Introduction
A massive collection of artifacts, objects and human remains of Australian aboriginals were stolen and shipped to different parts of the world in the late nineteenth century. Different countries used the remains for scientific research. The scientists believed that the human remains would give invaluable insights into biological disparities amid races. The Aboriginals of Australia believe that the transfer of human remains to other parts of the world amounted to an act of aggression on the spirits of the deceased (Byrne 75). Indeed, they allege that the spirits have never rested since the shipment of the remains. Hence, they demand the repatriation of the human remains, indigenous objects, and artifacts as a way to appease the spirits. Additionally, the removal of artifacts and original objects from Australia deprived the aboriginals of the right to govern their cultural heritage.
For over twenty years, the Torres Strait Islanders people and aboriginals have campaigned for repatriation of the human remains, material culture, and artifacts held in different museums across the globe. They have worked in liaison with the Australian government. Their effort led to an agreement between the governments of the United Kingdom (UK) and Australia to repatriate human remains held in Britain (Byrne 81). The repatriation of original objects, artifacts, and human remains has significant meanings and consequences to the indigenous communities in Australia. This essay will discuss some of the implications and consequences of repatriation of human remains, original objects, and artifacts. The article will use case studies of repatriation to support its position.
Meanings of Repatriation
Colonial masters extracted the remains of the aboriginal from burial sites, graves, asylums, hospitals, and prisons. They shipped the remains to France, Britain, Austria, Germany, Scotland, United States, Italy, Czech Republic, Sweden, Holland, and Ireland disguised as kangaroo bones. The transfer of human remains to overseas countries meant that the aboriginals could not pay respect to their deceased relatives. Today, the aboriginals believe that the “spirits of those whose remains are not at home cannot rest” (Byrne 85). They hold that the spirits of the relatives whose remains were transferred to Britain and other countries continue to wander. One of the aboriginal lawyers claimed that the transfer of human remains to overseas countries caused an astronomical damage on the indigenous people. The attorney argued that the remains had significant value to the aboriginals. According to the native population, having the remains of loved ones in their native country was as imperative as having land rights. The repatriation of the remains gives the spirits of the deceased an opportunity to rest. Moreover, it grants the aboriginals an opportunity to pay respect to their relatives.
The demand to repatriate human remains led to the repatriation of at least 60 people from Smithsonian in Washington in 2010. The human remains had been stolen from Arnhem Land (Kenney 503). Moreover, in 2013, the Charite Hospital in Germany repatriated more remains to Torres Strait Islander and Australian populations. The repatriation gave the Australians an opportunity to be with their ancestors and to rest their spirits. Additionally, the aboriginals believed that they experienced social problems because the spirits of their ancestors were not at rest (Kenney 508). The only way they could resolve the social challenges that beleaguered them was by burying the remains of the ancestors. Therefore, the repatriation of human remains had a significant meaning to the indigenous people because it would mark the end of the social problems.
The aboriginals believed that the body of the deceased had to be at rest for the spirit to calm down. Transferring the human remains to overseas countries disturb the peace of the dead. Hence, the body had to be in its native country for it and the spirit to be at rest. The desire to place the ancestors in the apt resting place and to put their souls to rest led to the demand for repatriation of human remains held at the Manchester Museum (Kenney 511). The remains comprised four skulls of the Torres Strait Islanders and aboriginals. They had been transferred to Britain for scientific purposes. Nonetheless, they remained in the museum for long without scientists conducting an investigation on them. After the management of the institution had analyzed the circumstances under which it kept the skulls, a decision was made to repatriate the skulls to Australia. The management deemed it necessary to respect the feelings of indigenous people.
Repatriation of original objects and artifacts gives the aboriginals an opportunity to reconnect with their history as well as ancestors. Britain, the United States, France and other countries that have the artifacts and original objects displayed in their museums view the items as material assortments of past lives. The artifacts and indigenous objects do not have any historical or ancestral values to people who live in these countries. They use them for aesthetic purposes. The museums have for a long time ignored the claims by aboriginals that the artifacts and objects serve as a link between them and their ancestors. Curtis posits, “It remains all too common to see cultural works by indigenous people treated as natural history, to be filed away with rocks and birds carcasses, rather than regarded as a vital culture in its right” (123).
