Carol Christophersen and Emma Loban have come a long way as representatives of indigenous communities in Australia looking at the repatriation of human remains from the Natural History Museum in London.
But it’s not just the physical distance travelled, as the pair have also been on an emotional journey that has seen them confront the reality of a colonial legacy that saw indigenous people’s remains stolen and then transported to the other side of the world.
Culture shock
As if this was not emotional enough for Christophersen and Loban, who arrived in the UK in September, the pair have had to cope with spending lengthy periods away from their families. Neither of them had been to Europe before. Carol has three children while Emma has one.
“Living in London for six months was the thing that frightened me more than working in a museum or the issue of repatriation,” says Christophersen. “It is a long, long way from home and I can’t bring family.”
Loban agrees that it has not been easy and, coming from a tropical region, the UK’s cold weather has been a huge shock. But they have drawn strength from each other.
“We have bonded really well and have a good friendship,” says Christophersen. “But it’s lonely, even though we have each other and we have created a little family here. It’s been very hard to leave family for such a long time.”
They have a flat together in Fulham and have shared landmark moments such as their first sight of snow. And despite their homesickness and the culture shock of living in a huge city, both are quite clear that the sacrifices are worth it.
“I have moved from a small and remote island in the tropics to one of the largest cities in the world,” says Loban. “It is incredibly difficult being so far away from my family in a completely unfamiliar environment. I miss them very much.
"At the same time, it is because of my family – past, present and future – that I am here. I believe that this fellowship is important in what it represents and what it sets out to achieve.”
Loban is representing the communities of the Torres Strait Islands, a collection of more than 270 islands, of which 17 are inhabited, between the northern tip of Australia and southern shores of Papua New Guinea.
She lives on Thursday Island, the main administrative centre for the Torres Strait. It is also home to the Gab Titui Cultural Centre, where she works.
Christophersen is from Darwin, where she is an anthropologist for the Northern Land Council, which represents aboriginal people in the Northern Territory of Australia. She also sits on the board of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, which looks after sacred sites.
Repatriation of human remains is a deeply personal issue for both of them.
“We, Torres Strait Islanders, have a holistic view of the world,” says Loban. “Our ancestors hold a significant place within our culture. The living and non-living are inextricably linked.
From a Torres strait Islander world view, ancestors are integral to the way in which we live today. They determine who we are, where we come from and how we view ourselves in a global society.”
Christophersen says: “Everyone feels very strongly about repatriation, non-indigenous [Australians] too. It is important that your body is brought back to your country, no matter who you are, but it’s especially important for us because of our history and the way that Australia was established.
"Aboriginal people were treated as less than human and were brought back to London and other European countries and, in some cases, put on display. This is a part of history that not everyone knows about.”
A failure by museums and other institutions to understand or acknowledge the importance of ancestors to indigenous people has made repatriation a contested issue. Arguments tended to focus on the importance of studying human remains for science rather than their importance to the communities that they had been taken from.
Christophersen says: “Our work is to promote understanding of our views, especially the work with human remains and to have this reflected in the repatriations. Australian human remains are not just specimens, there are histories about the removal of these people, and there are also oral histories that families share.”
A desire by museums to retain their collections at all costs has made the issue even more intractable. “Historically, museums don’t give things back. It is theirs; they have collected it, for the empire, for the world.”
Changing attitudes
The Natural History Museum is among those institutions that have started to adopt more enlightened attitudes to the repatriation of human remains. The fellowships have allowed Christophersen and Loban to learn how the museum cares for and uses human remains.
But this is being done in the context of projects linked to requests for the return of remains to their country of origin. The aim is to develop a shared understanding among the museum community of how Australian indigenous perspectives can inform this work.
And even though relationships between some museums and indigenous communities are marked by more understanding than they used to be, repatriation is still a complex issue that has to be dealt with sensitively.
It’s not just about putting them in a box and bringing them back,” Christophersen says. “There is a whole process, and people need time to think about what they want to do.
"If they want to consider science, you need to be talking about it in a very sensitive way and having that option open if they want to explore that. But if they don’t then I think that’s their choice. Scientific research is an issue, as it can help to identify where remains come from."
“There are a large number of Torres Strait remains still at the NHM who require further provenancing,” Loban says. “I am looking into scientific analysis options which may assist us in this process. Ultimately, it is up to Torres Strait community groups to decide how we will move forward.”
And when remains are returned, certain protocols have to be observed to make sure it is done in an appropriate way. Loban advised the Natural History Museum on the repatriation of 19 ancestral remains to her homeland in November last year.
Returning human remains
“A delegation of Torres Strait Islander traditional owners came over to accompany ancestral remains back to Australia,” Loban says.
“It was very important that museum staff were conscious of the cultural sensitivities and protocols around this area. I was able to provide advice and assistance to the Human Remains Unit, thereby ensuring that preparations and the conduct of staff involved in the return were culturally appropriate.”
