Repatriation and reburial of human remains

The repatriation and reburial of human remains is a current issue in archaeology and museum management on the holding of human remains. Between the descendant-source community and anthropologists, there are a variety of opinions on whether or not the remains should be repatriated. There are numerous case studies across the globe of human remains that have been or still need to be repatriated.

On 22 October 2017 the Presidio of Monterey hosted tribal nations in a repatriation and reburial ceremony of Native American remains in the local cemetery. The remains of 17 Native Americans and over 300 funerary objects discovered between 1910–1985 were laid to rest.

Perspectives

The repatriation and reburial of human remains is considered controversial within archaeological ethics.^[1] Often, descendants and people from the source community of the remains desire their return.^[2][3][4][5] Meanwhile, Anthropologists, scientists who study the remains for research purposes, may have differing opinions. Some anthropologists feel it's necessary to keep the remains in order to improve the field and historical understanding.^[6][7] Others feel that repatriation is necessary in order to respect the descendants.^[8]

Descendant and source community perspective

The descendants and source community of the remains commonly advocate for repatriation. This may be due to human rights and spiritual beliefs.^[2][3][4] For example, Henry Atkinson of the Yorta Yorta Nation describes the history that motivates this advocacy. He explains that his ancestors were invaded and massacred by the Europeans. After this, their remains were plundered and "collected like one collects stamps."^[2] Finally, the ancestors were shipped away as specimen to be studied. This made the Yorta Yorta people feel subhuman—like animals and decorative trinkets. Atkinson explains that repatriation will help to soothe the generational pain that resulted from the massacres and collections.^[2]

Additionally, there is a repeated theme that descendants have a spiritual connection to their ancestors. Many Indigenous people feel that resting places are sacred and freeing for their ancestors. However, ancestors who are boxed in foreign institutions are trapped and unable to rest. This can cause tremendous distress for their descendants. Some descendants feel that the ancestors can only be free and rest in peace after they are repatriated.^[2][3]

This is a similar sentiment within Botswana. Connie Rapoo, a Botswana native, explained the importance of ancestors being repatriated. Rapoo explains that people must return to their home for a sense of kinship and belonging.^[4] If they're not returned, the ancestors' souls may wander restlessly. They may even transform into evil spirits who haunt the living. They believe repatriation helps to grant peace to both ancestors and descendants.^[4]

Historical trauma

Main article: Historical trauma

The argument for repatriation is further complicated by the historical trauma that many Indigenous people experience. Historical trauma refers to the emotional trauma experienced by ancestors that is passed onto generations today. Historically, Indigenous people have experienced massacres and the loss of their children to residential schools. This immense grief is also shared and felt by descendants.^[9] Historical trauma is perpetuated by the status of ancestors being boxed away and studied. Some Indigenous people believe that the pain will be alleviated when their ancestors are repatriated and free.^[2]

Anthropologists' perspective

Anthropologists have divided opinions on supporting or rejecting repatriation.

Anti-repatriation

Some anthropologists feel that repatriation will harm anthropological research and understanding. For example, Elizabeth Weiss and James W. Springer believe that repatriation is the loss of collections, and thereby the "loss of data."^[6] This is due to the nature of Western science and epistemology. To improve scientific accuracy, biological anthropologists test new methods and retest old methods on collections. Weiss and Springer describe Indigenous remains as the most abundant and significant resource to the field. They believe that reburial prevents the improvement and legitimacy of anthropological methods.^[6]

According to some anthropologists, this in turn prevents many important findings. Studying human remains may reveal information on human pre-history. It helps anthropologists learn how humans evolved and came to be.^[7] Additionally, the study of human remains reveals numerous characteristics about ancient populations. It may reveal population's health status, diseases, labor activities, and violence they experienced. Anthropology may identify cultural practices such as the cranial modification. It can also help populations today. Specifically, anthropologists have found signs of early arthritis on ancient remains. They believe this identification is beneficial for the early detection of arthritis in people today.^[7]

Some anthropologists feel that these discoveries will be lost with the reburial of human remains.^[6][7]

