Repatriation Of Human Remains Research Articles

Introduction to Special issue

Introduction to Special issue

Toward Repatriation of Human Remains as a Postcolonial Museum Practice

On 10 January 2022, the French Senate adopted a proposed law on the circulation and return of cultural objects owned by public collections (Sénat 2022). This may be considered the first step toward repatriation legislation. This law needs to be analyzed, voted on, and possibly amended by the National Assembly before it comes back to the Senate and is finally approved. Assuming the law will be finally voted in, this will be a milestone in the process of clarifying the role and the status of human remains in museums collections.

Repatriation, Public Programming, and the DEAI Toolkit

ABSTRACT This article, prepared in the form of a conversation among the authors, discusses the role of a museum’s repatriation of human remains or sacred objects to Indigenous communities in their efforts around Diversity, Equity, Access ibility, and Inclusion (DEAI). Presenting case studies from their museums or from their own research in Germany and the US, the authors observe that public programming, working in concert with repatriation, can become a tool for increasing DEAI in museums with benefits for source communities, as well as for museum visitors and staff. Given the scarcity of research literature on repatriation-centered programming and the fact that their case studies often comprised first steps in their institutions’ repatriation efforts, the contributors call for further study of public programming and its potential to facilitate the repatriation process.

Shrinking the Mystery of Tsantsa Identification: Using Qualitative and Quantitative Measurements to Distinguish Natural and Imitation Shrunken Heads

INTRODUCTIONDuring the 17th through mid‐20th centuries, the Jivaro tribes of South America participated in ritual head shrinking as part of a religious ceremony following battle. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, travelers to South America took interest in these shrunken heads, known as tsantsas, and brought them back home as curios, inspiring the production of fake shrunken heads for the tourist trade. Numerous tsantsas, both real and fake, have ended up in museums or private collections worldwide. As many museums have very specific rules about repatriation of human remains, understanding differences between authentic and imitation tsantsas is imperative.GOALSThe purpose of this study was to qualitatively and quantitatively describe the five tsantsa specimens held in the Anthropology Collection curated at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science (DMNS).METHODSFirst, each specimen was scored independently by two observers for 19 qualitative features typically associated with authentic tsantsas. Each observer also collected 29 standard facial measurements from four key locations (eye = 6, nose = 9, mouth = 4, ear = 10). Each facial measurement was size‐corrected using the geometric mean of all measurements for the specimen. The size‐corrected facial measurements were analyzed using principle component analysis (PCA).RESULTSInter‐observer agreement on scoring of the qualitative features was high, and analysis of the facial measurements revealed no significant differences between raters. The qualitative features suggested the presence of two distinct groups within the DMNS sample: A Probably‐Authentic Group (three specimens) exhibiting 15 or more out of the 19 authentic characteristics, and a Probably‐Imitation Group (two specimens) exhibiting 8 or fewer of the 19 characteristics. PCA of all size‐corrected variables identified two factors accounting for 78% of the variance in the sample (factor 1 = 47%; factor 2 = 31%). The PCA revealed that the five specimens clustered within two distinct groups, distinguished primarily along factor 1. The group composition determined by PCA was concurrent with the two groups indicated by the qualitative traits.CONCLUSIONSAgreement between analysis of qualitative tsantsa characteristics and facial morphometric measurements suggests the presence of three authentic and two imitation tsantsas in the DMNS collection. To affirm these findings, microscopic hair analysis is also performed to establish the presence of human hair. However, DNA analysis is needed to determine with confidence whether the DMNS tsantsas are human or fabricated.This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2018 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal.