Christophersen and Loban are coming to the end of their time in the UK and they are both looking forward to returning to their families and leaving behind the British climate. They are also keen to communicate what they’ve learned to people in Australia.
Christophersen says: “I’d imagine I’ll be doing presentations for the following year as people are so interested in this process and the idea that I’ve come over to London and learned many things about the museum.”
They are also hoping the wider museum community could build on the work they’ve done in the UK. “Other museums could learn from what is happening here,” Christophersen says.
“That is part of the idea of getting out and talking to different groups and institutions [in the UK], because they all have human remains that belong in Australia. So it is planting a bit of a seed.
"Maybe it is not so scary, having an indigenous person as part of your institution informing you. You might learn something, and maybe we have a story to tell you about our shared history. Maybe you will learn something more about humanity.”
The human remains held in western museums have been a source of distress and anger among indigenous communities for many years. But more recently, following pressure from indigenous groups, the issue has been approached with more sensitivity by many institutions, although there is still some way to go.
A major change occurred in 2005, when the Human Tissue Act came into force, making it legal for nine national museums in England to deaccession human remains from their collections.
As a result, in 2006 the British Museum announced it was returning two Tasmanian cremation ash bundles. This followed a claim by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC).
Last year, London’s Natural History Museum made two announcements about plans to return ancestral remains to the Torres Strait Islands. It said this marked a new collaborative approach to repatriation.
This followed a less harmonious return of human remains to the TAC in 2007. An agreement to repatriate was reached, but DNA samples that the Natural History Museum was going to hold on to for three months were returned 16 months later.
Manchester Museum, National Museums Scotland and Oxford University’s Museum of Natural History are among a number of museums that have returned human remains in the past ten years.
It has been estimated that there are at least 61,000 human remains in England collected from all over the world, of which nearly 20,000 are in the Natural History Museum.
Carol Christophersen is from Darwin and works as an anthropologist for the Northern Land Council, where she has been since 2002.
She also sits on the board of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, which looks after sacred sites.
Her family and extended families are from Kakadu and Western Arnhem Land.
She has been involved in indigenous affairs since 1995.
Emma Loban is from the Torres Strait Islands, a collection of more than 270 islands, between the northern tip of Australia and southern shores of Papua New Guinea.
She lives on Thursday Island, the main administrative centre for the Torres Strait.
Thursday Island is home to the Gab Titui Cultural Centre, where she works as the operations and exhibitions manager.
She is studying for an arts law degree, majoring in anthropology and international relations.
But it’s not just the physical distance travelled, as the pair have also been on an emotional journey that has seen them confront the reality of a colonial legacy that saw indigenous people’s remains stolen and then transported to the other side of the world.
Culture shock
As if this was not emotional enough for Christophersen and Loban, who arrived in the UK in September, the pair have had to cope with spending lengthy periods away from their families. Neither of them had been to Europe before. Carol has three children while Emma has one.
“Living in London for six months was the thing that frightened me more than working in a museum or the issue of repatriation,” says Christophersen. “It is a long, long way from home and I can’t bring family.”
Loban agrees that it has not been easy and, coming from a tropical region, the UK’s cold weather has been a huge shock. But they have drawn strength from each other.
“We have bonded really well and have a good friendship,” says Christophersen. “But it’s lonely, even though we have each other and we have created a little family here. It’s been very hard to leave family for such a long time.”
They have a flat together in Fulham and have shared landmark moments such as their first sight of snow. And despite their homesickness and the culture shock of living in a huge city, both are quite clear that the sacrifices are worth it.
“I have moved from a small and remote island in the tropics to one of the largest cities in the world,” says Loban. “It is incredibly difficult being so far away from my family in a completely unfamiliar environment. I miss them very much.
"At the same time, it is because of my family – past, present and future – that I am here. I believe that this fellowship is important in what it represents and what it sets out to achieve.”
Loban is representing the communities of the Torres Strait Islands, a collection of more than 270 islands, of which 17 are inhabited, between the northern tip of Australia and southern shores of Papua New Guinea.
She lives on Thursday Island, the main administrative centre for the Torres Strait. It is also home to the Gab Titui Cultural Centre, where she works.
Christophersen is from Darwin, where she is an anthropologist for the Northern Land Council, which represents aboriginal people in the Northern Territory of Australia. She also sits on the board of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, which looks after sacred sites.
Repatriation of human remains is a deeply personal issue for both of them.
“We, Torres Strait Islanders, have a holistic view of the world,” says Loban. “Our ancestors hold a significant place within our culture. The living and non-living are inextricably linked.
From a Torres strait Islander world view, ancestors are integral to the way in which we live today. They determine who we are, where we come from and how we view ourselves in a global society.”
Christophersen says: “Everyone feels very strongly about repatriation, non-indigenous [Australians] too. It is important that your body is brought back to your country, no matter who you are, but it’s especially important for us because of our history and the way that Australia was established.
