The repatriation of human remains--problem or opportunity?

The repatriation of human remains--problem or opportunity? The editor's question "who do human skeletons belongto?" (Antiquity 78:5) can be answered positively, but it must beanswered in context. The question was prompted by reports from theWorking Group on Human Remains established by the Britishgovernment's Department for Culture, Media and Sport The Department for Culture, Media and Sport (sometimes abbreviated DCMS) is a department of the United Kingdom government, with responsibility for culture and sport in England, and some aspects of the media throughout the whole UK, for example broadcasting. (DCMS (Digital Content Management System) See DAMS. ) in 2001to review the current legal status of human remains held in all publiclyfunded museums and galleries, and to consider and review submissions oilthe issue of the return of non-UK human remains to their descendentcommunities (DCMS 2003: 1-8). in effect, the report was primarilyconcerned with human remains from Indigenous communities, using adefinition which follows the UN Draft Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly during its 61st session at UN Headquarters in New York City on 13 September 2007. as "distinct cultural groups having a historicalcontinuity with pre-colonial societies that developed on theirterritories" (DCMS 2003:7). Consequently, the report dealsprimarily with the Indigenous communities of Australia, New Zealand New Zealand(zē`lənd), island country (2005 est. pop. 4,035,000), 104,454 sq mi (270,534 sq km), in the S Pacific Ocean, over 1,000 mi (1,600 km) SE of Australia. The capital is Wellington; the largest city and leading port is Auckland. andNorth America North America,third largest continent (1990 est. pop. 365,000,000), c.9,400,000 sq mi (24,346,000 sq km), the northern of the two continents of the Western Hemisphere. . The establishment of the Working Group followed recommendations in2000 by the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport. Its existencewas also facilitated by a meeting between John Howard For other persons of the same name, see John Howard (disambiguation).John Winston Howard (born 26 July 1939) is an Australian politician and the 25th Prime Minister of Australia. , the AustralianPrime Minster, and Tony Blair Noun 1. Tony Blair - British statesman who became prime minister in 1997 (born in 1953)Anthony Charles Lynton Blair, Blair in 2000 in which it was agreed thatincreased efforts were needed to assist repatriation RepatriationThe process of converting a foreign currency into the currency of one's own country.Notes:If you are American, converting British Pounds back to U.S. dollars is an example of repatriation. efforts byAustralian Indigenous communities (DCMS 2003; Howard 2000). The keyfindings of the report (DCMS 2003:161f) recommend that the law governingnational museums be changed to allow the repatriation of human remains,that all museums put in place transparent procedures for responding torepatriation claims, and that a government licensing authority beestablished to monitor these procedures and the general handling,treatment and return of human remains. The report also offers a sequenceof recommendations and guidelines for consultation and dialogue betweenall parties, and suggests that DCMS, using the existing Spoliation Any erasure, interlineation, or other alteration made to Commercial Paper, such as a check or promissory note, by an individual who is not acting pursuant to the consent of the parties who have an interest in such instrument. Advisory Panel as a model, also set up a Human Remains Advisory Panel.Significantly, the report does not detail specific criteria forestablishing the legitimacy of claims, but does offer guidelines forestablishing dialogue for understanding the cultural legitimacy ofIndigenous claims. It takes a step toward acknowledging the legitimacyof claims of descent made outside of the temporal and genealogicalcriteria that often underpin British and wider Western conceptualisation (artificial intelligence) conceptualisation - The collection of objects, concepts and other entities that are assumed to exist in some area of interest and the relationships that hold among them. of kinship and descent Kinship and descent is one of the major concepts of cultural anthropology. Cultures worldwide possess a wide range of systems of tracking kinship and descent. Anthropologists break these down into simple concepts which are common among many different cultures. . It does, unfortunately and somewhat incontradiction to the tone of cultural sensitivity that the report workshard to achieve, sidestep side��step?v. side��stepped, side��step��ping, side��stepsv.intr.1. To step aside: sidestepped to make way for the runner.2. the issue of associated funerary fu��ner��ar��y?adj.Of or suitable for a funeral or burial.