“Our Hope and Our Protection”: <em>Misko-biiwaabik</em> (Copper) and Tribal Sovereignty in Michigan

"Our Hope and Our Protection"Misko-biiwaabik (Copper) and Tribal Sovereignty in Michigan Erik M. Redix (bio) In 2000 the Smithsonian denied the request of the Keweenaw Bay Indian Community in Michigan's Upper Peninsula to repatriate a three-thousand-pound copper boulder that was removed from the shores of Upper Michigan's Ontonagon River in 1843. The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community (KBIC) consists of two historic bands of the Lake Superior Ojibwe: the L'Anse and Ontonagon bands. KBIC argued that the boulder was a sacred object utilized for purification by practitioners of Ojibwe Midewiwin prior to beginning ceremonies. The Smithsonian ruled that KBIC failed to provide evidence that the boulder was a sacred object as defined by the 1990 Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) as it was not utilized directly in ceremonies.1 NAGPRA was passed primarily to return human remains to Native communities. It is important to remember that the legislation only applies to publicly funded institutions. Despite this, the legislation has been relatively effective in the repatriation of human remains. However, the burden of proof for repatriation lies with tribes, not the institution housing the object. This has resulted in contestations over what constitutes "sacred" objects under NAGPRA, which defines them as "specific ceremonial objects which are needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-dayadherents."2 If the federal government was truly committed to decolonization and tribal sovereignty, the burden would fall on the federal government to prove why it should keep objects when a tribe petitioned for repatriation; the tribe would then review the federal request. The Keweenaw Bay Indian Community and other tribes are sovereign nations and should be vested [End Page 224] with the right to determine what should be returned to them. Linguistic evidence demonstrates that the Ojibwe viewed the Ontonagon boulder as a living being, which bolsters both the moral and specific legislative reasons why it should be returned. However, the Ontonagon boulder is not just an object in a discussion of tribal sovereignty. Many sources suggest that Ojibwe leaders saw the boulder as a source of their sovereignty. In the nineteenth century, leaders of the Ontonagon band consistently articulated to American officials that they saw copper as an important aspect of their sovereignty, calling it "our hope and our protection." From its removal from Michigan in 1843 to the denial of the Smithsonian to repatriate it in 2000, the Ontonagon boulder tells an important story of how the Ojibwe experienced colonialism. Removal was central to American colonialism. It was not just people who were removed, but objects and resources were also separated from tribal homelands. During the time of the removal of the boulder, Ontonagon band leaders knew that what threatened Ojibwe sovereignty most was American desire for copper, not land. Most Ojibwe people were not directly evicted from their lands by white settlement during the era of treaty making. Instead, American desire to exploit Ojibwe resources such as copper posed the greatest threat to Ojibwe sovereignty during this time. While there was not widespread white settlement in Ojibwe territory in the decades following land cession treaties, the resources exploited in the region were critical for American expansion across the continent. Historian David R. Wrone argues: They provided several of the essential ingredients for the industrial transformation of late nineteenth century and early twentieth century America. The ores of the Mesabi enabled the steel mills of Pittsburgh to flourish, the copper of the Keewnanh [sic] poured into wires made the telephone system possible. Power sites created paper mills, part of the industrial glory of Wisconsin. The lakes and fish offered a recreational paradise.3 Exploration of Upper Michigan's copper preceded and fueled American attempts to extend control over the lands of the Lake Superior Ojibwe. In the decades immediately following the Civil War, three-fourths of all copper produced in the United States came from Upper Michigan during an era when the United States produced half the world's copper. It all started with the removal of the Ontonagon boulder. [End Page 225] the ontonagon band and copper The Ontonagon band was one of the...

Archaeology in the Service of the Tribe: Three Episodes in Twenty-first-Century Tribal Archaeology in the US–Mexico Borderlands

The 1987 publication “Uses of the Past: Archaeology in the Service of the State” offers the inspiration for considering the emerging role of descendent communities in archaeological research and cultural resource management in the American Southwest. Recognizing that interpretations of the past are seldom “value neutral”, we explore the implications and benefits of interpretations of the past when they are “value tribal”. Three episodes in twenty-first-century Tribal Archaeology in Arizona are considered including repatriation of religious objects under state statutes, international repatriation of human remains, and Tribal documentation of traditional cultural properties. We conclude that as federally recognized tribes initiate their own programs in archaeological investigation and assume greater responsibility in the cultural resource management process, new perspectives on the past are coming to light that are of potential benefit to everyone.

