Locating places for repatriated burial: a case study from Ngarrindjeriruwe, South Australia

Abstract

In this ingenious co-operative case study, archaeologists and Indigenous peoples use geophysical survey to scan suitable places for the reburial of repatriated human remains. The process is also building a procedure for the low impact and respectful research of early Indigenous burial locations.Keywords: South Australia, Indigenous burial, repatriation, reburial, geophysical survey Introduction We ask non-Indigenous people to respect and understand our traditions, our rights and our responsibilities according to Ngarrindjeri laws and to realise that what affects us, will eventually affect them (Ngarrindjeri Nation 2006: 13).In recent decades the issue of repatriation has generated much debate, and increasing pressure has been brought to bear on institutions to repatriate their collections of Indigenous skeletal remains and cultural objects (Fforde 2004;Fforde et al. 2002). Alongside their international counterparts, Australian Indigenous communities have been at the forefront of this movement, since many of their ancestors were placed in collections by the scientific community with the aim of ascertaining where they 'belonged' in evolutionary and racial classification schema. The process of repatriating Indigenous Australian skeletal remains is now well underway with many large collections having been returned (e.g. Hall 1986;Hemming & Wilson 2005;Lahn 1996;Turnbull 1993). However, there remain many outstanding issues for resolution.The repatriation of human remains is the beginning of a complex process that often rapidly exhausts local capacities and resources (Wilson 2005). Generally speaking there are three options available: retaining the remains in a Keeping Place (whether temporarily or permanently); cremation; and/or reburial. While recognising the importance of all these options, we concern ourselves here only with issues relating to the third option, reburial, and only when interment occurs in the ground (as opposed to bundle burials being placed in caves or logs). In some instances, the community desires that reinterment occurs as soon as possible, and this is carried out quickly wherever access to land with secure tenure can be obtained. For other communities, it is critically important to ensure their ancestors are reburied as close as possible to their original interment locations, often entailing a lengthier process in order to ascertain where that might be. Unfortunately, this outcome is not always achievable as sometimes the accompanying documentation is insufficient to determine the original burial location, or alternatively the burial site may have been developed in the intervening period. In one instance involving the Muthi Muthi people, the original burial site had subsequently become a popular public camping area and Elders felt reburial would be safer in a more private location nearby (Mary Pappin pers. comm.). Likewise, when almost 200 individuals excavated in the 1970s from the Broadbeach burial ground (Haglund 1976) were repatriated, the Kombumerri community chose a reburial location in ...

Mapping unmarked graves with Ground Penetrating Radar at the Walkerville Wesleyan Cemetery, Adelaide

“…The geophysical detection of burials for forensic and archaeological investigations has accumulated a voluminous literature summarised by Moffat (2015), Conyers (2006) and Ruffell and McKinley (2005). Most of the geophysical surveys undertaken to map graves in Australia were performed as commercial projects but a number of studies have been published (Bladon et al 2011;Lowe et al 2014;Marshallsay et al 2012;Moffat et al 2010;Moffat et al 2016;Powell 2004;Stanger and Roe 2007;Sutton and Conyers 2013;Wallis et al 2008;summarised by Lowe 2012). Cemetery studies more broadly are widespread in Australian archaeology and utilise a plethora of techniques including surface survey (Littleton and Allen 2007;Muller 2015;Ward et al 1989), excavation (Lowe and Mackay 1992;Pitt et al 2017), bioarchaeology (Anson 2004) and isotope geochemistry (Owen and Casey 2017;Pate 1998Pate , 2000.…”

“…Cemetery studies more broadly are widespread in Australian archaeology and utilise a plethora of techniques including surface survey (Littleton and Allen 2007;Muller 2015;Ward et al 1989), excavation (Lowe and Mackay 1992;Pitt et al 2017), bioarchaeology (Anson 2004) and isotope geochemistry (Owen and Casey 2017;Pate 1998Pate , 2000. These studies can contribute significant information about many aspects of these sites but are, with the exception of excavation (which is invasive, expensive and often not in keeping with community wishes (Wallis et al 2008)), unable to verify the number of unmarked graves. The survey at the Walkerville Wesleyan Cemetery used GPR lines (647 in total, shown in Figure 1) placed in opportunistic locations and orientations between surface features (largely extant grave markers).…”

Pursuing social justice through collaborative archaeologies in Aboriginal Australia

“…The Ngarrindjeri nation in South Australia (Hemming et al 2016) has sought to answer fundamental questions about social justice and develop strategies for positively transforming the lives of Ngarrindjeri people. Under the guidance of Ngarrindjeri leaders such as Tom Trevorrow, Matthew Rigney and George Trevorrow (all deceased), this work has entailed a transformative relationship with archaeology as a discipline and a theorised engagement with its discourses and practices enacted on 'Country' in contemporary cultural heritage management (CHM) (Hemming and Rigney 2010;Wallis et al 2008;Wallis and Gorman 2010). Understanding the complex histories and 'genealogies' of archaeology as CHM, as well as its materialisation in the actions and assemblages of the everyday 'contact zone', is crucial in developing strategies for social justice and selfdetermination (Hemming and Rigney 2010).…”

Invasion, retaliation, concealment and silences at Dead Man’s Flat, South Australia: A consideration of the historical, archaeological and geophysical evidence of frontier conflict

“…This is a much more robust methodology for the detection of unmarked graves than the widely used method of attempting to locate skeletal material or coffins directly using hyperbola picking, as summarised in more detail by Moffat (2015). GPR has been frequently used for the detection of unmarked graves within Australian archaeology, particularly as part of the investigation of historic cemeteries (Bladon et al, 2011;Lowe et al, 2014;Marshallsay et al, 2012;Moffat et al, 2010Moffat et al, , 2016Moffat et al, , 2020Powell, 2004;Stanger & Roe, 2007;Sutton & Conyers, 2013;Wallis et al, 2008; see also summary in Lowe, 2012) and has also been used (in combination with magnetic gradiometry) on a number of frontier conflict sites (Barker et al, 2020;Lowe et al, 2018). Dead Man's Flat was surveyed with a Malå X3M GPR with a shielded 500 MHz antenna.…”