[Latin fner objects. Predictably, the report has been met with a mixed response. TheAustralian Government, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderCommission The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) (1990–2005) was the Australian Government body through which Aboriginal Australians and Torres Strait Islanders were formally involved in the processes of government affecting their lives. (ATSIC ATSIC Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission ) and the World Archaeological Congress The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) is a non-governmental, not-for-profit organization which promotes world archaeology.Established in 1986, WAC holds an international Congress every four years to promote the exchange of results from archaeological research; professional (WAC WAC(Women's Army Corps), U.S. army organization created (1942) during World War II to enlist women as auxiliaries for noncombatant duty in the U.S. army. Before 1943 it was known as the Women's Auxiliary Army Corps (WAAC). Its first director was Oveta Culp Hobby. ) have allresponded warmly (Howard 2003; ATSIC 2003; WAC 2003). On the other handsome curators of large English National collections have been reportedin the press as stating that the recommendations of the report are'unworkable', are 'over bureaucratic' and that theythreaten the integrity of scientific collections and scientific researchon human remains (for instance, Anon 2003; Bailey 2003; McKie 2003;Appleton 2003; Jenkins 2003). Many of these cite the criticism of NellChalmers, Director of the Natural History Museum and a member of theWorking Group, whose 'statement of dissent' within the reportoutlines his concerns that the report is overly weighted in favour ofIndigenous concerns and has paid insufficient attention to the'public benefit' of research (DCMS 2003:177). Much of this rehearses the dire warnings about the 'end ofscience' and the assault on the 'academic freedom' ofarchaeological research that were made in the Australian, New Zealandand North American North Americannamed after North America.North American blastomycosissee North American blastomycosis.North American cattle ticksee boophilusannulatus. media and archaeological literature in the 1980s and1990s. These criticisms, underpinned as they so often are by a discourseladen with assumptions about the unassailable 'truths','objectivity', 'rights' and 'universalrelevance' of science, including archaeological science Archaeological science (also known as Archaeometry) is the application of scientific techniques and methodologies to archaeology.Archaeological science can be divided into the following areas: , miss thepoint. Moreover, they achieve very little in the long run. In the USA, aferocious and lengthy legal and cultural debate over access claims tothe Kennewick human remains has been underway since the remains werefound in 1996. The latest legal decision (2004) has upheld the accessclaims by a group of eight archaeologists/anthropologists who originallyfiled a lawsuit in 1996 to prevent the remains being reburied by theConfederated Tribes of the Umatilla Reservation under provisions of theNative Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA NAGPRA Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 ), 1990(PL101-601). Although this strategic utilisation of the discourse has sofar achieved the retention of the Kennewick human remains, any victoryfor 'science' in the end will be Pyrrhic pyr��rhic?n.A metrical foot having two short or unaccented syllables.adj.Of or characterized by pyrrhics.[Latin pyrrhicius, from Greek purrikhios, from . This is becauseadherence to such a narrow discourse will ultimately result in asignificant lost opportunity. The Working Group's report, should itultimately lead to the development in Britain of procedures thatfacilitate the return of human remains to their communities, offers botha chance to realise maturity and a significant opportunity for Britisharchaeology. My intention here is not to review the Working Group's reportin detail, but rather to argue why it represents a first step to bothmaturation and opportunities for British archaeology, and research onhuman remains more generally. In discussing the first issue, it isnecessary to review and rehearse some of the arguments concerning theimportance and significance of repatriation. This is necessary toprovide a background for the second issue and to reveal the extent ofthe opportunity that is being offered to British archaeology. The politics of cultural identity Debates over the retention of Indigenous human remains have had amajor impact on archaeological practice in Australia, New Zealand,Canada and the US, and each of these countries has developed practicalresponses to them. For instance, in Australia codes of ethics (AAA 1991;Museums Australia 1999) have been put in place that recognise Indigenouscustodial rights and details consultation and consent procedures forresearch, while in the US a suite of State and Federal laws governingrepatriation are in place (for instance, NAGPRA 1990). Until now, thesedebates and responses have been somewhat peripheral to archaeology inBritain: Britain is at least 15 to 20 years behind these countries indealing with and coming to terms with these issues in practical terms.One of the oft cited reasons for why English national museums at leasthave not engaged directly in repatriation processes and debates(although I note that some regional and Scottish museums have--see DCMS2003:3, 15-6) is that the current law forbids national museums fromdisposing of objects from their collections. However, as the WorkingGroup's report observes (DCMS 2003:94), the legal position isactually unclear and that these museums can dispose of objects if theyare deemed to be 'unfit to be retained'. The Working Group's report means that repatriation issuescannot now be ignored, and the range of ethical debates that it throwsup must be faced, in practical terms, by British archaeology. Thishighlights an interesting paradox. British archaeology was, in the 1980sand 1990s, one of the leaders in the development of post-processualtheory. In addition, via the founding of the World ArchaeologicalCongress in Britain, British archaeology became internationallyperceived as engaged in recognising the political nature ofarchaeological theory Archaeological theory covers the debates over