Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 8

!

Repatriation of Human Remains!

!
Introduction:!
!

In November, 1990 a law was established to protect the rights of the remains of

the deceased, if they could be claimed by living descendants of Native Americans. This
law was called, The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA)
This law was created to describe the rights of descendants, who can claim cultural affiliation to human remains and cultural artifacts, in regards to how these archaeological
findings should be handled. (nps.gov) The laws in conjunction with this declare that museums must take record all of their cultural items and consult affiliated Native American
tribes and Native Hawaiian Organizations on how or if repatriation would be desirable.
(McManamon, Ellis) In 2010, an amendment to NAGRA included the rights of culturally
unaffiliated remains, as long as they were found on lands that were occupied by indigenous people. (Troublesome Bodies) While the regulations brought forth by NAGPRA
have helped to improve the policies regarding human remains, the compliance of many
museums and paleoanthropologist researchers is still a problem for aboriginal descendants. This is because many of the scientists and scholars in possession of the past
peoples remains believe that once repatriated, information that can be obtained from
those remains will be lost forever.!
!

My initial viewpoint on this subject is that, studying human remains is no different

than studying any other animals remains. We do not question whether or not we should
rebury dinosaur bones or monkey remains. It is only because humans have opposable
thumbs, a creative imagination to create burial rituals, and to create the notion of an af-

terlife, that makes these kind of studies unethical. Also, by loosing subjects that have
the possibility of generating new information, we would be doing a disservice to all of
mankind by losing information from our ancestors that may give us information that will
help future generations. Such as what has made certain cultures successful in adapting
to disease. Which may give us insight into ways we can prevent or treat diseases effecting people now. (Rose and Green) However, I do not believe we can disrespect any cultures beliefs, past or present, no matter how frivolous they may appear to me. So, a
compromise must be made to where the remains can be honored in a way that satisfies
the living descendants of our ancestors, while still being preserved and accessible for
future study if at all possible.!
Viewpoint 1: Physical Anthropologists!
!

The stakeholders who are against repatriation are physical anthropologists, who

believe that studying human remains gives us insight into the past cultures and people
that the present have been derived from, and what we should be aware of as we shape
our world today. This includes diseases we should look for, the genealogy of where we
came from, thus, helping us see how the human species is evolving, and understanding
differences and similarities in people in a broader context than we can by studying current populations. According to an article in a Cambridgeshire, U.K. Archaeologist journal, a survey preformed by the Cambridgeshire County Council, in 2006 71% of the participants in the survey said that remains should only be reburied only when archaeologists have no further use for them. (Cambridgeshire County Council)!
!

As new technology develops, new studies can be made, and if we were to rebury

findings that archaeologists have obtained we would loose out on that new information.
Including new techniques for dating and analyzing remains. Such as varies radiometric

dating methods, and DNA and molecular analysis. (Schrag) A better analysis of this data
can give us more insight into the exact place our ancestors hold in our evolutionary lineage. From the biological anthropologists perspective (esp. paleo osteologists, and other professionals in the physical anthropology disciplines), by preforming repatriation we
would risk losing out on any further information that could be obtained from our ancestors remains and artifacts because they would not be able to study them again, not only
because we could not excavate them but also because they would deteriorate. The remains and artifacts are safer in scientific possession archaeologist believe because they
can be preserved and they can also be protected by museum security systems. By reburying them, their burial sites may be subject once again to looting and grave robbery
but it may not be in the name of science in the future. (Discussions and Arguments)
And the study of these remains benefit all of mankind, especially the descendants of
those people, by determine what kind of diseases they are susceptible to, and to evaluate the adaptive success of certain cultures to their environment Including being able to
evaluate how epidemics may arise from the mismatch between physiological design of
our bodies and novel aspects of our environment. (Rose and Green) !
!

Archaeologists do not wish to disrespect the dead and have made great effort in

repatriating those remains whom they have been able to determine and consult lineal
descendants of the individuals remains that are in question. However, this has not always been the case, as you will see from the next viewpoint I would like to explain.!

!
Viewpoint 2: Descendants of Indigenous People!
!

One problem that the stakeholders who are for repatriation, the descendants of

Indigenous People, have is that archaeologists, both professional and amateur, have

not always expressed the respect that they do today, and much of the inventory that are
in museums now are a result of what most people would consider, un-acceptable
means, and in the present the methods for obtaining the specimens in question would
be illegal. For example, excavating known Native American designated burial sites.
(npr,org) Or, as in the case of Saartje Baartman, through inhumane treatment while she
was alive by treating her like she was an ,animal then keeping only certain parts of her
remains for a limited use scientific study. With Saartje Baartman one argument was that
her remains would have more contextual value if returned to her homeland, and would
also be treated with more respect. (Tobias) Although practices of scientists have
changed greatly, descendants of indigenous people still believe that archaeologists are
no better than grave robbers. They disrespect their dead ancestors by desecrating their
burial places, and removing them from their homelands thereby preforming acts that
are sacrilegious to their beliefs. (Discussions and Arguments)!
!