Understanding human remains repatriation: practice procedures at the British Museum and the Natural History Museum

This article considers the approaches in policy and practice procedures of the British Museum and the Natural History Museum, London, to claims for the repatriation of human remains from their collections. The complexities and contradictions within the academic human remains repatriation debate and in current legislation, policy and guidelines relating to repatriation, help us to understand the difficulties faced by museums today, when forming institutional human remains policies. Interviews with the staff in charge of repatriation, case studies and examinations of each museum's human remains policies, detailing their repatriation claims procedures, shows us the fundamental differences in each museum's interpretation of the repatriation debate. This article also considers how human remains repatriation around the world has helped shape repatriation in the UK and the consequences of this to both museums and claimant communities.

The Identification of a Human Skull Recovered from an eBay Sale

A human skull seized by the State of Louisiana from an eBay sale is analyzed. Bioarchaeological analyses of age-at-death, sex, and population affinity suggest the individual represented by the skull was a middle-aged Native American female. The presence of intentional cranial modification independently supports the population affinity assessment while confounding the metric analyses. However, no further specificity as to population affinity could be inferred using existing methods and comparative databases. Sedimentological and palynological analyses were attempted to redress this impasse. The presence of fine-grained charcoal, abundant fungal remains, and small angular quartz grains suggestive of burial in loess, as well as the lack of pollen, pteridophyte spores, and microscopic algae, suggest a likely upland burial location from somewhere in the lower Mississippi Valley. The sedimentological and palynological analyses, while not conclusive, show promise for use in future affiliation analyses of human remains recovered during the course of forensic investigations. The results are reviewed within the broader context of the legal debate over the repatriation of human remains.

The International Symposium “From Anatomic Collections to Objects of Worship: Conservation and Exhibition of Human Remains in Museums,” Paris (France), February 22–23, 2008

The Musée du Quay Branly held an international symposium, “From Anatomic Collections to Objects of Worship: Conservation and Exhibition of Human Remains in Museums,” in Paris on February 22–23, 2008, at the museum's Théatre Claude Levy Strauss. The main purpose of the 2-day conference—opened by the French Ministry of Culture and Communication's Christine Albanel—was to stimulate an international debate on a multidisciplinary basis concerning the roles and responsibilities of museums in the exhibition and repatriation of human remains. The subject turned out to be topical, originating from the case of thetoi moko, the Maori tattooed head belonging to the collection of the Natural History Museum in Rouen, France, since 1875. The restitution of thetoi mokoto the Papa Museum in Wellington, New Zealand, deliberated by the city of Rouen, was recently banned by the Administrative Tribunal of Rouen, on request of the Ministry of Culture at the end of 2007. The head actually belonged to a municipal museum, which was in fact part of the Musées de France, and therefore it was considered part of a public collection. Accordingly, the 2002 French statute providing for the inalienability of state properties was applicable.

Playthings for the Foe: The Repatriation of Human Remains in New Zealand

The repatriation of human remains in New Zealand is occurring today in a co-operative, low-profile manner, while in most other parts of the world it attracts high publicity, debate and antagonism. It is shown that the situation in New Zealand is fundamentally different because aspects of Maori culture influenced the kind of remains sought, the way they were collected and also the political and cultural development of the country, so that today Maori are in a much stronger position in their own country than are other indigenous populations around the world. The repatriation movement is thus to a large degree controlled by Maori, whereas other indigenous peoples often require media attention and government intervention in order to achieve their aims, if they are able to at all. It is argued that other colonial countries and their museums first need to solve fundamental issues involving internal intercultural relations before they will be able to move forward in a positive, co-operative manner with repatriation.

