Reburial and Repatriation

Repatriation refers to the return of human remains, funerary items, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony to a related individual, group, or nation. Reburial can be seen as a subset of repatriation, referring more specifically to remains that had been excavated or collected at an earlier time and then turned over to a related individual, family, or group to be buried (reburial usually includes human remains but can also incorporate associated grave goods).

There are few issues in archaeology that have been as emotional as those of repatriation and reburial, and while media attention has often focused on the United States, the controversy is international in scope. Sir David M. Wilson, director of the British Museum, documents some of this controversy from a museum's perspective in The British Museum: Purpose and Politics (1989). Although the controversy has been heated since the mid-1970s, changes in law and practice have accelerated since the mid-1980s (H. Marcus Price III's 1991 book, Disputing the Dead, discusses U.S. laws regarding burial). The essential questions of the debate have been summarized as Who owns the past? or Who controls the past? But because these questions often result in dichotomous answers, they can inflame rather than inform the debate. A more useful way to frame the controversy is to acknowledge that there are a number of ways to interpret the past, and that no one group holds exclusive rights to its interpretation or possession.

Although archaeologists have always understood that there was a great public interest in the past, they sometimes ignored the specific interests and concerns of native peoples in the areas in which they conducted work. Reasons for this exclusion include the fact that many early excavators were nothing more than looters whose goal was to acquire more and more items, often for the great museums of the world. Looting and plundering of graves to study craniology was another now-uncomfortable aspect of early anthropological work. These early approaches are frequently used by activists to demonstrate the need for legal protection and bans on archaeological excavations of grave sites, and historical horror stories of relatives being stolen from graves have won widespread public support for restrictions on archaeological research, as well as for the return of archaeological collections to descendants of past groups.

As much as archaeologists may consider themselves and their discipline as apolitical or above politics, archaeology has historically been used for political purposes from building national pride to creating a heritage, and it has been used to denigrate and trivialize groups who are in the way of development and settlement. It is not a coincidence that repatriation issues are most frequently raised by marginalized people who are trying to gain a voice and power over their fate, including Native American groups in the United States, as well as groups in Israel, Australia, and South Africa. A common denominator in these situations is racism and the view that the past is not part of a country's overall heritage, but is instead categorized by association with particular ethnic identities or races.

More recently, archaeology has focused on scientific methods and more systematic approaches to excavation and research. Unfortunately, these developments were not accompanied by the development of close relationships with native groups. Better archaeology in the present is not sufficient to make up for the perceived sins of the past and ignoring groups in the present. Native groups have increasingly demanded the repatriation of human remains and sacred objects, as well as protection of grave sites. In many parts of the world, it is now illegal for an archaeologist to excavate a grave site without explicit permits and permissions from potentially related native groups. In the United States, federal legislation passed in 1989 and 1990 (the National Museum of the American Indian Act and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act [NAGPRA]) orders the Smithsonian Institution, federal agencies, and museums that receive federal funds (this includes virtually all American museums, colleges, and universities) to work with Native American tribes to repatriate some of the collections they hold. NAGPRA also places restrictions on the future disturbance of Native American graves and sacred sites on federal and tribal lands. Because the U.S. laws are among the most extensive in any country, they provide a useful example to highlight some of the concerns expressed by archaeologists in this controversy.

The new laws attempt to correct a historical wrong, and few archaeologists would disagree with this goal. Many human remains and other objects were inappropriately or illegally taken from their native tribes. This practice was routine military procedure in the nineteenth century, and the former U.S. Army Medical Museum had the skeletal remains of hundreds of named or tribally identifiable individuals that have been collected off battlefields or from graves. There is no question that the remains of named individuals or someone clearly identified by tribe should be returned to their descendants. Similarly, there is general agreement that remains and objects taken illegally should be returned.

Once clear association of remains with individuals, families, or tribes is lost, repatriating remains and items is difficult. How does one determine cultural affiliation and the appropriate recipient, and if someone makes a claim, how does not determine whether that is the closest and/or most appropriate claimant? Archaeological, biological, ethnographic, geographic, and historical data, as well as information from oral histories, will be used in making these determinations, and native groups act as key players in the decision-making process. Questions of affiliation are being wrestled with now, and in some areas of the United States the answers are easier than in others. The older the remains and objects, the more problematic the assignment. Beyond human remains, there may also be problems in identifying and affiliating funerary objects, objects of cultural patrimony, and sacred objects. Funerary objects are generally identifiable as such, dependent upon the context of collecting and record keeping. Objects of cultural patrimony are clearly defined as objects whose title is held communally such that an individual cannot lawfully transfer this title; examples include Zuñi war gods and Iroguois wampum belts, but there are objects whose identification is less certain. Sacred objects are probably the most problematic category, since they are not clearly defined by law. As of early 1994, the repatriation process was just beginning, and it is still unclear how some of the issues will be resolved.

Another concern is for future study. When something is repatriated, and particularly when it is reburied, it is no longer available for study. One of the ways that science develops is by restudying material. If gone, it cannot be examined or compared with new finds. While data can be recorded, we do not know the questions that may be important in the future. Who would have thought, even ten years ago, that extracting DNA from ancient bone was a realistic possibility? For bones that have been reburied, that possibility is gone.

A final concern is how relationships between archaeologists and native groups can and should develop. Although many on both sides of the issue are skeptical, the repatriation issue has provided a series of opportunities. The protection of graves and sacred sites will allow us to be better stewards of the past, and will save some of that past for future generations. Archaeologists should now focus on sharing their knowledge directly with the people they study, defending their research, and explaining its relevance to native groups. There is much potential for mutual benefit, partnerships, meaningful dialogue, and mutually rewarding interaction. When native groups and archaeologists learn that they have something to teach one another, our understanding of the past is sure to increase.[See also Archaeology In the Contemporary World; Non-western Societies, Archaeology and, articles on Archaeology and African Societies, Archaeology and Australian Aborigines, Archaeology and Native Americans; Political Uses of Archaeology.]

Bibliography and More Information about Reburial and Repatriation

• Bruce Trigger, A History of Archaeological Thought (1989).
• Lynne Goldstein and Keith Kintigh, Ethics and the Reburial Controversy, American Antiquity 55 (1990): 585–591.
• Mark P. Leone and Parker B. Potter Jr., Legitimation and the Classification of Archaeological Sites, American Antiquity 57 (1992): 137–145.
• Clement W. Meighan, Some Scholars' Views on Reburial, American Antiquity 57 (1992): 704–710.
• Anthony Klesert and Shirley Powell, A Perspective on Ethics and the Reburial Controversy, American Antiquity 58 (1993): 348–354.

Lynne Goldstein