Over the past year, responses to the Working Group on Human Remains report have tended to polarise factions in the scientific and museum communities. The scientific research camp has strongly decried the notion that human remains should be repatriated, or even that source communities should be consulted about them.
But the coverage of this issue has excluded the voices of the indigenous communities whose ancestral remains are at stake. The UK debate has noted, but not learned much from, developments in policy and practice in countries such as Canada and Australia, where accountability to indigenous peoples is now accepted as standard.
In the UK, scientists continue to insist that their rights should take precedence and that indigenous peoples are being 'short-sighted' in wanting to bury their ancestors, in ways reminiscent of patronising colonial attitudes expressed by the old phrase, 'great white father knows best'.
Such attitudes ignore the tremendous benefits to be gained from working more closely with indigenous groups. Recent developments in North America provide a very different picture.
In the US, where the repatriation of human remains is enforced by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, scientists feared their research would be halted by the loss of collections but in fact they have found their work stimulated.
According to Jerome Rose and colleagues in the 1996 article NAGPRA is Forever: Osteology and the Repatriation of Skeletons: 'The inventory and repatriation process has increased the number of skeletons studied from about 30 per cent to nearly 100 per cent.
The availability of funds stimulated by this law produced osteological data collection and systematisation unprecedented in the history of osteology. The possibility of forming partnerships between Native Americans and osteologists has the potential of producing a vibrant future for North American osteology and the new bioarchaeology.'
Research partnerships have proven crucial. Native American groups can, and have, banned outside researchers from working in their communities through acts of local government.
The refusal of scientists and scholars to work in ways accountable to tribal groups has led directly to a situation in which tribal groups refuse to work with them - and increasingly, in North America and the Pacific, indigenous peoples have the right to refuse scientific and social science research, or to permit it on their terms.
But when indigenous groups can participate in the process, and when scientists are accountable to them, they open doors to research.
In northern Manitoba, Canada, archaeologists working with Nisichawayasihk First Nation peoples have excavated burials exposed by water erosion.
Remains and grave goods are transported to the provincial museum for analysis, and artefacts are replicated in exact detail. Material is then returned to the community for reburial, together with exhibitions about what was learned from the analysis.
Local teachers draw on this information, and young people are increasingly interested in becoming archaeologists. The partnership has been a success because it returns information in forms usable in the community, something that scholars have seldom done.
An even broader collaboration occurred when an ancient body was found eroding in a glacier in northern British Columbia in 1999 (see illustration). The Champagne and Aishihik First Nations (CAFN) worked with a team of scientists to remove and analyse the body and artefacts found with it. The First Nations wanted to know who the man was, and where he was from, to give him a proper burial; they were also keen to learn about his life.
Archaeologists, bio-osteologists, DNA specialists, and pollen and faunal experts worked to answer these questions. Skilled First Nations weavers examined his hat and robe, preserved in the ice. At tribal request, scientists did not open a medicine pouch found on the body, but they were authorised to send samples of tissues and hair around the world for analysis.
Nearly 200 First Nations people gave blood samples to see if they were related to the man. After analysis, the remains were cremated in 2001 and returned by tribal members to the glacier where he was found. Much was learned, both by scientists and CAFN members.
In a newsletter circulated by CAFN tribal government to its members, elders advised people 'to have something positive come out of this long ago tragedy, to learn about this ancient person. Was he our ancestor? When and where did this person live? How did he live and die?'
The newsletter continued: 'CAFN does not so much claim this long ago person as our ancestor, but as our responsibility. We will ensure that the…human remains are treated with dignity and respect, and we are working with the government of British Columbia to determine what type of scientific studies are appropriate.'
This statement shows the way in which the drive to repatriate human remains by indigenous people is part of a wider move to reclaim control over their lives. Bringing ancestral remains home is a powerful part of this process, and indigenous communities are resolute in this goal. The Haida Nation has systematically reclaimed the remains of 402 individuals from over ten museums in North America, and are working on a further 412 individuals; they note in a recent document that the only repatriations of human remains not scheduled so far are those in overseas museums.
Museums in the UK will receive increasing numbers of requests for human remains from indigenous communities in the future and we will need new ways of dealing with these.
Yes, there are problem cases, where poor provenance or age of remains makes the connection to descendants tenuous. But in many cases we have much to gain from entering into consultation with source communities.
Accountability, respect and consultation will not only depolarise the UK stand-off over human remains, but will facilitate research. And while there are impediments to this way of working, including cultural differences, distance, and cost, the greatest impediment is in our minds and our attitudes.