the practice of archaeology and the interpretation of archaeological results. There is no single theory of archaeology, and even definitions are disputed. and practice. As those involved in these eventsacknowledge, the criticism of Indigenous peoples, and particularly thosecriticisms centred on the retention of Indigenous human remains, wereintegral in initiating these debates and events (see Ucko 1987; Hodder1992; Shanks & Tilley 1987). Consequently the myth of'objectivity' that dominates much of archaeological theory wascalled into question. While post-processual theory has itself attractedcriticism, it did bring a degree of maturity to British and Westernarchaeology more generally. It has helped to close the theoretical gapbetween archaeology and the rest of the humanities and social sciencesby importing post-modern and other critiques into the discipline, andhelped to stimulate debate about the political, theory-laden andsubjective nature of the discipline. Unfortunately, its facilitation ofthe latter, as I have argued elsewhere (Smith 1994, in press), wasoverly abstract and consequently obscured the ways in which'politics' was to be 'done' in archaeology. This abstract theoretical response contrasts with the verypractical set of responses that have been implemented in manypost-colonial countries. The contrast is marked: the implications of therange of practical, and often politicised, responses to Indigenousconcerns have yet to be adequately theorised and their consequences forthe development of archaeological theory have yet to addressed (Smith inpress). This is not to say that post-processual theory necessarily holdsthe answers here, but rather to highlight the so far contradictorycollective response of British archaeology to the issue: that it hasfacilitated the recognition of archaeological politics, but has yet todeal with the practical issues that must flow from this recognition. So, what are the political issues that must be considered here?Some commentators on repatriation debates have characterised the debatesas one of science vs. religion (Meighan 1984, 1992; Mulvaney 1991;Dawkins 1998). This characterisation misses the point. The issues arepolitical ones that revolve around Verb 1. revolve around - center upon; "Her entire attention centered on her children"; "Our day revolved around our work"center, center on, concentrate on, focus on, revolve about the politics of identity andrecognition--in which the disciplinary and individual identity ofarchaeologists and other scientists are as much at stake as those ofIndigenous peoples. However, what often works to obfuscate the politicalnature of this debate are the cultural differences that underlie it. Itis important to acknowledge and understand these differences beforeexamining the politics of the issue in more detail. While there is a wide range of Indigenous cultural, philosophicaland religious beliefs and values systems about the nature andsignificance of human remains, in simple terms, many Indigenous peopleconsider that the idea that human remains should be stored in museums tobe odds with their belief systems. As Parker Pearson observes'British attitudes to dead bodies are ambivalent, contradictory andvolatile' (1999:183), nonetheless some synergy exists betweenBritish and some Indigenous attitudes to human remains. Legislation inBritain exists to prevent the unauthorised excavation of Christianremains, drafted in the wake of the activities of the 'resurrectionmen' excavating the newly dead for anatomical research and teaching(Parker Pearson 1999:181; see also Richardson 1987). Despite thisapparent similarity, however, two significant cultural issues tend toinflame the political nature of repatriation and reburial Noun 1. reburial - the act of burying againreburyingburying, burial - concealing something under the ground debate, and toget in the way of accepting the legitimacy of Indigenous claims overtheir dead. The first of these is the issue of 'time'. In Britishculture, and Western cultures more generally, things that are'old' are seen as intrinsically valuable, mysterious andwondrous--they are the proper objects of archaeological research. Humanremains from the distant past are objects of curiosity, while humanremains from the recent past elicit an entirely different emotionalresponse. As Swain (2002:95) notes, the retention of deadchildren's organs by Alder Hey Hospital attracted major publiccondemnation, and yet the display by the Museum of London The Museum of London documents the history of London from the Palaeolithic to the present day. The museum is located in a 1970s building close to the Barbican Centre, approximately 10 minutes' walk north of St Paul's Cathedral and admission is free. in their'London Bodies' exhibition of the skeletal remains of amedieval woman and infant, who died in childbirth, generally elicitedonly curiosity from the viewing public. Swain draws attention to animportant question: at what point do the remains of a human being becomeviewed in the West as primarily data? At what point in our range ofemotional responses to human remains does a sense of, or a concern for,our human mortality recede re��cede?1?intr.v. re��ced��ed, re��ced��ing, re��cedes1. To move back or away from a limit, point, or mark: waited for the floodwaters to recede.2. , and become dominated by curiosity? What isoften difficult for archaeologists and other researchers on humanremains to understand is that for many Indigenous people the issue ofdepth of time simply does not apply, and the age of the remains does notnecessarily temper the intensity of the ancestral link. The other issue is that of genealogical