Convened By
\nDorothy Lippert (USA) and Franchesca Cubillo (Australia)<\/p>\n
Theme Details
\nThe issue of repatriation has changed archaeology in countless ways. Worldwide, Indigenous peoples and archaeologists have been brought together in new roles and have had to learn from and adapt to one another. The transition between old and new ways of practicing archaeology does not go smoothly at all times; however, there are numerous instances in which all involved groups have felt that the conclusion reached was a satisfactory one. While repatriation has distinctly altered the relationships between Indigenous peoples and archaeologists, it has also resulted in tangible benefits for both groups. New perspectives on indigenous heritage and new ways of approaching the search for archaeological knowledge are just some of the fruits of the repatriation movement.<\/p>\n
This theme explores repatriation as it intersects numerous areas of archaeological method and theory. One session will examine if and how the interests of biological anthropologists may be combined with the interests of indigenous peoples while maintaining a sense of respect. Two sessions will focus on the practice and policy of repatriation, including an examination of the actual logistics of repatriating objects and remains and an analysis of how repatriation policy has changed over the years. Two sessions will cover the nature of sacred objects. One of these scrutinizes the practices whereby such items came into museum collections. The other session explores the treatment of those objects within the museum collections, and how indigenous peoples can contribute to their care. Finally, one session will present repatriation from a distinctly Indigenous point
\nof view.<\/p>\n
This theme draws on scholars working in museums, Indigenous organizations, and governmental departments. We expect to have a mixture of perspectives and experiences with this issue.<\/p>\n
Dorothy Lippert
\nemail: Lippert.Dorothy@nmnh.si.edu<\/p>\n
Franchesca Cubillo
\nNational Museum of Australia, GPO Box 1901, Canberra ACT, Australia.
\nemail: f.cubillo@nma.gov.au<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nDorothy Lippert (USA) and Michael Westaway (Australia)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nThis session explores how archaeologists\/biological anthropologists and Indigenous people can work together to investigate the past through analysis of information gathered from human remains. With the impact of the repatriation movement, indigenous people often have a much greater input into the direction of archaeological studies. During the course of collaborative projects, non-indigenous archaeologists often realize that indigenous people have a similarly strong interest and sense of stewardship of the past.<\/p>\n
Rare and important insights are often obtained from studies on ancestral remains and repatriation has the potential to enable a much larger number of people to gain access to this aspect of their past. The transfer of guardianship of ancestral remains has allowed many indigenous groups the confidence to engage archaeological and biological methods to investigate their past. These papers will explore the topic of how scientific research on indigenous human remains can continue without devaluing indigenous respect for the ancestors.<\/p>\n
Presentations
\nThe Value Of Recording Metric Variation From Remains Subject To Repatriation
\nStephen Ousley and William Billeck (Department of Anthropology, National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, Washington D.C., USA) Bioarchaeology and Prehistoric Landscape Use in South Australia: Implications for Repatriation and Native Title
\nTimothy D. Owen and F. Donald Pate (Department of Archaeology, Flinders University, Adelaide, South Australia)
\nSharing The Willandra
\nDoug Williams (NSW NPWS) and members of the Mutthi Mutthi and Barkindji Native title, politics and repatriation: The case of the Charlton Child Burial, South Western Victoria, Australia
\nAlan Burns (South West Regional Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Program
\nHorsham, Victoria)
\nResolving The Issue Of Provenance Through Stable Isotope Analysis
\nHerb Harradine (South West Regional Aboriginal Cultural Heritage Program, Horsham, Victoria. Framlingham Aboriginal Trust, Victoria, Australia), Wolfgang M\u00fcller (Research School of Earth Sciences, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia) and Michael Westaway (Repatriation Unit, National Museum of Australia, Canberra, Australia) Learning from the Ancestors: Scientific and Tribal Cooperation in Care of Human Remains
\nDennis Hastings (Omaha Tribal Historical Research Project, RR #1 Box 79a, Walthill, NE, USA) and Karl Reinhard (PathoEcology Services, LLC, 2610 A Street, Lincoln, NE, USA)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Wednesday Date 25th June
\nTime 4-6PM Room McMahon 200<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nWillliam Billeck (USA)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\n–
\nPresentations
\nThe Logistics Of Determining Cultural Affiliations In The Repatriation Process
\nR. Eric Hollinger (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, USA) The Cultural Affiliation Crisis: Perceptions and Perspectives of The Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation
\nLee Clauss, Russell Townsend and Brian Burgess (Tribal Historic Preservation Office, The Eastern Band of the Cherokee Nation, USA)
\nPreparing For A Repatriation: A Museum’s Perspective
\nWilliam Billeck (National Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institution, USA) Cheyenne Repatriation(s) – The What, How and Why
\nGordon L. Yellowman (Southern Cheyenne NAGPRA Representative, Cheyenne and Arapaho Tribes of Oklahoma)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Thursday Date 26th June
\nTime 11.30AM-1PM Room McMahon 200<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nTerry Snowball (USA)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nInstitutions, particularly museums, reflect their scientific and academic structures in the process of evaluating the worth of and caring for the objects in their collections. Traditionally, museums have operated under a premise of sole stewardship. However, material in museum collections that derives from specific cultures can be considered to remain within the stewardship of those cultures when the institution utilizes a methodology of contextual care for objects held to be sacred. Repatriation has been a profound catalyst for the concept of contextual care.<\/p>\n
This session will consider how repatriation issues have affected museum collections practices and provide examples of how to address cultural concerns through a concept of joint stewardship, in which institutional methodologies are integrated with tribal practices. An alternative methodology involves the ultimate return of the objects to their cultural home. Essential partnerships are possible when respect and support exists for both tribal and institutional concerns.<\/p>\n
I think it can be said here that a departure can be made on behalf of the justification to acknowledge both contexts in this session whereby interpretations to traditional care be pursuant to the terms of repatriation as well as institutional concessions.
