Te Hokinga Mai O Ngā Tūpuna: Māori Perspectives of Repatriation and the Scientific Research of Ancestral Remains.

Abstract

<p>The repatriation of human remains has been the subject of much discussion and debate, especially since the 1990s. Since then, there has been a marked increase in the international literature relating to museums, indigenous peoples and repatriation; however, this literature is mainly written from the perspective of museums and universities. Although there has been some publication of the views on repatriation of indigenous communities there is a conspicuous absence of Māori perspectives in this literature. In particular, there is a lack of Māori voice on the repatriation of ancestral remains, as well as a lack of commentary on the so-called scientific research on ancestral remains that has taken place, and continues to take place, in universities, museums, and medical institutions around the world. This lack of indigenous perspective in the repatriation literature has resulted in mainstream assumptions about why indigenous communities, such as Māori, have been so active in repatriation activities over the last 25 years. The assumptions have tended to view the motives of indigenous peoples as politically motivated and even go as far as describing them as “activist” in nature rather than motivated by cultural beliefs and imperatives. This perceived view, as well as the views of many writers in the scientific and museum professions who do not agree with the repatriation of human remains back to origin communities because of their “loss to science” and therefore humankind, has prompted hotly contested debates concerning these issues. These contested views lead inevitably to the question of consent and whether the taking of skeletal remains from burial contexts to carry out ‘scientific’ research without consent is deemed ethical by today’s standards. The primary aim of this thesis is to document Māori perspectives on the repatriation of ancestral human remains and to understand the significance of Māori ancestral human remains for descendant communities. A secondary aim is to review some of the scientific research which has been carried out on Māori ancestral remains, and to identify the benefits, if any, of that research for descendant communities.</p>

Origami activism, inalienable collections, and crumbling concrete: Material engagements with Histories of violence

“…In examining these overlooked objects alongside those that retain more evident forms of historical association, I seek to both broaden the conversation around how violence is reckoned with and highlight the sometimes readily apparent and other times unexpected roles that materials play. Though the literature around repatriation is often relevant to this discussion (see, for instance, Aranui, 2018; Atalay et al., 2017; Colwell, 2017; Fenton, 1989; Marselis, 2016; Nash and Colwell, 2020; Riding, 1996), I remain cautious in looking for parallels between this body of scholarship and the types of materials discussed in this article, recognizing the enormous differences between discussing ancestral remains and historic objects.…”

Restitution versus repatriation: Terminology and concepts matter

“…In the case of returns of Maori and Moriori remains to New Zealand from the United States, Britain, and elsewhere in Europe, the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa has been the locus of authority for negotiation, return and reception into a sacred space, framed as repatriation, after which processes of restoration to communities have occurred (Aranui, 2018). This preeminent position for return as repatriation was reinforced through the terms of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in the United States, which placed the onus on holding institutions to return unethically held human remains and material culture from indigenous communities on a proactive basis (Colwell‐Chanthaphonh et al, 2011; Nash & Colwell, 2020).…”

Archaeology in Independent Samoa: Negotiating the Cultural Politics of Aganu'u in Palauli, Savai'i.

“…This thesis begins with the pivotal first day of official fieldwork in Palauli, taking its cue from āganu'u Sāmoa itself, where any malaga (journey or visiting party) starts: For many Pacific nations, that has meant calling western scholars to task for continuing to practice and perpetuate archaic colonial attitudes (Trask 1991;Hau'ofa 1994b;Smith 1999), a greater push for the repatriation of cultural treasures held in western museums and archives (Greer 2012;Aranui 2018;Puertollano 2021), or replacing western epistemologies with more culturally relevant Indigenous frameworks (Gegeo 1994;Thaman 1992;Smith 1992;Tamasese, Peteru and Waldegrave 1997;Nabobo-Baba 2006;Pulotu-Endemann 2009;Sauni 2011;Naepi 2019;Ka'ili, Mahina and Addo 2017;Futter-Puati and Maua-Hodges 2019;Fonua 2021). Sāmoa is not immune to these conditions, and this chapter explores how archaeology has existed in these islands, but, more significantly, how it has been purposefully adapted to the local culture of Independent Sāmoa and the broader demands of āganu'u Sāmoa.…”