Pro-repatriation

Not all anthropologists are anti-repatriation. Rather, some feel that repatriation is an ethical necessity that the field has been neglecting. Sian Halcrow et al. explains that anthropology has a history of racist double standards.^[8] Specifically, White remains within archaeological and disaster cases are reburied in coffins. Meanwhile, Indigenous and non-White remains are infamously boxed and studied. She notes that the unethical sourcing and study of remains without permission is considered a civil rights violation. Halcrow et al. proposes that the repatriation is the bare minimum request to have one's remains treated the same as others.^[8]

Some anthropologists view repatriation—not as a privilege—but as a human right that had been refused to people of color for too long. They don't view repatriation as the loss or downfall of anthropology. Rather, they feel that repatriation is the start of anthropology moving toward more ethical methods.^[8]

Health considerations

Some of the remains were preserved with pesticides that are now known to be harmful to human health.^[10]

Case studies

Australia

Indigenous Australians' remains were removed from graves, burial sites, hospitals, asylums and prisons from the 19th century through to the late 1940s. Most of those which ended up in other countries are in the United Kingdom, with many also in Germany, France and other European countries as well as in the US. Official figures do not reflect the true state of affairs, with many in private collections and small museums. More than 10,000 corpses or part-corpses were probably taken to the UK alone.^[11]

Australia has no laws directly governing repatriation, but there is a government programme relating to the return of Aboriginal remains, the International Repatriation Program (IRP), administered by the Department of Communications and the Arts. This programme "supports the repatriation of ancestral remains and secret sacred objects to their communities of origin to help promote healing and reconciliation" and assists community representatives work towards repatriation of remains in various ways.^[12][11][13]

As of April 2019^[update], it was estimated that around 1,500 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestral remains had been returned to Australia in the previous 30 years.^[14] The government website showed that over 2,500 ancestral remains had been returned to their community of origin.^[12]

The Queensland Museum's program of returning and reburying ancestral remains which had been collected by the museum between 1870 and 1970 has been under way since the 1970s.^[15] As of November 2018, the museum had the remains of 660 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people stored in their "secret sacred room" on the fifth floor.^[16]

In March 2019, 37 sets of Australian Aboriginal ancestral remains were set to be returned, after the Natural History Museum in London officially gave back the remains by means of a solemn ceremony. The remains would be looked after by the South Australian Museum and the National Museum of Australia until such time as reburial can take place.^[17]

In April 2019, work began to return more than 50 ancestral remains from five different German institutes, starting with a ceremony at the Five Continents Museum in Munich.^[14]

The South Australian Museum reported in April 2019 that it had more than 4,600 Old People in storage, awaiting reburial. Whilst many remains had been shipped overseas by its 1890s director Edward C. Stirling, many more were the result of land clearing, construction projects or members of the public. With a recent change in policy at the museum, a dedicated Repatriation Officer will implement a program of repatriation.^[18]

In April 2019, the skeletons of 14 Yawuru and Karajarri people which had been sold by a wealthy Broome pastoralist and pearler to a museum in Dresden in 1894 were brought home to Broome, in Western Australia. The remains, which had been stored in the Grassi Museum of Ethnology in Leipzig, showed signs of head wounds and malnutrition, a reflection of the poor conditions endured by Aboriginal people forced to work on the pearling boats in the 19th century. The Yawuru and Karajarri people are still in negotiations with the Natural History Museum in London to enable the release of the skull of the warrior known as Gwarinman.^[19]

On 1 August 2019, the remains of 11 Kaurna people which had been returned from the UK were laid to rest at a ceremony led by elder Jeffrey Newchurch at Kingston Park Coastal Reserve, south of the city of Adelaide.^[20]

In March 2020, a documentary titled Returning Our Ancestors was released by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council based on the book Power and the Passion: Our Ancestors Return Home (2010) by Shannon Faulkhead and Uncle Jim Berg,^[21] partly narrated by award-winning musician Archie Roach. It was developed primarily as a resource for secondary schools in the state of Victoria, to help develop an understanding of Aboriginal history and culture by explaining the importance of ancestral remains.^[22][23]

In November 2021, the South Australian Museum apologised to the Kaurna people for having taken their ancestors' remains, and buried 100 of them a new 2 ha (4.9-acre) site at Smithfield Memorial Park, donated by Adelaide Cemeteries. The memorial site is in the shape of the Kaurna shield, to protect the ancestors now buried there.^[24]

