For many years indigenous peoples in various parts
of the world have sought the return of ancestral human remains
and artefacts of great cultural significance from western museums
and scientific institutions. Especially since the late 1970s
indigenous demands for the repatriation of remains and artefacts,
combined with changing perceptions of the function of the museum
have led museum workers and researchers to re-evaluate the worth
of keeping these things.
Things have changed greatly since
1989, when the World Archaeological Congress adopted the Vermillion
Accord, in an effort to see the fate of human remains reached
by negotiation on the basis of mutual respect for the legitimate
concerns of communities for the proper disposition of their
ancestors, as well as the legitimate concerns of science and
education. New partnerships have been established between cultural
and scientific institutions and indigenous communities. Human
remains and culturally significant objects have been returned
to the care of indigenous communities, although the fate of
bones and artefacts in a numerous collections remains unresolved
and, in some instances, the subject of controversy.
It seems timely to take stock
of what has occurred since the Vermillion Accord by a conference
that hears from museum personnel and researchers who have been
involved in repatriation, and from indigenous community representatives
and knowledge custodians charged with the responsibility of
reclaiming remains and culturally significant items. We need
to ask what have been the benefits of repatriation? What have
been the problems? And how well have the concerns of indigenous
people, scientists and educators been met?
Further, looking back over the
past two decades, a noticeable feature of repatriation has been
that it has seen much debate and interaction between indigenous
people and researchers in disciplines with direct interests
in the continued scientific preservation of human remains. Yet,
it has become clear that repatriation is a complex phenomenon
with cultural, historical and ethical dimensions that we would
do well to explore. We are therefore also keen to learn from
specialists in other disciplines such as history, philosophy,
law, and cultural studies who are exploring the meanings, values
and uses of bodily remains, sacred places and things.
Extra Information
The
venue - The Manning Clark Centre
University
map
Accommodation
Contact us
Celia Vuckovic, Project Officer
Centre for Cross Cultural Research
Australian National University
Liversidge Street, Acton
T: (02) 6125 3779
F: (02) 6248 0054
E: celia.vuckovic@anu.edu.au
