a formal apology for having conducted intentional excavations of Ainu graveyards, stolen the remains and infringed upon their rights to perform ceremonies of worship. This action marked the first of such legal cases in Japan. The Ainu experienced both legal and ethical challenges during negotiations with the university; for example, while the claimants applied the Ainu concept kotan as a legal argument for collective ownership of the remains, Hokkaido University claimed the lack of assumption of rights relating to worship under the Civil Code of Japan. There has been significant progress recently on repatriation, mainly due to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act in the US, and several meaningful recommendations have been made to ease the repatriation process. However, such recommendations are often case specific and variations in the experiences of indigenous peoples from country to country have not been widely documented. This article discusses the challenges faced by the Ainu in repatriation negotiations in Japan, with a particular focus on the difficulties of applying indigenous customs and philosophies within legal frameworks.

scholarly journals Locating places for repatriated burial: A case study from Ngarrindjeri ruwe, South Australia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynley Wallis ◽  
Ian Moffat ◽  
George Trevorrow ◽  
Toni Massey
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
South Australia ◽  
Human Remains ◽  
Geophysical Survey ◽  
Operative Case

In this ingenious co-operative case study, archaeologists and Indigenous peoples use geophysical survey to scan suitable places for the reburial of repatriated human remains. The process is also building a procedure for the low impact and respectful research of early Indigenous burial locations.

scholarly journals Te Hokinga Mai O Ngā Tūpuna: Māori Perspectives of Repatriation and the Scientific Research of Ancestral Remains.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Amber Aranui
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Cultural Beliefs ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Human Remains ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Medical Institutions ◽  
The World ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Indigenous Perspective ◽  
Descendant Communities

<p>The repatriation of human remains has been the subject of much discussion and debate, especially since the 1990s. Since then, there has been a marked increase in the international literature relating to museums, indigenous peoples and repatriation; however, this literature is mainly written from the perspective of museums and universities. Although there has been some publication of the views on repatriation of indigenous communities there is a conspicuous absence of Māori perspectives in this literature. In particular, there is a lack of Māori voice on the repatriation of ancestral remains, as well as a lack of commentary on the so-called scientific research on ancestral remains that has taken place, and continues to take place, in universities, museums, and medical institutions around the world. This lack of indigenous perspective in the repatriation literature has resulted in mainstream assumptions about why indigenous communities, such as Māori, have been so active in repatriation activities over the last 25 years. The assumptions have tended to view the motives of indigenous peoples as politically motivated and even go as far as describing them as “activist” in nature rather than motivated by cultural beliefs and imperatives. This perceived view, as well as the views of many writers in the scientific and museum professions who do not agree with the repatriation of human remains back to origin communities because of their “loss to science” and therefore humankind, has prompted hotly contested debates concerning these issues. These contested views lead inevitably to the question of consent and whether the taking of skeletal remains from burial contexts to carry out ‘scientific’ research without consent is deemed ethical by today’s standards.  The primary aim of this thesis is to document Māori perspectives on the repatriation of ancestral human remains and to understand the significance of Māori ancestral human remains for descendant communities. A secondary aim is to review some of the scientific research which has been carried out on Māori ancestral remains, and to identify the benefits, if any, of that research for descendant communities.</p>

scholarly journals COMPUTER VISUALIZATION OF THE APPEARANCE OF THE INDIGENOUS PEOPLES OF THE AMUR REGION

2021 ◽  
pp. 45-49
Author(s):  
VLADISLAV EVGENIEVICH MATVEEV ◽  
◽  
ROMAN ANDREEVICH ALEKSANOV ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Information Technology ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Human Remains ◽  
Amur Region ◽  
Computer Reconstruction ◽  
Computer Visualization ◽  
Virtual Modeling ◽  
Average Image

In this paper, a comparison is made between two methods of computer reconstruction and visualization of human appearance on the example of the indigenous peoples of the Amur region. Visualization takes place using modeling from an average image of a person from a photograph and using direct reconstruction from human remains (skull). This work assumes knowledge in the field of information technology, including virtual modeling.

scholarly journals Te Hokinga Mai O Ngā Tūpuna: Māori Perspectives of Repatriation and the Scientific Research of Ancestral Remains.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Amber Aranui
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Cultural Beliefs ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Human Remains ◽  
Indigenous Communities ◽  
Medical Institutions ◽  
The World ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Indigenous Perspective ◽  
Descendant Communities

<p>The repatriation of human remains has been the subject of much discussion and debate, especially since the 1990s. Since then, there has been a marked increase in the international literature relating to museums, indigenous peoples and repatriation; however, this literature is mainly written from the perspective of museums and universities. Although there has been some publication of the views on repatriation of indigenous communities there is a conspicuous absence of Māori perspectives in this literature. In particular, there is a lack of Māori voice on the repatriation of ancestral remains, as well as a lack of commentary on the so-called scientific research on ancestral remains that has taken place, and continues to take place, in universities, museums, and medical institutions around the world. This lack of indigenous perspective in the repatriation literature has resulted in mainstream assumptions about why indigenous communities, such as Māori, have been so active in repatriation activities over the last 25 years. The assumptions have tended to view the motives of indigenous peoples as politically motivated and even go as far as describing them as “activist” in nature rather than motivated by cultural beliefs and imperatives. This perceived view, as well as the views of many writers in the scientific and museum professions who do not agree with the repatriation of human remains back to origin communities because of their “loss to science” and therefore humankind, has prompted hotly contested debates concerning these issues. These contested views lead inevitably to the question of consent and whether the taking of skeletal remains from burial contexts to carry out ‘scientific’ research without consent is deemed ethical by today’s standards.  The primary aim of this thesis is to document Māori perspectives on the repatriation of ancestral human remains and to understand the significance of Māori ancestral human remains for descendant communities. A secondary aim is to review some of the scientific research which has been carried out on Māori ancestral remains, and to identify the benefits, if any, of that research for descendant communities.</p>

scholarly journals Locating places for repatriated burial: a case study from Ngarrindjeriruwe, South Australia

Antiquity ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 82 (317) ◽  
pp. 750-760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lynley A. Wallis ◽  
Ian Moffat ◽  
George Trevorrow ◽  
Toni Massey
Keyword(s):  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
South Australia ◽  
Human Remains ◽  
Geophysical Survey ◽  
Operative Case

In this ingenious co-operative case study, archaeologists and Indigenous peoples use geophysical survey to scan suitable places for the reburial of repatriated human remains. The process is also building a procedure for the low impact and respectful research of early Indigenous burial locations.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document