New Zealand

Te Papa, the national museum in Wellington was mandated by the government in 2003 to manage the Karanga Aotearoa Repatriation Programme (KARP) to repatriate Māori and Moriori remains (kōiwi tangata). Te Papa researches the provenance of remains and negotiates with overseas institutions for their return. Once returned to New Zealand the remains are not accessioned by Te Papa as the museum arranges their return to their iwi (tribe).^[25][26][27] Remains have been repatriated from Argentina, Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United States and the United Kingdom.^[26][28] Between 2003 and 2015 the return of 355 remains was negotiated by KARP.^[26]

Heritage New Zealand has a policy on repatriation.^[29] In 2018 the Ministry for Culture and Heritage published a report on Human Remains in New Zealand Museums^[30] and The New Zealand Repatriation Research Network was established for museums to work together to research the provenance of remains and assist repatriation.^[31] Museums Aotearoa adopted a National Repatriation Policy in 2021.^[32][33]

Canada

Main article: Canadian Indian residential school gravesites

During the 1800s, Canada established numerous residential schools for Indigenous youth. This was an act of cultural assimilation and genocide where many of the children died and were buried at these schools. In the 21st century, these mass graves are being discovered and repatriated. Two of the most well-known mass graves includes those at the Kamloops Indian Residential School (over 200 Indigenous children buried) and the Saskatchewan Residential School (over 700 Indigenous children buried). Canada is working on searching for and repatriating these graves.^[34]

France

During the French colonization of Algeria, 24 Algerians fought the colonial forces in 1830 and in an 1849 revolt. They were decapitated and their skulls were taken to France as trophies. In 2011, Ali Farid Belkadi, an Algerian historian, discovered the skulls at the Museum of Man in Paris and alerted Algerian authorities that consequently launched the formal repatriation request, the skulls were returned in 2020. Between the remains were those of revolt leader Sheikh Bouzian, who was captured in 1849 by the French, shot and decapitated, and the skull of resistance leader Mohammed Lamjad ben Abdelmalek, also known as Cherif Boubaghla (the man with the mule).^[35][36]

Germany

In 2023 seven German museums and universities returned Māori and Moriori remains to the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa in New Zealand.^[37][38]

Austria

In 2022 the Natural History Museum, Vienna returned the remains of about 64 Māori and Moriori people, collected by Andreas Reischek, to Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa in Wellington, New Zealand.^[39][40]

Estonia

President Konstantin Päts was imprisoned in the USSR after the Soviet invasion and occupation, where he died in 1956. In 1988, efforts began to locate Päts' remains in Russia. It was discovered that Päts had been granted a formal burial service, fitting of his office, near Kalinin (now Tver). On 22 June 1990, his grave was dug up and the remains were reburied in Tallinn Metsakalmistu cemetery on 21 October 1990.^[41][42] In 2011, a commemorative cross was placed in Burashevo village, where Päts was once buried.^[43]

Ireland

The British anthropologist Alfred Cort Haddon removed 13 skulls from a graveyard on Inishmore, and more skulls from Inishbofin, County Galway,^[44][45] and a graveyard in Ballinskelligs, County Kerry, as part of the Victorian-era study of "racial types". The skulls are still in storage at Trinity College Dublin and their return to the cemeteries of origin has been requested,^[46][44][47] and the board of Trinity College has signalled its willingness to work with islanders to return the remains to the island.^[48]

On 24 February 2023, Trinity College Dublin confirmed that the human remains, including 13 skulls, in their possession would be returned to Inishbofin.^[49] This process is to formally begin in July 2023, with similar repatriation of remains at St. Finian's Bay and Inishmore to be started later in the year.^[50]

Spain

El Negro

The name "El Negro" refers to a dead African man who was taxidermized and displayed in the Darder Museum in Banyoles, Spain. His initial grave had been dug up around 1830. He was then taxidermized and dressed up with fur clothing and a spear. "El Negro" was sold to the Darder Museum and on display for over a century. It wasn't until 1992 when Banyoles was hosting the summer Olympics that people complained of the displayed and taxidermized human remains.^[5]