Playthings for the Foe: The Repatriation of Human Remains in New Zealand

The repatriation of human remains in New Zealand is occurring today in a co-operative, low-profile manner, while in most other parts of the world it attracts high publicity, debate and antagonism. It is shown that the situation in New Zealand is fundamentally different because aspects of Maori culture influenced the kind of remains sought, the way they were collected and also the political and cultural development of the country, so that today Maori are in a much stronger position in their own country than are other indigenous populations around the world. The repatriation movement is thus to a large degree controlled by Maori, whereas other indigenous peoples often require media attention and government intervention in order to achieve their aims, if they are able to at all. It is argued that other colonial countries and their museums first need to solve fundamental issues involving internal intercultural relations before they will be able to move forward in a positive, co-operative manner with repatriation.

The repatriation of human remains – problem or opportunity?

The editor’s question “who do human skeletons belong to?” (Antiquity78: 5) can be answered positively, but it must be answered in context. The question was prompted by reports from theWorking Group on Human Remainsestablished 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.

Handle with care: thoughts on the return of human bone collections

The repatriation of human remains (Editorial Antiquity 78: 5) is a matter in which two viewpoints, both equally valid, are confronted. Human skeletal remains are part of the record of our past. They tell about our shared past – about the story of human adaptive radiation and dispersion. Recent research using modern and ancient DNA evidence is adding considerably to this understanding, and puts our diversity into context by the finding that we share something like 99 per cent of our genetic makeup with all other human beings. Research on human skeletal remains tells us also about how our predecessors lived and died, and has considerable potential to contribute to medical research. Medieval skeletons from a deserted medieval village in Yorkshire, for instance, have showed that osteoporosis was just as common among medieval women as it is now, giving fresh insight into the causes of osteoporosis and calling into question ideas that blame our modern lifestyle. The techniques used in this study were not available when the remains were first excavated; this illustrates the value of long-term retention of skeletal material, which allows application of new techniques so that new information can be obtained from old collections.

Studying native America: problems and prospects

The White Man does not understand the Indian for the reason that he does not understand America. He is too far removed from its formative process. The roots of the tree of his life have not yet grasped rock and soil. The words of Lakota writer Luther Standing Bear foretold the current debate on the value of Native American studies in higher education. Studying Native America addresses for the first time in a comprehensive way the place of this critical discipline in the university curriculum. Leading scholars in anthropology, demography, English and literature, history, law, social work, linguistics, public health, psychology, and sociology have come together to explore what Native American studies has been, what it is, and what it may be in the future. The book s thirteen contributors and editor Russell Thornton, stress the frequent incompatibility of traditional academic teaching methods with the social and cultural concerns that gave rise to the field of Native American studies. Beginning with the intellectual and institutional history of Native American studies, the book examines its literature, language, historical narratives, and anthropology. The volume discusses the effects on Native American studies of law and constitutionalism; cosmology, epistemology, and religion; identity; demography; colonialism and post-colonialism; science and technology; and repatriation of human remains and cultural objects. Contributors to Studying Native America include Raymond J. DeMallie, Bonnie Duran, Eduardo Duran, Raymond D. Fogelson, Clara Sue Kidwell, Kerwin Lee Klein, Melissa L. Meyer, John H. Moore, Peter Nabokov, Katheryn Shanley, C. Matthew Snipp, Rennard Strickland, Russell Thornton, J. Randolph Valentine, Robert Allen Warrior, Richard White, and Maria Yellowhorse-Braveheart. The book is sponsored in part by the Social Science Research Council.

Artifact Repatriation and Collection Documentation

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) became law in November 1990, giving Native Americans control over the disposition of human remains and certain artifacts with which they have "cultural affiliation". For East Texas, most Native American burials are unquestionably affiliated with the Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma. Implementation of NAGPRA will affect the archaeological data base for East Texas. Repatriation of human remains and associated artifacts to the Caddo Tribe will be required of most curation facilities with collections from this region. Under NAGPRA, future excavation and analysis of human remains and associated artifacts will become increasingly difficult for Federally-sponsored projects.

Documents of the United States Indian Policy

The third edition of this landmark work adds forty new documents, which cover the significant developments in American Indian affairs since 1988. Among the topics dealt with are tribal self-governance, government-to-government relations, religious rights, repatriation of human remains, trust management, health and education, federal recognition of tribes, presidential policies, and Alaska Natives.