York archaeologists weigh in on remains repatriation debate
Posted on 2 July 2004
Writing in the journal 'Antiquity', Dr Smith and Professor Brothwell detail some of the sensitive issues which arise when considering the return to the society they belong to of human remains that were removed during an archaeological investigation.
Professor Brothwell, Emeritus Professor in the Centre for Human Palaeoecology, points out that genetic ties become watered down and shared between ethnic groups over generations. This means that establishing the strength of a group's claim for repatriation is complex, and likely to devolve into political and religious wrangling.
Adopting a different stance, Dr Smith, an Australian archaeologist specialising in heritage management and indigenous studies, argues that remains repatriation presents the opportunity for better and more enriching relationships between archaeologists and ethnic groups.
She argues that fresh perspectives on archaeological material could be obtained by improving working relationships with indigenous communities, whilst at the same time allowing these communities to learn more about their past.
"For such a relationship to be worthwhile," Dr Smith says, "the archaeological community must firstly address its prevailing attitudes and practices that hamper the harvesting and use of information from indigenous groups".
However, Professor Brothwell argues that hard science and modern day practicalities should not be compromised in the interests of political correctness and expediency. "Perhaps it is only a matter of time before the druids of Stonehenge . will begin to make claims for the reburial of their local prehistoric ancestors," he commented, adding: "This is certainly not beyond the realms of possibility."
He cites, as an example of the chaos that can occur when dealing with cultural groups, the excavation of a Jewish cemetery in York in 1994. Although the project was initially supported by British Jewry, it was eventually closed down following pressure from ultra-orthodox rabbis. "The medieval Jewish community," Professor Brothwell says, "now lies cramped and crushed under part of a car-park in York."
Professor Brothwell also has concerns about the treatment of repatriated material. "Although repatriation can simply mean return into guardianship and appropriate curation," he says, "it can mean reburial (without access for archaeologists) or cremation, with or without consideration of the burial beliefs of ancient people." In one example, Neolithic skeletons were given Christian burials.
If human remains are repatriated, then the objects found with them - currently held in museums - should also be returned with them. "The government, plus the British Museum and other institutions, will eventually have to bite the bullet and return much cultural booty," Professor Brothwell says, and he calls for a set of international standards to be put in place to ensure proper preservation of and access to any repatriated material, to safeguard future scientific research.
The debate looks set to continue to rage amongst the international archaeological community. Perhaps, however, as Dr Smith notes, archaeologists should first consider other stakeholders: "The British public should be asked their thoughts on the dead and the archaeologists' treatment of them, and," she says, "what they, the public, actually want from archaeology."
Notes to editors:
- 'Antiquity' magazine, edited by Martin Carver, is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal of archaeology owned by the Antiquity Trust, a registered charity. Currently based at the University of York, Department of Archaeology at King's Manor, 'Antiquity' is the main journal of international archaeological debate and it is aimed at an audience ranging from academics to keen amateurs. www.antiquity.ac.uk
- Human remains repatriation involves the return of excavated remains to their descendants for safekeeping or reburial. Indigenous groups have grown more vocal in recent years over the issue, which has become highly politically charged.
- The debate around remains repatriation has recently been stoked by a report by a Department of Culture, Media and Sport working group, published last year, recommending that UK law be changed to allow for remains repatriation and that national museums implement transparent procedures to process repatriation claims.
- The establishment of the working group in 2001 had been prompted by an agreement between Tony Blair and John Howard, the Australian Prime Minister, to increase support for the repatriation efforts of indigenous Australian communities. The group's mandate was to review the legal status of human remains held in publicly funded museums and galleries.
- Whilst the report's recommendations have been welcomed by the Australian Government and World Archaeological Congress, some curators of English collections have condemned the recommendations as overly-bureaucratic and as a threat to scientific collections and research.
- Britain does not have any existing legislation or national codes of conduct covering the issue of remains repatriation. Australia has codes of ethics that recognise indigenous custodial rights, and detail consultation and consent procedures for research. In the US, repatriation is governed by both state and federal law (e.g. the Native American Grave Protection and Repatriation Act 1990).