In 2000, "El Negro" was repatriated to Botswana, which was believed to be his country of origin. Numerous Botswanans had gathered in the airport to greet "El Negro." However, there was controversy in the status and shipment of his remains. First, "El Negro" had arrived in a box, rather than a coffin. Botswanans felt this was dehumanizing. Second, "El Negro" was not returned as the whole body. Rather, only a stripped skull was sent to Botswana. The Spanish had skinned his body, claiming his skin and artifacts to be their property. Numerous Botswanas felt severely disrespected and offended by the objectification of "El Negro."^[5][4]

United Kingdom

The skeleton of the "Irish Giant" Charles Byrne (1761–1783) was on public display in the Hunterian Museum, Glasgow despite it being Byrne's express wish to be buried at sea. Author Hilary Mantel called in 2020 for his remains to be returned to Ireland.^[51][52] It was removed from public display as part of redevelopment work in the late 2010s early 2020s although Byrne’s skeleton was retained in the museum collection to allow for future research.^[52]

Druids

The Neo-druidic movement is a modern religion, with some groups originating in the 18th century and others in the 20th century. They are generally inspired by either Victorian-era ideas of the druids of the Iron Age, or later neopagan movements. Some practice ancestor veneration, and because of this may believe that they have a responsibility to care for the ancient dead where they now live. In 2006 Paul Davies requested that the Alexander Keiller Museum in Avebury, Wiltshire rebury their Neolithic human remains, and that storing and displaying them was "immoral and disrespectful".^[53] The National Trust refused to allow reburial, but did allow for Neo-druids to perform a healing ritual in the museum.^[54][55]

The archaeological community has voiced criticism of the Neo-druids, making statements such as "no single modern ethnic group or cult should be allowed to appropriate our ancestors for their own agendas. It is for the international scientific community to curate such remains." An argument proposed by archaeologists is that:

"Druids are not the only people who have feelings about human remains... We don't know much about the religious beliefs of these [Prehistoric] people, but know that they wanted to be remembered, their stories, mounds and monuments show this. Their families have long gone, taking all memory with them, and we archaeologists, by bringing them back into the world, are perhaps the nearest they have to kin. We care about them, spending our lives trying to turn their bones back into people... The more we know the better we can remember them. Reburying human remains destroys people and casts them into oblivion: this is at best, misguided, and at worse cruel."^[56]

Mr. Davies thanked English Heritage for their time and commitment given to the whole process and concluded that the dialogue used within the consultation focussed on museum retention and not reburial as requested.^[57]

 

An ephemera advertising Sarah Baartman as the "Hottentot Venus" for public amusement.

Sarah Baartman

Main article: Sarah Baartman

Sarah Baartman was a Khoikhoi woman from Cape Town, South Africa, in the early 1800s. She was taken to Europe and advertised as a sexual "freak" for entertainment. She was known as the "Hottentot Venus." She died in 1815 and was dissected. Baartman's genitalia, brain, and skeleton were displayed in the Musee de l'Homme in Paris until repatriation to South Africa in 2002.^[4]

United States

Main article: Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act

The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), passed in 1990, provides a process for museums and federal agencies to return certain cultural items such as human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, etc. to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organisations.^[58][59][60]

Ishi

Main article: Ishi

Ishi was the last survivor of the Yahi Tribe in the early 1900s. He lived amongst and was studied by anthropologists for the rest of his life. During this time, he would tell stories of his tribe, give archery demonstrations, and be studied on his language. Ishi fell ill and died from tuberculosis in 1916.^[61]

 

Ishi of the Yahi tribe making fire

Ishi had explicit wishes to be cremated intact. However, against these wishes, his body underwent an autopsy. His brain was removed and forgotten in a Smithsonian warehouse. Finally, in 2000, Ishi's brain had been found and returned to the Pit River tribe.^[61]

Kennewick Man

Main article: Kennewick Man

The Kennewick Man is the name generally given to the skeletal remains of a prehistoric Paleoamerican man found on a bank of the Columbia River in Kennewick, Washington, United States, on 28 July 1996,^[62][63] which became the subject of a controversial nine-year court case between the United States Army Corps of Engineers, scientists, the Umatilla people and other Native American tribes who claimed ownership of the remains.^[64]

The remains of Kennewick Man were finally removed from the Burke Museum of Natural History and Culture on 17 February 2017. The following day, more than 200 members of five Columbia Plateau tribes were present at a burial of the remains.^[65]

See also

• Repatriation (cultural heritage)

References

1. Scarre and Scarre (2006). The ethics of archaeology : philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice, p. 206-208. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 0-521-54942-6.
2. Atkinson, Henry (2010). "The Meanings and Values of Repatriation". In Turnbull, Paul; Pickering, Michael (eds.). The long way home: the meanings and values of repatriation. New York: Berghahn Books. pp. 15–19. ISBN 978-1-84545-958-1.
3. Cubillo, Franchesca (2010). "Repatriating Our Ancestors: Who Will Speak for the Dead?". In Turnbull, Paul; Pickering, Michael (eds.). The long way home: the meanings and values of repatriation. New York: Berghahn Books. pp. 20–26. ISBN 978-1-84545-958-1.
4. Rapoo, Connie (June 2011). "'Just give us the bones!': theatres of African diasporic returns". Critical Arts. 25 (2): 132–149. doi:10.1080/02560046.2011.569057. ISSN 0256-0046. S2CID 144820392.
5. Cressida, Fforde (2002). The Dead and their Possessions : Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice. London: Routledge. pp. 245–255. ISBN 978-0-203-16577-5.
6. Weiss, Elizabeth; Springer, James (September 2020). Repatriation and erasing the past. University of Florida Press. pp. 194–210. ISBN 978-1-68340-223-7. OCLC 1253398847.
7. Landau, Patricia (2000). Mihesuah, Devon (ed.). Repatriation Reader: who owns American Indian remains?. London: University of Nebraska Press. pp. 74–94. ISBN 0-8032-8264-8.
8. Halcrow, Siân; Aranui, Amber; Halmhofer, Stephanie; Heppner, Annalisa; Johnson, Norma; Killgrove, Kristina; Schug, Gwen Robbins (26 November 2021). "Moving beyond Weiss and Springer's Repatriation and Erasing the Past: Indigenous values, relationships, and research". International Journal of Cultural Property. 28 (2): 211–220. doi:10.1017/S0940739121000229. ISSN 0940-7391.
9. Brave Heart, Maria Yellow Horse (February 2010). "The return to the sacred path: Healing the historical trauma and historical unresolved grief response among the lakota through a psychoeducational group intervention". Smith College Studies in Social Work. 68 (3): 287–304. doi:10.1080/00377319809517532 – via Taylor & Francis Online.
10. Oltermann, Philip (17 January 2023). "Toxic dilemma faced by German museums repatriating artefacts". The Guardian. Retrieved 29 January 2023.
11. "Aboriginal remains repatriation". Creative Spirits. Retrieved 5 May 2019.
12. "Indigenous repatriation". Australian Government. Department of Communications and the Arts. Retrieved 5 May 2019.
13. Note:There was previously a domestic Return of Indigenous Cultural Property (RICP) program run by the former Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA - 207-2010), which supported the return of both human remains and secret sacred objects from institutions within Australia, but it looks as if the functionality has been incorporated in IRP, as of May 2019^[update].
14. Hirini, Rangi (10 April 2019). "Germany returns Aboriginal ancestral remains in largest hand back". SBS. NITV. Retrieved 5 May 2019.
15. "Repatriation of Aboriginal Peoples & Torres Strait Islanders ancestral remains". Queensland Museum. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
16. Stockwell, Stephen (14 November 2018). "The quest to remove Aboriginal remains from museums". Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Triple J Hack. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
17. Hawley, Samantha (27 March 2019). "London's Natural History Museum returns Aboriginal remains to elders". Australian Broadcasting Corporation News. Retrieved 5 May 2019.
18. Marsh, Walter (27 April 2019). "Why returning 4600 Old People to Country is the duty of all of South Australia". Adelaide Review. Retrieved 6 May 2019.
19. Parke, Erin (21 May 2019). "Indigenous bones returned to Australia century after black-market trade reveal cruel treatment". ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 22 May 2019.
20. Sutton, Malcolm (1 August 2019). "Ancestral remains of the Kaurna people returned to country from UK in emotional Adelaide ceremony". ABC News. Radio Adelaide. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 1 August 2019.
21. Faulkhead, Shannon; Berg, Jim; Russell, Lynette; Jones, Ross L; Eades, Jason; Anderson, Ian; Koorie Heritage Trust (2010), Power and the passion : our ancestors return home, Koorie Heritage Trust Inc, ISBN 978-0-9807863-2-3
22. Nobel, Emma; Martin, Steve; Laverick, Patrick (3 March 2020). "Victorian museums ripped Bonnie's ancestors from country. Now she's bringing them home". ABC News. Retrieved 27 April 2020.
23. "Returning Our Ancestors". Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council. 16 April 2020. Retrieved 27 April 2020.
24. Mullins, Sarah (7 December 2021). "SA Museum apologises for holding 4,600 Aboriginal remains as first repatriations laid to rest on Country". ABC News. Australian Broadcasting Corporation. Retrieved 29 December 2021.
25. "The Karanga Aotearoa Repatriation Programme". Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Wellington, NZ. 2017-05-09. Retrieved 2023-06-15.
26. Herewini, Te Herekiekie; Jones, June (2016). "A partnership approach to repatriation : building the bridge from both sides". Tuhinga (Online). 27: 1–9.
27. Smith, Nicola Kiri; Aranui, Amber Kiri (2010). "For evolution's sake : the collection and exchange of kōiwi tangata from Te Waipounamu". Archaeology in New Zealand. 53 (3): 185–194.
28. "International repatriation". Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Wellington, NZ. 2016-02-10. Retrieved 2023-06-15.
29. Koiwi Tangata Human Remains (PDF). Heritage New Zealand Pouhere Taonga. 2014. ISBN 978-0-908577-98-9.
30. Ministry for Culture and Heritage (2018). Human Remains in New Zealand Museums (PDF).
31. "The New Zealand Repatriation Research Network". Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa, Wellington, NZ. 2021-04-20. Retrieved 2023-06-18.
32. "National Repatriation Policy for Kōiwi Tangata and Associated Burial Taonga within Aotearoa | Museums Aotearoa". www.museumsaotearoa.org.nz. Retrieved 2023-08-02.
33. Chumko, Andre (2021-07-11). "3300 kōiwi tangata discovered in New Zealand cultural institutions". Stuff. Retrieved 2023-08-02.
34. Zabriskie, Julia (April 2023). "Searching for Indigenous Truth: Exploring a Restorative Justice Approach to Redress Abuse at American Indian Boarding Schools". Boston College Law Review. 64 (4): 1039–1076.
35. "France returns remains of Algerian anti-colonial fighters". www.aljazeera.com. Retrieved 2021-12-14.
36. "'The martyrs are returning': Algeria welcomes remains of fighters against colonisation from France". France 24. 2020-07-03. Retrieved 2021-12-14.
37. Kolirin, Lianne (2023-06-14). "Mummified heads of Māori ancestors returned to New Zealand from Germany". CNN. Retrieved 2023-06-15.
38. "Germany returns the remains of 95 Indigenous people to New Zealand". euronews. 2023-06-14. Retrieved 2023-06-15.
39. Chumko, André (2022-09-26). "Austria to return stolen Māori and Moriori ancestral remains". Stuff. Retrieved 2022-09-28.
40. Fuller, Piers (2022-10-02). "After 77 years of negotiations, Māori and Moriori remains returned from Austria". Stuff. Retrieved 2022-10-02.
41. Haav, Margus. "Esimese presidendi viimne teekond kodumulda algas uskumatult". Sakala, 18 January 2011.
42. "Kuidas leiti K. Pätsi põrm" 20 July 2011 at the Wayback Machine. Videvik, 11 November 2010.
43. Kapov, Jevgeni. "FOTOD: Venemaal asetati Konstantin Pätsi kunagise haua juurde mälestusrist" 24 December 2013 at the Wayback Machine. Delfi.ee, 10 June 2011.
44. Walsh, Ciarán (April 11, 2021). "The case of the missing skulls from Inishbofin" – via www.rte.ie.
