That Program reflects the Australian support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It aims to return the human remains of Australia's Indigenous peoples held in other countries, primarily in anthropological or archaeological museums and medical collections. The remains were collected under official and private auspices from first European contact. They include skulls and other skeletal material, including items that have been fashioned as vessels or otherwise processed.
The Committee indicates that -
these are often referred to as ancestral human remains because they are the ancestors of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In this paper the Committee refers to ancestral remains as Old People, in part as a mark of respect and in part to raise awareness that the remains are first and foremost real people, they are family.The Program coexists with a broader cultural repatriation program - Return of Indigenous Cultural Property - administered by the national Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts (DEWHA).
The Committee indicates that a key aim of its Program is to "Promote healing and reconciliation through the return of Indigenous ancestors to their traditional lands or communities of origin" -
For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples the return of Old People back to country is the first step towards restoring their dignity. It restores their rightful place as Elders, mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, uncles, aunties, brothers and sisters. It acknowledges the wrong done to them and allows them to finally rest in peace in their homelands. It recognises the unbreakable bond, customary obligations and traditional practices between the living, the land and the dead.. Fashions in curatorial practice mean that some overseas institutions have expressed a willingness to deaccession some or all 'Old People' from their collections. Others have argued that the remoteness of the relationship between contemporary communities and some archaeological material precludes repatriation, argued that there are scientific rationales for retention or suggested that cultural property from Australia and Africa is no different to that from Italy, Greece or Germany (ie Indigenous people do not have a privileged status in receiving and reburying items that have entered museum collections over the past three hundred years).
The Committee notes that -
The return of cultural property is a contentious issue for collecting institutions around the world, including Australia, and this may adversely impact on an institution's willingness to return Old People. As a result, a negotiation about cultural property in addition to Old People may prevent a successful repatriation outcome. Many overseas institutions have national or state legislation or policies that prevent the return of any cultural property. For this reason, institutions that have returned Old People have done so by amending legislation to return 'human remains' which are seen as separate from other cultural property.It goes on to comment that -
in earlier times some Indigenous communities traditionally modified the remains of Old People so that they were no longer viewed as Old People but as an object to be used. For example, some communities used the crania (heads) to make water vessels, while other communities used remains to make sacred ceremonial objects. It is important to note that these 'modifications' were made by Indigenous peoples themselves. The view by many museums in Australia and overseas, is that these modified remains are objects and are therefore, not subject to the same repatriation policies as remains.Some museums and governments will presumably disagree with the Committee's stance on roles and more broadly on the philosophy underpinning neologisms such as Old People. That disagreement is evident in the ongoing debate about the remains of 'Kennewick Man' in the US, archaeological material that is over eight thousand years old but has been claimed by at least five US Indigenous groups, discussed in Skull Wars: Kennewick Man, Archaeology, And The Battle For Native American Identity (Basic Books, 2001) by David Thomas and Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains? (University of Nebraska Press, 2000) by Devon Mihesuah.
This can lead to some anomalies. For example, collecting institutions and even some Indigenous communities, consider items made of human hair such as paint brushes or string to be objects, while hair samples collected for research purposes, are classed as human remains and are subject to the same repatriation processes as other Old People.
FaHCSIA's current position is that it is not the role of museums or governments to determine what constitutes Old People. This is a decision for Traditional Owners. While FaHCSIA always seeks to consult with Traditional Owners where known, where modified remains have no known country some guidance is needed about the most appropriate approach.
From a legal perspective aspects of the Paper are problematical. The initial statement that "For more than 150 years Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Old People were unlawfully removed from burials grounds, hospitals and morgues to be sent to museums, universities and private collections in Australia and overseas" arguably does not cover all collection of Indigenous and non-Indigenous material.
Feedback on the Paper is due by 5 May.