Also, many people, including indigenous descendants and layman's alike feel

that remains should be repatriated, only after there is no more scientific gains that could
be had from them. The lineal descendants of many past individuals claim that the
process and responsibility of repatriation has been procrastinated by scientists and museums, and this may be in part due to the ambiguity of some of the NAGPRA laws, such
as those pertaining to cultural affiliation. Of the 10,896 Skeletons excavated in Arkansas/Louisiana, less than 7% had been studied. This to many Native Americans is a
prime example of how archaeologist are disrespecting their cultures, and are withholding their ancestors remains unjustly. (Discussions and Arguments) The problem,
they feel, is that those in possession of their ancestors have used this confusion as excuses not to repatriate many of their ancestors remains. (Begay) The present Native

Americans feel that by bringing home their ancestors remains and sacred objects they
would restore, in the words of Manley A. Begay, a former Repatriation committee member of the Peabody Museum and Navajo descendant, a sense of who we were, who we
are, and how we can go forward, (Begay) I think this best illustrates the rationale behind the arguments for repatriation.!
Conclusion:
!
To me, the physical anthropologist viewpoint, is the argument that it is most persuasive. For the reasons that, in most cases, without studying the remains of past humans we would not be able to determine their cultural affiliation. Which would make
proper repatriation impossible. Also, the notion that affiliated cultures see archaeologists
as glorified grave robbers seems to look past the great efforts archaeologists of recent
years have put into respecting a cultures beliefs and have been apart of the cultivation
of many ethical laws regarding repatriation, as well as the many who have put great effort into returning the remains that have been claimed by the descendants. This to me
points out one logical fallacy to the viewpoint 2 in my paper that is for the position of
repatriation, which is that we can not repatriate many human remains, until we have
studied them anyway to determine cultural affiliation. So, why not wait until we have all
of the information that can be obtained from them. As well as, archaeologists do not respect religious beliefs of culturally affiliated ancestors, which I believe they do more so
than those who wish to prevent gaining knowledge about them through archaeological
studies. Also, with repatriation, in a sense we may lose our past. In my opinion, and I
am not alone in this as can be seen by the Cambridge County Council survey I mentioned earlier, repatriation should only be considered on objects and human remains
that are considered to have living lineal ancestors, who wish to have their ancestors

repatriated after archaeologists have no further use for them. (Cambridgeshire County
Council) Many studies have been postponed or forced to stop before their completion
because of the repatriation laws. Preventing new knowledge that could have been obtained from the human remains that have been collected by archaeologist over the
years. !
!

Although, advocates for repatriation are not totally unjustified in wanting some of

the remains repatriated. Such as the case of Saartje Baartman, where many believe the
understanding of this persons cultural affiliation can be better understood, and their remains honored in their original context. (Tobias) I still believe it would be an injustice to
all of mankind to prevent furthering our knowledge by performing repatriation of all the
human remains available to us now (esp. the descendants of the past peoples some of
whom, ironically, are the biggest advocates for repatriation.) (Discussions and Arguments) Because of the possible knowledge that can be obtained about the origins of
disease, repatriation would have a profound inhibiting effect on our understanding of
evolutionary biology, and the gains pertaining to medical science that it has to offer.
(Rose and Green) In short, the rationale behind my opinion, is that we have too much
to gain from the studying of the remains of individuals from the past, and ever-increasing technologies to extract new and more accurate information from human remains,
that if we were to lose these resources it would be detrimental to our understanding of
the past.!

!
!
!
!

!
Works Cited:!

!
Cambridgeshire County Council. Life and Reburial in Cambridgeshire. !
!

Cambridge Archaeology. 2006. web. 11/14/2014!

URL: http://www.babao.org.uk/index/cms-filesystem-action/cambridge!

%20hsr%20survey.pdf!

!
McManamon, Francis. Edited by Ellis, Linda. The Native American Graves and !
!

Repatriation Act (NAGPRA). 2000. National Parks Service U.S. Department of !

the Interior. Reproduced from Archaeological Method and Theory: An Encyclope!

dia. Web. 10/06/2014!

URL: http://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/Laws/nagpra.htm!

!
Rose, Jerome C. and Green, Thomas J. NAGPRA and the Future of Skeletal Research.
!

Annual Review of Anthropology, Vol. 25. (1996). eReserve. 11/14/2014!

!
nps.gov. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. National Parks Ser!
!

vice, U.S. Department of the Interior. Public Law 101-601, 101st Congress. web. !

11/14/2014!

URL: http://www.nps.gov/nagpra/MANDATES/25USC3001etseq.html!

Tobias, P.V.. Saartje Baartman: her life, her remains, and the negotiations for their !
!

repatriation from France to South Africa. South African Journal of Science. 98. !

2002. eReserve. 11/14/2014!

!
Troublesome Bodies. (no author available). New Scientist, Vol. 209, Issue 2803. 2011. !
!

Academic Search Premier. Web. 10/7/2014!

Schrag, Bettina, et al. "Dating Human Skeletal Remains Using 90Sr And 210Pb: !

Case Studies." Forensic Science International 234.2014. Web. 10/7/2014.!

!
Begay Jr., Manley A. "THE NATIVE AMERICAN GRAVES PROTECTION AND !
!

REPATRIATION ACT AFTER TWENTY YEARS: A View From Indigenous Coun!

try." Arizona State Law Journal 44.2 (2012): 625-638. Legal Collection. Web.!

10/8/2014.!

!
Discussions and Arguments for and Against the Repatriation and/ or Burial of Human !
!

Remains. (No author available). Ancient-egypt.co.uk. 2010. web. 10/9/2014!

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi