Format: Paper presentations with discussion
Convenors:
Hirofumi Kato, Professor, Archaeology, Centre for Ainu and Indigenous Studies, Hokkaido University; Director of Global Station for Indigenous Studies and Cultural Diversity, Hokkaido University, Japan, h-kato@let.hokudai.ac.jp
Maaling Chen, National Taiwan University, maalingc@ntu.edu.tw
Carl-Gösta Ojala, Uppsala University, carl-gosta.ojala@arkeologi.uu.se
For Indigenous peoples, the cultural heritage issue is deeply connected to their human rights. Historically, archaeology has a colonial background, but in the contemporary world it also plays an important role in overcoming historical injustices and colonial influences. For Indigenous communities to regain their inherent rights, a wide range of cultural heritage, including archaeological heritage, plays an important role. The return of the remains of ancestors and cultural relics to the community can be said to be the first step in research and reconciliation with the community. This session aims to share and discuss the future of the debate surrounding Indigenous cultural heritage.
Papers:
Indus to Gandhara: Displaying Pakistan’s National History Beyond Islam (1947–1956)
Muhammad Nishat Hussain and Dr Adnan Tariq, Institute of Global and Historical Studies. GCY Lahore Pakistan
Following the Partition in 1947, Pakistan faced a significant loss of archaeological museum collections as thousands of Indus Valley artefacts remained in Indian institutions. Despite early efforts to reclaim these artefacts, repatriation attempts were unsuccessful, leaving Pakistan without a key link to its pre-Islamic past. In response, Pakistan turned to its rich Buddhist and Gandharan heritage to construct the historical and cultural narrative. The Karachi National Museum and other institutions strategically curated Gandharan artefacts to fill this void, using them to highlight themes of artistic excellence, spiritual heritage, and historical legitimacy. This paper examines how postcolonial archaeological museum collection loss influenced Pakistan’s early curatorial strategies, emphasising Gandharan material culture in museums. Drawing on archival records and catalogues (1947–1956), it explores the museum’s role in displaying national history. By situating Pakistan’s case within broader discussions on ownership, repatriation struggles, and postcolonial museum politics, this study highlights the contested nature of archaeological narratives and how postcolonial state Pakistan reinterpret heritage in response to geopolitical realities.
(This paper builds on Andrew Amstutz’s “A Pakistani Homeland for Buddhism” by exploring an earlier period (1947–1957) and how the loss of Indus Valley artefacts post-Partition shaped Pakistan’s curatorial strategies and national narratives.)
Revitalisation of the Ainu Language through the Reconstruction of “Iwor” as their Ecocultural Living Space
Hideyuki Onishi, Doshisha Women’s College of Liberal Arts, Japan
“Iwor” in the Ainu language originally encompassed concepts such as place, space, and field. However, it has since been repurposed as an academic concept to elucidate the Ainu social management of natural resources and territories within local communities, primarily through anthropological research. In contemporary contexts, “Iwor” has evolved into a vital concept for initiatives aimed at revitalising Ainu culture and asserting indigenous rights. Consequently, numerous activities and projects under the banner of the Iwor Regeneration Project have emerged across various Ainu communities. One significant component of these projects is the effort to pass the Ainu language on to the next generation, which is being addressed through a variety of initiatives. This presentation will highlight several activities in the Saru River basin that focus on reconstructing traditional Ainu living spaces as part of the Iwor Regeneration Project. Analysing these case studies reveals that the renaturation of ecocultural environments for practicing traditional Ainu activities, such as those within the context of traditional living spaces, can facilitate cultural revival and contribute to language inheritance. The findings suggest that the reconstruction of ecocultural spaces to support traditional Ainu practices, such as subsistence and rituals, can significantly enhance language revitalisation, both directly and indirectly.
Resisting Collecting—Colonial Collecting and Resistance in Northernmost Europe
Carl-Gösta Ojala, Uppsala University, Sweden
In the 19th and the early 20th century, anatomical collections with ancestral remains from different groups around the world, including Indigenous Sámi groups, were assembled in the Nordic countries. The collecting was conducted in a deeply unethical and offensive manner – through excavations or plundering of graves or the removal of remains without any consent. During this period, there was large national and international interest in Sámi ancestral remains, which led to international exchange and trade.
The anatomical collections have been at the centre of repatriation and reburial demands from Sámi groups for a long time. In recent years, several reburial processes have taken place in Sweden, Norway and Finland. Still, important issues of Indigenous rights, responsibilities of academic institutions and Sámi self-determination in heritage management remain to be critically discussed.
This paper discusses histories of collecting, management of collections and returns of ancestral remains through the lens of protest and resistance from Sámi and local groups in northern Sweden, Norway and Finland. What kind of resistance can we trace in the available sources, and how was this resistance met by collectors, scholars and institutions? How can we today understand the resistance and its past and present significance?
The Archaeological Storytellers: The Case of Hamanaka 2 Site in Rebun Island, Japan
Bing-Wun Liou, Hokkaido University, Japan
This paper aims to emphasise the complexity and significance of post-excavation works through the case study of Site Hamanaka 2, Rebun Island. Rebun Island, which is located on the northernmost territory in Japan, has revealed 55 archaeological sites and Site Hamanaka 2 is one of them. There are 2127 residents on the island and most of them are 45-79 years old. The archaeological research has revealed the history of the island contained Ainu people of 17-19th centuries and the Okhotsk people of 5-10th centuries, with plentiful artefacts and feature data regarding these histories. It raises challenges for archaeologists to dialogue and negotiate with archaeological remains, academic knowledge, and local people’s past and future. Who’s history? Who can tell the history? Where should the heritage data go? Who can have them? Therefore, we’re trying to exploit the methods of how to share intellectual property rights with the local people of the island through Site Hamanaka 2 and its remains.
Cultural Heritage Issues of the Ainu: Repatriation, Participation and Self-determination
Hirofumi Kato, Hokkaido University, Japan
The situation surrounding the Ainu has been changing rapidly since the beginning of the 2000s. With the enactment of the Act on the Promotion of Ainu Policies in 2019, the National Ainu Museum was established, and a new government funding system is promoting the renovation and construction of museums and community centres at the local government level. With regard to cultural heritage, the repatriation of ancestral remains from universities and overseas research institutions is also progressing.
On the other hand, challenges are also becoming apparent. Even under the new legal system, the indigenous rights for the Ainu, such as hunting-fishing rights and land rights, are not recognised. The Cultural Properties Protection Act makes no mention of the unique cultural heritage of the Ainu people, and no revisions to the law are underway. It is important for the Ainu to participate in the policy-making process for the repatriation of cultural heritage and the resolution of rights issues, as this is essential for the exercise of their right to self-determination.
This report points out the importance of the indigenous participation in the repatriation of heritage and research evaluation, and considers the measures necessary for reconciliation and trust-building between the Ainu people and the academic community.