Repatriation of human remains, indigenous objects and artifacts cannot undo the injustices meted on the Australian aboriginals by colonialists. Besides, the very resort to the idea of “ownership” permeates old cultural issues with contemporary capitalistic practices. Indeed, today, many people view culture as a patent. On the other hand, a majority of the extreme demands of cultural ownership are entirely unconditional such that it is tricky to account for them (Curtis 126). For instance, some indigenous groups prohibit the documentation of records or images that depict the ancestors. They allege that the pictures personify the ancestors. In the light of this complexity, repatriation of artifacts and indigenous objects facilitates the transfer of ownership of cultural heritage to the right people. The artifacts do not necessarily have to be given back to the aboriginals. Instead, the Australian museums can work in liaison with the aboriginals in the conservation of the repatriated artifacts. Repatriation of the objects gives the aboriginals the full control of their cultural heritage. In spite of the museums serving as custodians of the artifacts and indigenous objects, the aboriginals assume control of exhibition, interpretation and display of the culture (Simpson 123). In this way, the aboriginals have a chance to correct historical inequities instead of allowing the museums to propagate the mistakes of the past.
The Bardi Jawi, one of the indigenous communities views repatriation of human remains, native materials, and artifacts as a way to correct the wrongs that the colonialists had committed. For decades, the Bardi Jawi negotiated with the Natural History Museum in Vienna Austria for repatriation of the remains of three of their ancestors. The negotiations culminated in the return of the remains last year. The Bardi Jawi community viewed this as the beginning of a healing process (Simpson 126). One member of the Bardi Jawi community claimed that repatriation and subsequent burial of the human remains had a significant lesson to the younger generation. The community taught the younger generation the importance of taking care of the ancestors.
Impacts of Repatriation
Repatriation of human remains, indigenous objects and artifacts result in transformed activities of the indefinable facets of culture. The indigenous objects and artifacts play a critical role in the transmission of knowledge across the generations amid the indigenous societies (Liv 2). Additionally, they facilitate renewal and preservation of intangible features of the aboriginals’ heritage. In Australia, the museums have enhanced their conservation mechanisms to ensure that they do not compromise the integrity of the function and value of the repatriated artifacts and objects. On the other hand, the aboriginals use a blend of conventional approaches and Western conservation techniques to preserve the intangible value of the repatriated items.
Dadson, a former Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner posited, “As indigenous people, we are acutely aware that our survival depends on the vitality of our cultures” (Liv 4). The colonialists interfered with the survival of the aboriginals by stripping them of their individual cultures and identities. Repatriation of human remains, indigenous objects and artifacts has a significant impact on the cultures and identities of the aboriginals in Australia. The return facilitates the revitalization of the individual cultures and identities. In fact, the repatriation of human remains and artifacts from the United States and Britain has resulted in some indigenous communities initiating programs aimed to revitalize their cultures (Liv 7). The communities believe that repatriation of conventional materials, artifacts and human remains helps them to overcome the post-colonial shock and boost indigenous well-being.
Research shows that significant self-governance, cultural renewal, and self-determination contribute to the welfare of the indigenous people. The shipment of human remains, indigenous objects and artifacts from Australia to different countries resulted in cultural discontinuity. Researchers cite cultural discontinuity as the primary cause of high rate of suicide amid the aboriginals (Liv 11). Cultural discontinuity subjected the indigenous communities to risks. Repatriation of human remains, artifacts, and indigenous objects promotes cultural continuity among the aboriginals. In return, it helps to boost the health and well-being of the aboriginal people and reduce the rate of suicide. The repatriation serves as an impetus to the revival of cultural practices and traditional values. In return, the restoration of traditional values reinforces cultural identity and cures societal ills. Repatriation of artifacts and indigenous objects as part of the cultural maintenance plan is associated with community welfare in different ways. It enhances the sovereignty of the aboriginals, facilitates indigenous education, and promotes economic growth and well-being.