"Aboriginal people were treated as less than human and were brought back to London and other European countries and, in some cases, put on display. This is a part of history that not everyone knows about.”
A failure by museums and other institutions to understand or acknowledge the importance of ancestors to indigenous people has made repatriation a contested issue. Arguments tended to focus on the importance of studying human remains for science rather than their importance to the communities that they had been taken from.
Christophersen says: “Our work is to promote understanding of our views, especially the work with human remains and to have this reflected in the repatriations. Australian human remains are not just specimens, there are histories about the removal of these people, and there are also oral histories that families share.”
A desire by museums to retain their collections at all costs has made the issue even more intractable. “Historically, museums don’t give things back. It is theirs; they have collected it, for the empire, for the world.”
Changing attitudes
The Natural History Museum is among those institutions that have started to adopt more enlightened attitudes to the repatriation of human remains. The fellowships have allowed Christophersen and Loban to learn how the museum cares for and uses human remains.
But this is being done in the context of projects linked to requests for the return of remains to their country of origin. The aim is to develop a shared understanding among the museum community of how Australian indigenous perspectives can inform this work.
And even though relationships between some museums and indigenous communities are marked by more understanding than they used to be, repatriation is still a complex issue that has to be dealt with sensitively.
It’s not just about putting them in a box and bringing them back,” Christophersen says. “There is a whole process, and people need time to think about what they want to do.
"If they want to consider science, you need to be talking about it in a very sensitive way and having that option open if they want to explore that. But if they don’t then I think that’s their choice. Scientific research is an issue, as it can help to identify where remains come from."
“There are a large number of Torres Strait remains still at the NHM who require further provenancing,” Loban says. “I am looking into scientific analysis options which may assist us in this process. Ultimately, it is up to Torres Strait community groups to decide how we will move forward.”
And when remains are returned, certain protocols have to be observed to make sure it is done in an appropriate way. Loban advised the Natural History Museum on the repatriation of 19 ancestral remains to her homeland in November last year.
Returning human remains
“A delegation of Torres Strait Islander traditional owners came over to accompany ancestral remains back to Australia,” Loban says.
“It was very important that museum staff were conscious of the cultural sensitivities and protocols around this area. I was able to provide advice and assistance to the Human Remains Unit, thereby ensuring that preparations and the conduct of staff involved in the return were culturally appropriate.”
Christophersen and Loban are coming to the end of their time in the UK and they are both looking forward to returning to their families and leaving behind the British climate. They are also keen to communicate what they’ve learned to people in Australia.
Christophersen says: “I’d imagine I’ll be doing presentations for the following year as people are so interested in this process and the idea that I’ve come over to London and learned many things about the museum.”
They are also hoping the wider museum community could build on the work they’ve done in the UK. “Other museums could learn from what is happening here,” Christophersen says.
“That is part of the idea of getting out and talking to different groups and institutions [in the UK], because they all have human remains that belong in Australia. So it is planting a bit of a seed.
"Maybe it is not so scary, having an indigenous person as part of your institution informing you. You might learn something, and maybe we have a story to tell you about our shared history. Maybe you will learn something more about humanity.”
Repatriation at a glance
The human remains held in western museums have been a source of distress and anger among indigenous communities for many years. But more recently, following pressure from indigenous groups, the issue has been approached with more sensitivity by many institutions, although there is still some way to go.
A major change occurred in 2005, when the Human Tissue Act came into force, making it legal for nine national museums in England to deaccession human remains from their collections.
As a result, in 2006 the British Museum announced it was returning two Tasmanian cremation ash bundles. This followed a claim by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (TAC).
Last year, London’s Natural History Museum made two announcements about plans to return ancestral remains to the Torres Strait Islands. It said this marked a new collaborative approach to repatriation.
This followed a less harmonious return of human remains to the TAC in 2007. An agreement to repatriate was reached, but DNA samples that the Natural History Museum was going to hold on to for three months were returned 16 months later.
Manchester Museum, National Museums Scotland and Oxford University’s Museum of Natural History are among a number of museums that have returned human remains in the past ten years.
It has been estimated that there are at least 61,000 human remains in England collected from all over the world, of which nearly 20,000 are in the Natural History Museum.
Carol Christophersen
Carol Christophersen is from Darwin and works as an anthropologist for the Northern Land Council, where she has been since 2002.
She also sits on the board of the Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority, which looks after sacred sites.
Her family and extended families are from Kakadu and Western Arnhem Land.
She has been involved in indigenous affairs since 1995.
Emma Loban
Emma Loban is from the Torres Strait Islands, a collection of more than 270 islands, between the northern tip of Australia and southern shores of Papua New Guinea.
She lives on Thursday Island, the main administrative centre for the Torres Strait.
Thursday Island is home to the Gab Titui Cultural Centre, where she works as the operations and exhibitions manager.
She is studying for an arts law degree, majoring in anthropology and international relations.