45. Walsh, Ciarán (August 11, 2020). "The head-hunter who measured Irishmen's skulls" – via www.rte.ie.
46. Nolan, Donal (July 8, 2020). "On the trail of the Iveragh skulls and head-hunters who disturbed their rest". The Kerryman – via Independent.ie.
47. "Webinar on Human Remains in Museums and other Collections, 9pm, Sept 2, 2020 | Maynooth University". www.maynoothuniversity.ie.
48. "Trinity College Dublin considers returning Inishbofin skulls". The Guardian. December 14, 2022.
49. "University to return skulls to Irish island". BBC News. 24 February 2023. Retrieved 24 February 2023.
50. McGrath, Pat (12 July 2023). "'These are our people' - Stolen remains to be returned". RTÉ.ie.
51. Murphy, Darragh Peter (October 15, 2020). "Hilary Mantel calls for skeleton of Irish 'giant' to be repatriated". the Guardian.
52. Kendall Adams, Geraldine (13 January 2023). "Hunterian Museum defends decision to retain skeleton of 'Irish giant' Charles Byrne". Museums Journal. Retrieved 18 January 2023.
53. Davies, Paul (2008). "Request for the Reburial of Ancestral Human Remains at Avebury, Wiltshire" (PDF). Academia.edu.
54. "Consultation on ancient human remains ends Jan 31". British Archaeology (104). 2009.
55. "Archaeology Live, English Heritage repatriation request notes. "a test case for the Druids to gain a precedent for more repatriations all over the British isles [sic]"". Archived from the original on 26 June 2013. Retrieved 30 May 2013.
56. "Letters: Human Remains". British Archaeology (105). 2009.
57. Thackray, David; Payne, Sebastian (2009). "Report On Consultation On The Request For Reburial Of Prehistoric Human Remains From The Alexander Keiller Museum At Avebury" (pdf). HistoricEngland.org.uk.
58. "FAQ". NAGPRA. Retrieved 8 May 2019.
59. Cook, Myles Russell; Russell, Lynette (1 December 2016). "Museums are returning indigenous human remains but progress on repatriating objects is slow". The Conversation. Retrieved 8 May 2019.
60. "Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (U.S. National Park Service)". www.nps.gov. Retrieved 2020-09-25.
61. Scheper-Hughes, Nancy (February 2001). "Ishi's brain, Ishi's ashes: Anthropology and genocide". Anthropology Today. 17 (1): 12–18. doi:10.1111/1467-8322.00041.
62. Preston, Douglas (September 2014). "The Kennewick Man Finally Freed to Share His Secrets", Smithsonian. Retrieved November 8, 2014.
63. Stafford, Thomas W. (2014). "Chronology of the Kennewick Man skeleton (chapter 5)". In Douglas W. Owsley; Richard L. Jantz (eds.). Kennewick Man, The Scientific Investigation of an Ancient American Skeleton. Texas A&M University Press. ISBN 978-1-62349-200-7.
64. Minthorn, Armand (September 1996). . Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation. Archived from the original on August 12, 2014. Retrieved July 28, 2014.
65. Paulus, Kristi (20 February 2017). "Kennewick Man finally buried by local tribes". keprtv.com. Retrieved March 29, 2018.

Cited works

• Hubert, Jane; Fforde, Cressida (2002). "Introduction: the reburial issue in the twenty-first century". In Fforde, Cressida; Hubert, Jane; Turnbull, Paul (eds.). The dead and their possessions: repatriation in principle, policy and practice. London & New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-34449-2. This book derives from papers given at four symposia in the session - The dead and their possessions: variety and change in practice and belief - at the fourth World Archaeological Congress held in Cape Town, South Africa in January 1999.

Further reading

• "International repatriation of human remains of indigenous peoples". International Council of Museums. 8 August 2018. This is an extract of the article 'National and international legislation' by Lynda Knowles, originally published in The Future of Natural History Museums, edited by Eric Dorfman.
• Aboriginal remains repatriation (Australia)
• Book reviews of Scarre & Scarre and Vitelli and Colwell