There are no records that show where or when the remains were extracted (Smith 406). Hence, it is hard for the Australian government and the indigenous communities to agree on where to take the repatriated human remains. Currently, most repatriated human remains lie in museums as the government wait for the communities to agree on where to bury them. Indeed, the repatriation process has resulted in disagreement between the aboriginals and the Torres Strait Islanders (Smith 407). Lack of sufficient records has made it difficult for the indigenous communities to identify their remains. Presently, the Natural History Museum of Australia holds at least 116 remains in trust for the Torres Straight Islanders. The Torres Strait Islanders could not agree on the origin of the ancestors.
Apart from identifying the appropriate site to bury the repatriated human remains, the aboriginals are faced with the challenge of determining the appropriate ceremony to hold in honor of the deceased. The indigenous societies do not have ceremonies for reburial (Smith 412). In some instances, they are compelled to come up with rituals that are new. The repatriation of human remains has resulted in worrying prospect for many aboriginals. They are unable to tell if the deceased had gone through certain rituals. Moreover, the aboriginals cannot predict the consequences of administering certain rituals on the dead.
The repatriation of human remains in Arnhem Land region has resulted in the “challenges in maintaining the integrity of the aboriginal domain, including the material culture of sacred sites and rock art and health of the environment” (Sullivan, Kelly and Gordon 213). According to aboriginals, the removal of the human remains from their native land annihilates the entire significant link that the deceased had with the community. The reintroduction of the human remains in a “different spatial and temporal context can, therefore, create a measure of uncertainty” (Sullivan, Kelly and Gordon 219). Repatriation of human remains and material culture to Australia brought about uncertainty amid the indigenous communities. The aboriginals encounter challenges in the attempt to place the material culture or human remains in the right social framework of the community. Besides, they are unable to determine how to handle the deceased. The repatriated human remains lack not only the provenance information but also ‘skin name’ that facilitates their repatriation. Therefore, it becomes difficult for the aboriginals to identify their ancestral human remains.
Conclusion
The aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders have for decades fought for repatriation of human remains, indigenous objects, and artifacts that the colonialists stole from them in the nineteenth century. The return of human remains and material culture has significant meanings and impacts on the indigenous people. The indigenous communities believe that the souls of the individuals whose remains were transferred to overseas countries have never rested. Therefore, repatriation of the remains would give the spirits an opportunity to rest in peace. Besides, the indigenous communities believe that repatriation of human remains would help to resolve the social challenges that face the communities. The return of artifacts and indigenous objects to Australia gives the aboriginals a chance to reconnect with their ancestors and establish their identity. Repatriation of the human remains and material culture has a significant effect on the well-being of the aboriginals. Their survival is pegged on the vivacity of the cultures. The return of the artifacts, human remains, and indigenous materials facilitates the continuity of the culture of the aboriginals. On the other hand, it results in uncertainty and disagreement among the indigenous communities. Lack of provenance information makes it hard for the communities to agree on where to inter the repatriated human remains.
Works Cited
Byrne, Denis. “The Ethos of Return: Erasure and Reinstatement of Aboriginal Visibility in the Australian Historical Landscape.” Historical Archaeology 37.1 (2003): 73-86. Print.
Curtis, Neil. “Universal Museums, Museum Objects and Repatriation: The Tangled Stories of Things.” Museum Management and Curatorship 21.2 (2006): 117-127. Print.
Kenney, Cortelyou. “Reframing Indigenous Cultural Artifacts Disputes: An Intellectual Property-Based Approach.” Cardozo Arts & Entertainment Law Journal 28.1 (2014): 501-514. Print.
Liv, Nilsson. “Archaeology, Identity and the Right to Culture: Anthropological Perspectives on Repatriation.” Current Swedish Archaeology 15.1 (2007): 1-16. Print.
Simpson, Moira. “Museum and Restorative Justice: Heritage, Repatriation and Cultural Education.” Museum International 61.2 (2009): 121-129. Print.
Smith, Laurajane. “The Repatriation of Human Remains – Problem or Opportunity?” Antiquity 78.300 (2004): 404-413. Print.
Sullivan, Tim, Lynda Kelly and Phil Gordon. “Museums and Indigenous People in Australia: A Review of Previous Possessions, New Obligations: Policies for Museums in Australia and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peoples.” Curator: The Museum Journal 46.2 (2003): 208-227. Print.