descent. For many inWestern cultures it is often necessary to trace some form of directbiological link to a population or individual to show kinship. Why thisis may in part rest on the degree to which colonial administrationsutilised 'race' and other biological concepts of identity todivide and classify people, and/or the degree to which biological linkshave been emphasised and identified as important in evolutionary scienceand biological classification, often in opposition to Western religiousclaims. Whatever the reasons it is a culturally important considerationin many Western cultures. In some, but not all, Indigenous culturesidentifying direct biological linkages may be irrelevant, and entirelydifferent criteria are used for identifying ancestral/descendent links.The emphasis placed in the West on issues of 'time' and'genealogy' has often, as currently in the Kennewick case,impeded negotiations and understandings between archaeologists andIndigenous peoples. The importance of the Working Group's report isthat it is moving toward recognising these differences. The report doesnot argue, and neither do I, that we must incorporate Indigenouscultural values and adopt them for ourselves, but rather that we mustaccept firstly that difference exists, and secondly, that the differenceis legitimate. The recognition and acceptance of the legitimacy ofAboriginal cultural values lies behind, for instance, the return byAustralian archaeologists of the c. 24 000-year-old Mungo woman'sremains in 1992 (Smith & Burke 2003). Responses to the Working Group's report in the British mediato date have worried that Indigenous cultural values will be givenprimacy over scientific values. Various commentators have noted thatrepatriation should occur in the cases of 'named individuals',but that remains from the 'deep past' should not be returned(Stringer cited in Fray 2003; Jenkins 2003). Others have asserted thatthe proposed break-up of collections represents a 'loss to science[that] would be incalculable' (Foley quoted in McKie 2003:News14).It needs to be pointed out though that a significant number of remainsin collections are in fact only studied for the first time because ofthe repatriation process (see for instance, Rose et al. 1996). So why is it important that scientific values open negotiation withIndigenous values, and why should Indigenous values be privileged? Formany Indigenous communities the control of ancestral human remains isnot only about defending their belief systems, but is embedded in widerstruggles to control identity. It has to be understood that thecollection of human remains and their study has, historically, oftengone hand in hand with the colonial domination and reclassification ReclassificationThe process of changing the class of mutual funds once certain requirements have been met. These requirements are generally placed on load mutual funds. Reclassification is not considered to be a taxable event. ofIndigenous people as 'colonised'. The nineteenth and twentiethcentury collection of human remains was, as has been well documented(see for instance, Trigger 1980, 1989; Attwood 1989; McGurie 1992), partof racist research that labelled Indigenous peoples as'primitives', objectified them as natural history specimens,and helped to justify and underpin a series of genocidal acts andgovernment policies. Thus control over identity and material elements,including 'the body', that are used to symbolize that identityare important in Indigenous attempts to assert self-determination. InWestern society, in contrast, archaeological and other expertpronouncements on Indigenous identity and culture are given authority.It thus becomes crucial for Indigenous peoples to control how they areunderstood and viewed if they are to have direct participation in widernegotiations and debates with governments and their bureaucracies overthe legitimacy of their claims to sovereignty, land andself-determination. The significance of identity politics to this debate is revealed insome of the old mythologies that have been raised in the media inresponse to the Working Group's report. For instance, Foley (citedin McKie 2003:News14), Director of the Leverhulme Centre for HumanEvolutionary Studies, which contains an extensive collection of humanremains within the Duckworth Laboratory, rehearses the old myth that theTasmanian Aboriginal people no longer exist--thereby givingunintentional 'scientific' authority to the denial of theexistence of a whole community! Stringer, while acknowledging the racismof the nineteenth century argues that, as he was nor responsible for it,the collections should not be broken up (quoted in Fray 2003). Appleton(2003) argues that Indigenous peoples also benefit from science andshould themselves train as archaeologists and anthropologists so thatthey can understand the benefits of the research. What these argumentsmisunderstand is the nature of the identity politics involved and thedynamics of colonial history. Stringer, despite his non-involvement innineteenth-century practices, still benefits from these practices in anumber of ways, while the idea that Indigenous peoples simply need tolearn archaeological and other 'scientific' values for theproblem to be resolved ignores the direct role that archaeology hasplayed in colonial history. It is important for the British community topublicly acknowledge that the colonial history of countries likeAustralia, New Zealand, Canada and the US are integral parts of Britishhistory--and that such history has brought economic and other materialbenefits to the UK. The retention of collections of Indigenous humanremains by British