The debate over indigenous human remains is, ultimately, about what kinds of relationships we want-or don't want - to have, both with the living and with the dead.
mj
But the coverage of this issue has excluded the voices of the indigenous communities whose ancestral remains are at stake. The UK debate has noted, but not learned much from, developments in policy and practice in countries such as Canada and Australia, where accountability to indigenous peoples is now accepted as standard.
In the UK, scientists continue to insist that their rights should take precedence and that indigenous peoples are being 'short-sighted' in wanting to bury their ancestors, in ways reminiscent of patronising colonial attitudes expressed by the old phrase, 'great white father knows best'.
Such attitudes ignore the tremendous benefits to be gained from working more closely with indigenous groups. Recent developments in North America provide a very different picture.
In the US, where the repatriation of human remains is enforced by the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, scientists feared their research would be halted by the loss of collections but in fact they have found their work stimulated.
According to Jerome Rose and colleagues in the 1996 article NAGPRA is Forever: Osteology and the Repatriation of Skeletons: 'The inventory and repatriation process has increased the number of skeletons studied from about 30 per cent to nearly 100 per cent.
The availability of funds stimulated by this law produced osteological data collection and systematisation unprecedented in the history of osteology. The possibility of forming partnerships between Native Americans and osteologists has the potential of producing a vibrant future for North American osteology and the new bioarchaeology.'
Research partnerships have proven crucial. Native American groups can, and have, banned outside researchers from working in their communities through acts of local government.
The refusal of scientists and scholars to work in ways accountable to tribal groups has led directly to a situation in which tribal groups refuse to work with them - and increasingly, in North America and the Pacific, indigenous peoples have the right to refuse scientific and social science research, or to permit it on their terms.
But when indigenous groups can participate in the process, and when scientists are accountable to them, they open doors to research.
In northern Manitoba, Canada, archaeologists working with Nisichawayasihk First Nation peoples have excavated burials exposed by water erosion.
Remains and grave goods are transported to the provincial museum for analysis, and artefacts are replicated in exact detail. Material is then returned to the community for reburial, together with exhibitions about what was learned from the analysis.
Local teachers draw on this information, and young people are increasingly interested in becoming archaeologists. The partnership has been a success because it returns information in forms usable in the community, something that scholars have seldom done.
An even broader collaboration occurred when an ancient body was found eroding in a glacier in northern British Columbia in 1999 (see illustration). The Champagne and Aishihik First Nations (CAFN) worked with a team of scientists to remove and analyse the body and artefacts found with it. The First Nations wanted to know who the man was, and where he was from, to give him a proper burial; they were also keen to learn about his life.
Archaeologists, bio-osteologists, DNA specialists, and pollen and faunal experts worked to answer these questions. Skilled First Nations weavers examined his hat and robe, preserved in the ice. At tribal request, scientists did not open a medicine pouch found on the body, but they were authorised to send samples of tissues and hair around the world for analysis.
Nearly 200 First Nations people gave blood samples to see if they were related to the man. After analysis, the remains were cremated in 2001 and returned by tribal members to the glacier where he was found. Much was learned, both by scientists and CAFN members.
In a newsletter circulated by CAFN tribal government to its members, elders advised people 'to have something positive come out of this long ago tragedy, to learn about this ancient person. Was he our ancestor? When and where did this person live? How did he live and die?'
The newsletter continued: 'CAFN does not so much claim this long ago person as our ancestor, but as our responsibility. We will ensure that the…human remains are treated with dignity and respect, and we are working with the government of British Columbia to determine what type of scientific studies are appropriate.'
This statement shows the way in which the drive to repatriate human remains by indigenous people is part of a wider move to reclaim control over their lives. Bringing ancestral remains home is a powerful part of this process, and indigenous communities are resolute in this goal. The Haida Nation has systematically reclaimed the remains of 402 individuals from over ten museums in North America, and are working on a further 412 individuals; they note in a recent document that the only repatriations of human remains not scheduled so far are those in overseas museums.
Museums in the UK will receive increasing numbers of requests for human remains from indigenous communities in the future and we will need new ways of dealing with these.
Yes, there are problem cases, where poor provenance or age of remains makes the connection to descendants tenuous. But in many cases we have much to gain from entering into consultation with source communities.
Accountability, respect and consultation will not only depolarise the UK stand-off over human remains, but will facilitate research. And while there are impediments to this way of working, including cultural differences, distance, and cost, the greatest impediment is in our minds and our attitudes.
The debate over indigenous human remains is, ultimately, about what kinds of relationships we want-or don't want - to have, both with the living and with the dead.
mj