\nPresentations
\nProtection Of Sacred Objects, Sacred Knowledge, And Sacred Places
\nMartin E. Sullivan (Executive Director, Historic St. Mary’s City, MD, USA) The Spiritual and Physical Preservation of a Cheyenne Buffalo Skull: Innovations in traditional care
\nBetsy Bruemmer and Gordon Yellowman
\nMultiple Meanings Of Repatriation: Unearthing A Native Paradigm Through Archival Research
\nDr. Nimachia Hernandez (Assistant Professor of Native American Studies, Ethnic Studies Department, 506 Barrows Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA) Museums, Cultural Property, and Human Remains
\nEdward Luby (Assistant Professor and Acting Director, Museum Studies Program, San Francisco State University, 1600 Holloway Ave, San Francisco, CA, USA)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Wednesday Date 25th June
\nTime 11.30AM-1PM Room McMahon 200<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nC. Timothy McKeown (USA)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\nRepatriation is defined as the return of someone or something to its nation of origin. Over the past twenty years many nations have begun to reconsider the rights of their museums to hold items originating elsewhere. Focus has been primarily on human remains and funerary objects derived from indigenous communities and other items that have been illegally obtained. This session reviews some of the evolving principles of repatriation policy and seeks to clarify where repatriation may be going.<\/p>\n
Panelists:<\/p>\n
– Moira Simpson, The Evolution of Museum Repatriation Policy in the United Kingdom<\/p>\n
– C. Timothy McKeown, The Pattern of Return: Current Repatriation Efforts within Historical Context<\/p>\n
– Martin E. Sullivan, Legal and Ethic Frameworks for Achieving Repatriation in the International Arena<\/p>\n
– Sherry Hutt, The Ebb and Flow of Repatriation Policy: A Legislative History of Humanity
\nPresentations
\nThe Evolution Of Museum Repatriation Policy In The United Kingdom
\nMoira Simpson (Flinders University, GPO Box 2100, Adelaide 5001, South Australia) The Pattern of Return — The Future of Repatriation in Historical Context
\nC. Timothy McKeown (National NAGPRA Program, National Park Service, Washington, DC, USA)
\nLegal And Ethic Frameworks For Achieving Repatriation In The International Arena
\nMartin E. Sullivan (Executive Director, Historic St. Mary\u2019s City, USA) The Ebb and Flow of Repatriation Policy — A Legislative History of Humanity
\nSherry Hutt (President, Cultural Property Consulting, Inc., Paradise Valley, USA)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Monday Date 23rd June
\nTime 4-6PM Room McMahon 200<\/p>\n
Organized By
\nFran Cubillo (Australia)<\/p>\n
Session Details
\n–
\nPresentations
\nRescue And Repatriation: Revealing The Ancestors
\nWC Nienaber and M Steyn (Department of Anatomy, School of Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Pretoria, PO Box 2034, Pretoria, 0001) Violated Sepulchres? The quest for a proper place for indigenous dead and immortal remains in the new South Africa
\nMcEdward Murimbika (Archaeology, School of Geography, Archaeology and Environmental Studies, The University of the Witwatersrand, P. Bag 3, WITS, 2050, South Africa)
\nOrigin Tax? Repatriation By Sharing
\nSven Ouzman (Anthropology Department, University of California at Berkeley, CA 94720-3710, USA) Ancient affiliations – Indigenous or Ingenious? On the NAGPRA Review Committee dispute concerning Spirit Cave Man
\nMartin Skrydstrup (Columbia University, Department of Anthropology, New York, NY-10027, USA)
\nRepatriation: We\u2019ve Come A Long Way, But Where Do We Go From Here?
\nFranchesca Cubillo (Manager, Repatriation Program, National Museum of Australia) Collecting Australia\u2019s Last Frontier: Myth, Politics and American-Australian Scientific Collaboration after 1945
\nSally K. May (Centre for Cross-Cultural Research, Australian National University)<\/p>\n
Session Time
\nDay Monday Date 23rd June
\nTime 11.30AM-1PM Room McMahon 200<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Convened By Dorothy Lippert (USA) and Franchesca Cubillo (Australia) Theme Details The issue of repatriation has changed archaeology in countless ways. Worldwide, Indigenous peoples and archaeologists have been brought together in new roles and have had to learn from and adapt to one another. The transition between old and new ways of practicing archaeology does … Read more<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"parent":2159,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","template":"","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2204","page","type-page","status-publish"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2204","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2204"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2204\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2789,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2204\/revisions\/2789"}],"up":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2159"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/worldarchaeologicalcongress.com\/wac5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2204"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}