institutions conveys a powerful symbolic message,however unintentional that may be. At best, the message that is conveyedis that the British community sees itself as positioned outside theconsequences of its own colonial history, while at worst, it affirms thelegitimacy of that history and the negative continuing consequences ithas for Indigenous peoples and their campaigns for recognition andequity. The 'politics of recognition' is a significant area ofpolitical negotiation. As Nancy AS Nancy-Lorraine is a French football club, based in Nancy. The team was founded in 1967 as a successor of the defunct FC Nancy, which collapsed in 1965.It was promoted to Ligue 1 for the 2005-06 season. Michel Platini played for the club between 1973 and 1979. Fraser observes, identity politics can"represent genuinely emancipatory e��man��ci��pate?tr.v. e��man��ci��pat��ed, e��man��ci��pat��ing, e��man��ci��pates1. To free from bondage, oppression, or restraint; liberate.2. responses to serious injusticesthat cannot be remedied by redistribution alone. Culture, moreover, is alegitimate, even necessary, terrain of struggle, a site of injustice inits own right ..." (2000:2). This does not mean that there shouldbe a single-minded emphasis on the recognition of cultural identity.However, by emphasising both the economic and cultural aspects of socialjustice issues Fraser turns our attention to the material consequencesand power of not only the politics of recognition, but also the realinjuries that may be done through mis-recognition. Appleton (2003), inher commentary on the Working Group's report, suggests that therepatriation of human remains does little to redress the realinequalities experienced by Indigenous peoples, and that it is littlemore than an empty political gesture designed to obfuscate materialequity issues. However, as Fraser goes on to observe: Properly conceived, struggles for recognition can aid the redistribution of power and wealth ... This means conceptualizing struggles for recognition so that they can be integrated with struggles for redistribution, rather than displacing and undermining them ... (2000:2). Thus the lesson here is that the politics of recognition is animportant political act that, if framed and carried out constructivelyand with conviction, can be more than simply a gesture. Further,archaeologists and other researchers cannot pretend to be innocentbystanders in the wider politics of identity and recognition. In thefirst instance, this is because the authority of archaeological andother scientific pronouncements, and practices--including the act ofretention or return of human remains--can have material impacts onpublic perceptions of the legitimacy of indigenous identity claims andaspirations. To this end archaeologists and other researchers on humanremains have to be wary of the degree to which right-wing elements notonly share, but actively utilise the archaeological discourse of'scientific rights' in repatriation debates, while alsopursing agendas about so-called threats to Western values or pushingwhite supremacist white supremacistn.One who believes that white people are racially superior to others and should therefore dominate society.white supremacy n.Noun 1. ideologies (for the range of reactions to repatriationdebates see: Appleton 2002, 2003; Jenkins 2003 for the UK; see materialreported in Preston 1997; Egan 1998; May 2001 and the powerful rebuttal rebuttaln. evidence introduced to counter, disprove or contradict the opposition's evidence or a presumption, or responsive legal argument. of this material by Goodman 1998, for the US). In the second instance, archaeologists and other scientists arethemselves active participants in the politics of identity. What must beobvious, to even the most casual observer of debates on repatriation, isthe degree to which careers, personal reputations, and institutional anddisciplinary identities become themselves empowered by the possession ofhigh prestige artefacts and remains. The ability to retain and controlsuch items is integral to the construction of archaeological identity(Lahn 1996, Smith 1999, Smith in press, Fforde 2002). The ability toretain human remains, particularly very old or controversial remains,through the ability to invoke the authority of scientific discourse,ensures that the scientific credentials of archaeology, museums andother institutions as scientific, authoritative and powerful aremaintained (Smith 1999, in press; Fforde 2002). All this is tied intowhat Tindill (1999) identifies as the 'pathology ofcollecting' whereby the acquisitiveness of Western cultures islegitimised and naturalised Adj. 1. naturalised - planted so as to give an effect of wild growth; "drifts of naturalized daffodils"naturalizedplanted - set in the soil for growth . The opportunities The active participation of the archaeological community in therepatriation debate can present a range of significant opportunities.The Working Group's report emphasises the possibilities of newrelationships with Indigenous communities (DCMS 2003:139). Certainly,the experience in Australia cannot be characterised as one of'lost' scientific opportunities. The return of human remainsto communities, alongside sustained and committed informed consultationand negotiation with those communities, has certainly resulted in ashift in the way archaeology is 'done', but it has alsosignificantly widened the scope of archaeological research. While, asSmith and Burke (2003:191) point out, the effectiveness of the codes ofethics used in Australia still needs to be assessed, there is evidenceof the benefits of this practice to archaeological research at