Ancestral Remains

What should be included in the introduction?

• Define: ancestral remains (koiwi tangata, toi moko, funerary objects, "belongings"). These are ancestors, not specimens.

• Context: the 19th-century taking, driven by phrenology, craniology, colonial collecting and trade (about 61,000 remains in 132 UK institutions).

• Thesis: the "so what" line above.

• Signpost: pros, then cons and obstacles, then weighing them.

Define ancestral remains and associated funerary objects, and name the NZ terms (toi moko, upoko tuhi, mokomokai, waka tupapaku, koiwi tangata). Why does the course say all of them are sacred?

Skeletal remains and funerary objects (‘belongings’); all sacred. NZ terms incl. waka tupapaku (bone containers).

Give the UK figures for remains and institutions.

61,000 remains in 132 UK institutions.

What is this essay’s argument, and what is its “so what” about how versus whether to return?

Argument: ethical case stronger; the cons are mostly about HOW return happens, not WHETHER; best returns are negotiated, relationship-based, case by case.

What is in body 1?

Pro-repatriation, ethics and consent

Tell the stories of Minik/Qisuk and Saartjie Baartman with dates. What does each show about consent?

• Minik: Greenland to AMNH 1897; father Qisuk died; mock burial; bones displayed as ‘Polar Eskimo’; Kenn Harper’s book led to return 1993.

• Baartman: Khoikhoi, b.1790 d.1815; exhibited London/Paris; body parts displayed after death; returned 2002.

What do Klesert & Powell argue, what does UNDRIP Article 12 say, and which NZ example (Reischek) supports this point?

• Klesert & Powell: science is one perspective; descendants’ wishes take priority; burden of proof on scientists.

• Art. 12: redress incl. restitution for property taken without free, prior, informed consent. NZ supported UNDRIP from 2010.

• Reischek: mummies from King Country cave 1881; 37 toi moko to Vienna; 60 remains returned Sept 2022 (49 his) after 80 years.

What is in body 2?

 Pro, identity, justice and truth-telling

What does Fforde argue remains mean, and what is Mansell’s quote? Which case (Truganini) shows return in action?

Fforde: remains are ancestors, commodities, specimens, data; repatriation builds Aboriginal identity.

Mansell: if we can’t control and protect our own dead, what is there to being Aboriginal?

Truganini: Nuenonne woman, skeleton displayed in Tasmanian Museum, returned 1976, ashes near birthplace.

How does Daley link repatriation to ‘truth telling’? Name the 2019 motion’s movers and the Gweagal shield example.

Daley: 2019 Labor motion (Thistlethwaite, seconded Burney) tied return to truth telling and Cook’s 250th. Gweagal shield in British Museum; spears at Cambridge.

Whats in body 3?

Con, science, provenance and law

 Explain Crawford’s argument about Kennewick Man and ‘semiotic sovereignty’. What was the lawsuit and how old is the skeleton?

Crawford: ‘belongs to all humanity’ hides power; focus on ‘Caucasoid’ features feeds ‘Authentic Indian’ stereotype; body as ‘text’ written by those in power.

Kennewick: found 1996, c.9,300 years old; 8 scientists sued; Asatru Folk Assembly joined; returned 2016 to five tribes, buried 2017.

Link this argument of semiotic sovereignty to post-colonial theory (Said, hegemony) and to craniology/phrenology.

Said: Orientalism constructs ‘the Other’; hegemony = power. Craniology/phrenology and racial theories (‘link’ between man and ape, dying race).

Who were the main dealers in Aranui et al., and how did rarity affect prices?

J.C. Stevens (London; 32 toi moko for Robley 1902); Eric Craig’s Curiosity Shop, Auckland (1889 catalogue); Robley sold 35 to AMNH 1907. Rarity raised prices.

What happened in the 1988 Bonhams case, the Hopi katsinam sales, and eBay 2016?

Bonhams 1988: Sir Graham Latimer got letters of administration + injunction in London High Court.

Hopi sales Paris 2013–14 ruled legal; Annenberg Foundation bought items to return. eBay banned 2016.

What has Te Papa found about precedent?

Te Papa: return has not increased calls for other objects.

What do scientists want remains for (Mihesuah’s social scientists)? Which two cases are used, and how do Klesert & Powell respond?

Research on disease, diet. Cases: Kow Swamp, Kennewick Man.

Response: academic freedom protects thought not actions; case-by-case negotiation; burden of proof on scientists. Loss still a genuine cost.

Why is provenance hard (Stumpe’s Liverpool toi moko)?

Stumpe: 3 toi moko (2 from Capt Anstice c.1819–22 via Liverpool Royal Institution; 1 via Norwich Castle Museum 1956); moko styles unreliable; some Māori object to DNA testing.

How did NAGPRA and the courts treat the Ancient One, and what is the ‘culturally unidentifiable’ gap?

Courts: no ‘cultural link’; NAGPRA doesn’t protect culturally unidentifiable remains or private land.

Outline Karanga Aotearoa’s domestic return process and why it is slow.

Process: research, provenance, locate origin, contact iwi, plan, tikanga, transport, powhiri. Reischek took 80 years.

Give legal examples: UK Museums and Galleries Act 1992, body as non-property, 2015 Loan Act, ‘objects/relics’, NZ Protected Objects Act and Human Tissues Act.

• Reasons: legal bars on title; precedent; loss to science; preserved heads as ‘artefacts’; weak provenance.

• BM refuses return but loans; 2015 Act makes loaned items immune. Institutions call remains ‘objects’/‘relics’. NZ Protected Objects Act doesn’t cover remains; Human Tissues Act 2008 (s56, s61) may apply

What does the 7,300 days vs 8 days contrast show?

• 7,300 days (NHM to Tasmanian Aboriginal people) vs 8 days (Mütter Museum, WWI soldier): resistance depends partly on whose ancestors.

What is body 4?

Con, capacity, disagreement and precedent

How do Māori views differ (Malcolm vs Te Hau Tutua)? What does the 2006 survey show?

Malcolm: rebury everything; Te Hau Tutua: keep toi moko for artists to study.

2006 Auckland survey: 82% of NZers favour reburial vs 70% UK.

Compare Te Papa and Auckland Museum

Te Papa has struggled to return to source communities; Auckland Museum has Taumata-a-Iwi (Auckland War Memorial Museum Act 1996).

explain Fforde’s ‘traditional/non-traditional’ point.

Fforde: urban Aboriginal claimants denied legitimacy as ‘non-traditional’.

Comparison comments - How do the pros differ in KIND from the cons? Which con challenges repatriation itself?

Pros = principle; cons = practice (evidence, law, resources, disagreement). Only the science argument challenges return itself, and it’s contested.

Comparison comments - Contrast NZ, USA and Australia: give key figures (Karanga Aotearoa, NAGPRA, 1,790 returns, 10,000 held).

• NZ (Hole): cooperative, Māori-led; Te Māori, Treaty, Waitangi Tribunal. Karanga: facilitation, mutual agreement, no payment, 26 institutions since 2004; 453 overseas, 374 in 11 UK institutions.

• NAGPRA 1990: lobbying; museums can keep for scientific study; inventories unpublished past 1995 deadline.

• Australia: 1,790 returned from 11 countries in 35 yrs; c.10,000 still in Australian museums.

Concluding remarks

Support repatriation; cons rarely outweigh ethics; no one-size-fits-all; relationships matter more than what gets returned; museums shift from owners to partners.