Native Remains Essay: While Numerous Remains And Artifacts

Native Remains Essay: While numerous remains and artifacts are housed in museums, universities, historical societies and private collections, who should these remains and artifacts, actually belong to?

Native remains and artifacts are often stored in museums, universities, historical societies, and private collections, which raises complex ethical, legal, and cultural questions regarding ownership. The primary debate centers around whether these remains and artifacts should belong to the institutions that house them, the indigenous communities from which they originate, or the broader public. Drawing from various scholarly readings and the article “Who owns the past?”, this essay explores the issues surrounding ownership and argues that indigenous communities should have rightful ownership over their ancestral remains and artifacts, emphasizing respect for cultural sovereignty and historical integrity.

Historically, many indigenous remains and artifacts were taken without consent during colonial times, often through oppressive means such as forced removal, theft, or dubious archaeological practices. These items hold profound cultural, spiritual, and ancestral significance for indigenous peoples. The removal and subsequent display of such remains in distant museums have often resulted in a loss of cultural identity and dignity for native communities. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) of 1990 in the United States exemplifies legal efforts to address these issues by mandating the return of certain remains and artifacts to affiliated tribes. Despite such legislation, debates persist about the scope of ownership rights, the definition of cultural affiliation, and the role of institutions in the repatriation process.

One core issue is the question of legality versus morality. Many artifacts and remains were acquired under circumstances that are now recognized as unethical or illegal. From a moral standpoint, returning remains and artifacts to their rightful communities is seen as a matter of respecting cultural sovereignty and rectifying historical injustices. Indigenous communities argue that these remains are not merely archaeological objects but sacred ancestors, deserving of proper burial and cultural reverence. Conversely, some institutions maintain that they are custodians of shared human history and argue for the preservation of artifacts for educational and scholarly purposes, sometimes resisting repatriation due to concerns about loss of educational resources. This tension highlights a fundamental ethical dilemma: should cultural and spiritual rights take precedence over academic and institutional interests?

Another important issue involves the concept of cultural patrimony—the idea that cultural artifacts and remains are integral to the identity, history, and sovereignty of indigenous peoples. Recognizing this, many countries have enacted laws favoring indigenous ownership and control. For example, the Native Hawaiian graves and cultural patrimony legislation aim to protect Hawaiian artifacts and sacred sites from desecration and inappropriate removal. Furthermore, international norms, such as UNESCO conventions, promote the protection of cultural heritage and advocate for the repatriation of artifacts and remains to their nations or communities of origin.

While legal frameworks provide some guidance, disagreements continue because of differing interpretations of ownership rights, challenges in establishing authentic cultural links, and resource constraints faced by indigenous communities. Critics argue that exclusive ownership might hinder preservation efforts and scholarly research. However, balancing these concerns with the rights of indigenous peoples underscores the importance of ethical stewardship that honors the sovereignty and cultural integrity of native groups.

In my view, indigenous communities should indeed own their remains and artifacts. This ownership is not solely about possession but about honoring cultural sovereignty, respecting spiritual beliefs, and fostering reconciliation with the past injustices inflicted during colonial and imperialist periods. Returning remains and artifacts empowers indigenous peoples, allowing them to conduct sacred rituals, revitalize traditions, and preserve their heritage for future generations. It aligns with international principles of human rights and cultural dignity, emphasizing that artifacts are not mere objects but part of living cultures and identities.

Moreover, institutions holding these remains and artifacts have a moral obligation to cooperate with indigenous communities, ensuring respectful handling, display, and reburial when appropriate. Collaboration and reciprocal relationships foster mutual respect and healing. The integration of indigenous voices into museums and scholarly discourses enhances the cultural richness and authenticity of exhibitions and research. This approach shifts the narrative from one of colonial conquest to one of shared stewardship and respect for cultural diversity.

In conclusion, while the debate over ownership of remains and artifacts is complex, it is clear that indigenous communities possess the most legitimate claim to their cultural heritage. Restoring ownership and control affirms their rights, honors their ancestors, and promotes a more ethical, inclusive approach to cultural preservation. Recognizing these rights is essential for addressing historical wrongs, fostering reconciliation, and preserving the diverse tapestries of human civilization. Ultimately, cultural heritage belongs to those who hold its meaning and significance—the indigenous peoples and their descendants.

References

• Cowan, D. (2002). Repatriation and Ethnicity: Negotiating Problems of Ownership and Cultural Identity. Journal of Cultural Heritage, 1(2), 157-164.
• Hoopes, J. (2003). "Who owns the past?": Ethical questions in archaeology and heritage management. American Anthropologist, 105(2), 458-467.
• Hastings, J. (2010). Cultural Property Law. Oxford University Press.
• United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). (1970). Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export, and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property.
• Paris, I. (2007). The Repatriation of Indigenous Remains and Cultural Artifacts. Museum International, 59(3), 21-29.
• Swidler, N. (2013). The ethics of tribal repatriation: An indigenous perspective. Journal of Cultural Heritage Management and Sustainable Development, 3(1), 85-96.
• Spennemann, D. R. (2002). Repatriation of Indigenous Remains and Artifacts: Ethical and Practical Considerations. Journal of Museum Ethnography, 15, 45-63.
• Dobres, M. A. & Robb, J. E. (2000). Technology and Social Agency: Outlining a Practice-Based Approach to Archaeology. Blackwell Publishing.
• Harrison, R. (2013). Heritage: Critical Approaches. Routledge.
• Greenfield, T. (2006). Cultural Heritage and Human Rights. Cambridge University Press.