least.Once relationships of trust and respect have been developed withcommunities, joint community and archaeological work has arisen that, byits nature, is immediately more meaningful to community questions abouttheir history and past (see for instance, Davidson et al. 1995; Field etal. 2000; Clarke 2002; Grcer et al. 2002; Smith & Burke 2003; Smithet al. 2003). One of the catch cries of 1970s processual archaeology Processual archaeology is a form of archaeological theory which arguably had its genesis in 1958 with Willey and Phillips' work, Method and Theory in American Archeology wasfor archaeology to be 'more relevant' for contemporaryneeds--and joint community research certainly may realise this.Alongside this type of work, new ideas and ways of seeing thesignificance of data may be incorporated into research. I am not sayingthat we have to uncritically adopt oral histories or othernon-archaeological knowledge or interpretations, but the opportunitiesfor new ideas and insights are significant. Furthermore, the ways in which knowledge is constructed,legitimised and disseminated both within archaeological research andoutside the discipline is still under-theorised. If archaeologists areto engage in meaningful community dialogues and research, then someunderstanding of the way knowledge is legitimised is necessary. What isapparent in postcolonial post��co��lo��ni��al?adj.Of, relating to, or being the time following the establishment of independence in a colony: postcolonial economics.countries is that attempts to use oralhistories and other cultural knowledge in archaeological research eithersit uneasily in the dominant processual or science-led development ofarchaeological knowledge, or it risks becoming appropriated and thusdecontextualised through the power/knowledge relations that underpin thediscipline. The cross-cultural opportunities for critically scrutinisingthe value of archaeological knowledge, and its utilisation outside thedisciplinary frameworks, are important if archaeology is to dealmeaningfully with non-archaeological communities and knowledge. Nor isthis simply a postcolonial issue. The social and cultural inclusion policies of the BritishGovernment stress the desirability of community participation inheritage management and other archaeological activities (see EnglishHeritage English Heritage is a non-departmental public body of the United Kingdom government (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) with a broad remit of managing the historic environment of England. It was set up under the terms of the National Heritage Act 1983. 2000; Newman & McLean 1998). While we may, and probablyshould, debate the ability of these policies to achieve their aims, theydo mean that archaeologists are increasingly being asked to engage withlocal and regional communities. This must also mean that Britisharchaeologists will increasingly encounter 'other' ways ofviewing the past, material culture, and human remains. The Working Group's report, together with the upcoming reportby English Heritage and the Church of England Church of England:see England, Church of. on the treatment of UKorigin human remains (DCMS 2003:8), must draw attention to the debatestill to be had on dealing with human remains from Britisharchaeological contexts. Human remains, no matter their age, are notlike other archaeological data--the debate with Indigenous peoples tellsus this. The symbolism of how we treat the dead, whether recent orancient, sends messages not only to Indigenous peoples, but to otherarchaeological audiences as well. The range of British public attitudesto the dead, and human remains and the archaeological treatment of themare, as yet, not well understood in archaeology. Although calls havecome for ethical debates to be undertaken on these issues (ParkerPearson 1999), it is revealing that a recent special edition on humanremains of a postgraduate student journal, which by its nature should bereflective of current research directions and attitudes, did not onceraise the issue of ethical practice (Baxter 2003). Any discussion or debate about ethical practice must engagearchaeologists directly, if it is to be meaningful at all, withcommunity and/or wider public views, concerns and aspirations forarchaeological research. As experience in post-colonial countriesdemonstrates, these debates often open up avenues into, or opportunitiesfor, community-driven or joint projects. Thus, ethical issues areintegrally tied to the move forward in British archaeology to communityarchaeological projects, and the widening audiences for this sort ofwork as evidenced by the popularity of archaeological televisionprogrammes. Moreover, the upswing in media interest in archaeologicalresearch in Britain means that careful consideration needs to be givento whether or not the updating of the viewing public on archaeologicalpractice and theory should he left entirely to the current crop oftelevision programmes. Any ethical debate needs to also consider the implications thatworking with human remains must have for archaeological workersthemselves. Cox (1996) has drawn attention to the psychological impactand other health risks of working with remains, particularly those ofthe 'recently' dead (see also Reeve 1993; Cox 1998). Theseissues become particularly urgent as the field of so-called'forensic archaeology' grows. The disciplinary culture, whichoften insists upon viewing human remains as primarily data, has donemuch to mask the emotional responses that archaeological audiences andIndigenous peoples have to human remains, let alone archaeologiststhemselves. Archaeological students receive relatively little trainingpreparing them for the range of workplace hazards and realities--and weshould not underestimate the emotional impacts that working with humanremains can have for the unwary. Conclusion While the Working Group's report does not address all theissues that lie in wait in the repatriation process (it is notable, forinstance, that Indigenous representation was absent in the Working Groupitself), it is nonetheless an important and useful first step. Theopportunities that can be realised in any move toward active andcritical engagement with the treatment of human remains is significant.At the very least, however, it affords archaeologists the means andopportunities to enter into a sequence of ethical debates that will havea consequence not only for the development of theoretical debates andresearch practices, but also a finer understanding of the utility andvalue of archaeological research at community level, in every country. References AAA 1991 Code of Ethics. On line.http:www.archaeology.usyd.edu.au/AAA/Ethics/index.html ANON. 2003 Report Recommends Repatriation of Ancestral Remains. NewScientist.com. Online. http://www.newscientist.com.au/articles/news(accessed 16 January 2004). APPLETON, J. 2002 Battle of the Bones. Spiked Culture. Online.http://www.spiked-online.com/articles (accessed 12 January 2004). --2003 No Bones About it. Tech Central Station--Where Free MarketsMeet Technology. Online. http://www.techcentralstation.com (accessed 16January 2004). ATTWOOD, B. 1989 The Making of the Aborigines aborigines:see Australian aborigines. . Sydney: Allen andUnwin. ATSIC 2003 ATSIC News: The Other Stolen People. http://www.atsic.gov.au/news_room/arsoc_news/Winter_2003/Other_Stolen_People.asp (accessed 16 January 2003). BAILEY, M. 2003 UK Museums Disagree on Bones. The ArtNewspaper.com. Online.http://www.theartnewspaper.com/museums/museums.asp (accessed 16 Januray2004). BAXTER, M. (ed.) 2003 Contending with Human Bones, special edition,Archaeological Review from Cambridge 16(2). CLARKE, A. 2002 The ideal and the Real: Cultural and PersonalTransformations of Archaeological Research on Groote Eylandt Groote Eylandt(grt ī`lənd)[Du.,=large island], 950 sq mi (2,461 sq km), Northern Territory, N Australia. , NorthernAustralia The term northern Australia is generally considered to include the States and territories of Australia of Queensland and the Northern Territory. The part of Western Australia (WA) north of latitude 26�� south — a definition widely used in law and State government policy . World Archaeology 34(2):249-264. Cox, M. 1996 Crypt Archaeology after Spitalfields: Dealing with ourRecent Dead. Antiquity 71:8-10 --1998 (ed.) Grave Concerns: Death and Burial in England 1700-1850.York: Council of British Archaeology. DAVIDSON, I., C. LOVELL-JONES & R. BANCROFT (eds) 1995Archaeologists and Aborigines Working Together. Armidale: University ofNew England The University of New England can refer to: University of New England, Maine, in Biddeford, Maine University of New England, Australia, in New South Wales Press. DAWKINS, R. 1998 Science and Sensibility--Queen Elizabeth HallLecture, London March 24, Series ride: Sounding the Century ('Whatwill the Twentieth Century leave to its heirs?'). Online.http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1998-03-24science_and_sensibility.shtml (accessed 19 March 2004). DCMS 2003 The Report of the Working Group on Human Remains. London:Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Cultural Property Unit. EGAN, T. (1998) Old Skull Gets White Looks, Stirring Dispute, NewYork New York, state, United StatesNew York,Middle Atlantic state of the United States. It is bordered by Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the Atlantic Ocean (E), New Jersey and Pennsylvania (S), Lakes Erie and Ontario and the Canadian province of Times, 2 April. Online. http://nytimes.com/archive/ (accessed 26September 2003). ENGLISH HERITAGE. 2000 Power of Place: The Future of the HistoricEnvironment. London: English Heritage. FFORDE, C. 2002 Collection, Repatriation and Concepts of Identityin C. Fforde, J. Hubert and 12 Turnbull (eds) The Dead and TheirPossessions: Repatriation in Principle, Policy/ and Practice. London:Routledge. FRASER, N. 2000 Rethinking Recognition, New Left Review. Online.http://www.newleftreview.net/NLR23707.shtml (accessed 12 November 2003). FRAY P. 2003 The Bone Keeper's Dilemma. Sydney Morning Herald,9 June. Online. http://www.smh.com.au (accessed 10 July 2003) FIELD, J., J. BARKER, R. BARKER, E. COFFEY, L. COFFEY, E. CRAWFORD,L. DARCY, T. FIELDS, G. LORD, B. STEADMAN & S. COLLEY 2000'Coming back': Aborigines and Archaeologists at CuddleSprings. Public Archaeology 1:35-48. GOODMAN, A.H. 1998. The Race Pit, Anthropology Newsletter, May.Online. http://www.pbs.org/race/000_About/002_04-background-01-10.htm(accessed 24 October 2003). GREER, S., R. HARRISON & S. MCINTYYRE. 2002 Community-basedArchaeology in Australia. World Archaeology, 32(2):265-287. HODDER, I. 1992 Theory and Practice in Archaeology. London:Routledge. HOWARD, J. 2000 Media Release: Joint Statement with Tony Blair onAboriginal Remains. Online.http://www.pm.gov.au/news/media_releases/2000/Aboriginal_4-7.htm(accessed 19 March 2004). --2003 Media Release: Indigenous Remains UK Report. Online.http://www.pm.gov.au/news/media_releases/media_Release557.html (accessed12 January 2004). JENKINS, T. 2003 Burying the Evidence. Spiked Culture, 24 November.Online. http://www.spikedonline.com/Articles (accessed 12 January 2004). PARKER PEARSON, M. 1999 The Archaeology of Death and Burial.London: Sutton Publishing. LAHN, J. 1996 Dressing up the Dead: Archaeology, the Kow SwampRemains and Some Related Problems with Heritage Management, in L. Smithand A. Clarke (eds) Issues in Archaeological Management. St Lucia:Tempus Publications, University of Queensland The University of Queensland (UQ) is the longest-established university in the state of Queensland, Australia, a member of Australia's Group of Eight, and the Sandstone Universities. It is also a founding member of the international Universitas 21 organisation. . McGUIRE, R.H. 1992 Archaeology and the First Americans. AmericanAntiquity 94(4):816-832. MCKIE, R. 2003 Scientists Fight to Save Ancestral Bone Bank. TheObserver 28 September, News14. MAY, J. (2001) Kennewick Man Kennewick Man is the name for the remains of a prehistoric man found on a bank of the Columbia River near Kennewick, Washington, USA on July 28, 1996. The discovery of Kennewick Man was accidental: a pair of spectators found his skull while attending the annual hydroplane races. Finds Common Ground in OldAdversaries. Online. http://www.indiancountry.com/?2390 (accessed 9October 2002). MEIGHAN, C. 1984 Archaeology: Science or Sacrilege SacrilegeSadness (See MELANCHOLY.)abomination of desolationepithet describing pagan idol in Jerusalem Temple. [O.T.: Daniel 9, 11, 12; N.T. ? In E. Green.(ed.) Ethics and Values in Archaeology. New York: The Free Press. --1992 Some Scholar's Views on Reburial. American Antiquity57(4):704-410. MULVANEY, D.J. 1991 Past Regained, Future Lost: The Kow SwampPleistocene Burials. Antiquity 65:12-21. MUSEUMS AUSTRALIA. 1999 Policies: Continuous Cultures OngoingResponsibilities. Online.http://www.museumsaustralia.org.au/structure/policies/ppno/ccor.htm(accessed 22 March 2004). NEWMAN, A. & F. MCLEAN. 1998 Heritage Builds Communities: TheApplication of Heritage Resources to the Problems of Social Exclusion social exclusionNounSociol the failure of society to provide certain people with those rights normally available to its members, such as employment, health care, education, etc. .International Journal of Heritage Studies 4 (3 and 4) 143-153. PRESTON, D. (1997) The Lost Man. New Yorker 73(16):70-81. REEVE, J. (ed) 1993 The Spitalfields Project: The Archaeology York:Council for British Archaeology The Council for British Archaeology is a British organisation based in York that promotes archaeology within the United Kingdom. Since 1944 the Council has been involved in publicising and generating public support for British archaeology; formulating and disseminating . ROSE J., T. GREEN & V. GREEN. 1996 NAGPRA is Forever: Osteology osteology/os��te��ol��o��gy/ (os?te-ol��ah-je) scientific study of the bones. os��te��ol��o��gyn.The branch of anatomy that deals with the structure and function of bones. and the Repatriation of Skeletons. Annual Review of Anthropology25:81-103. SHANKS, M. & C, TILLEY. 1987 Social Theory and Archaeology.Cambridge: Polity Press. SMITH, C. & H. BURKE. 2003 In the Spirit of the Code in L.J.Zimmerman, K.D. Vitelli and J. Hollowell-Zimmer (eds) Ethical Issues inArchaeology Walnut Creek Walnut Creek,residential city (1990 pop. 60,569), Contra Costa co., W Calif., in the San Francisco Bay area; inc. 1914. It is the trade and shipping center of an extensive agricultural area where walnuts are among the major product. : AltaMira Press. SMITH, L. 1994 Heritage Management as Postprocessual Archaeology?Antiquity 68:300-309. --1999 The Last Archaeologist? Material Culture and ContestedIdentities. Aboriginal Studies 1999/2:25-34. --In press, 2004 Archaeological Theory and the Politics of CulturalHeritage. London: Routledge. SMITH, L., A. MORGAN & A. VAN DER MEER Van der Meer is a Dutch surname that simply means the phrase 'from the lake' in English. Many years ago, descendants would have lived from a lake in the Netherlands which is how the name first originated. . 2003 Community-DrivenResearch in Cultural Heritage Management: The Waanyi Women'sHistory ''This article is about the history of women. For information on the field of historical study, see Gender history.Women's history is the history of female human beings. Rights and equalityWomen's rights refers to the social and human rights of women. Project. International Journal of Heritage Studies 9(1):65-80. SWAIN, H. 2002 The Ethics of Displaying Human Remains from BritishArchaeological Sites. Public Archaeology 2(2): 95-100. RICHARDSON, R. 1987 Death, Dissection and the Destitute. London:Routledge. TINDILL, J. 1999 When What's Mine Cannot Be Yours: ScientificConstructions of Heritage and the Repatriation of Human Remains.Unpublished conference paper given at the European Association ofArchaeologists, Fifth Annual Meeting, University of Bournemouth, 14-19September, UK TRIGGER, B.G. 1980 Archaeology and the Image of the AmericanIndian. American Antiquity 45(4):662-676. --1989 A History of Archaeological Thought, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press Cambridge University Press (known colloquially as CUP) is a publisher given a Royal Charter by Henry VIII in 1534, and one of the two privileged presses (the other being Oxford University Press). . UCKO, P. 1987 Academic Freedom and Apartheid. London: Duckworth. WAC 2003 Media Release: World Archaeological Congress SupportsBritish Govt Report Recommendation on Returning Bones, unpublisheddocument, Friday, 7 November. Laurajane Smith (1) (1) An Australian archaeologist, currently based in the Departmentof Archaeology, University of York This article is about the British university. For the Canadian university, see York University. The University of York is a campus university in York, England. , The King's Manor, York, YO1 7EP(Email: ls18@york.ac.uk)