www.stonehenge-druids.org
For the last couple of hundred years European antiquaries, historians and archaeologists have plundered the worlds prehistoric landscape, indigenous and ancient cultures in search of knowledge glory or riches.
In recent times countries such as Greece have asked for their antiquities to be returned to them, Indigenous cultures fed up with being described as ‘primitive’ and their beliefs described as ‘Myths’ have sought more say over how they are portrayed, and the most contentious area of all has arisen around the issue of human remains.
New on 7th June - Campaign begins at Stonehenge for the return of the Aubrey hole 7 ancestors
THE UN
A United Nations report on the protection of cultural and intellectual property argues that 'each indigenous community must retain permanent control over all elements of its own heritage', heritage being defined as all of those things which international law regards as the creative production of human thought and craftsmanship, such as songs, stories, scientific knowledge and artworks'. UNESCO has envisioned the creation of state folklore protection boards that would ' register works and authorise their use'. Such protection boards might intervene if other peoples produce imitations or if native art was used in culturally inappropriate contexts'. In 2003, UNESCO adopted the International Convention of the Intangible Cultural Heritage that requires governments to prepare an inventory of intangible culture and thence to protect it.
In the USA
Legislation such as NAGPRA is intended to be an act of restitution for the wrongs done to American Indians by scientists over the years. Throughout the 19th century, and for much of the 20th, anthropologists viewed American Indians, as they did most non-Western peoples, as objects to collect and rank, rather than people with beliefs, cultures and histories to understand. NAGPRA, the American anthropologist David Hurst Thomas suggests, redresses past wrongs by shifting the balance between science and Native American beliefs to ensure that 'no longer is the scientific position privileged'.
Australia
In 2000, a special Repatriation Unit was created in the National Museum of Australia by the then Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission and Cultural Ministers Council and in 2003, the remains of some 300 Aboriginal people were returned to the Ngarrindjeri people of the Lower Murray Lakes and Coorong area in South Australia in the nation's largest repatriation of ancestral remains. These remains were collected at the turn of last century and held in various museums internationally.
In 2003, the Queensland government enacted Indigenous heritage legislation that recognised that Indigenous people are the primary guardians, keepers and knowledge holders of their cultural heritage, with recognition of Aboriginal ownership of human remains and secret and sacred material, as well as cultural heritage removed from land (Queensland Government 2003)
In September 2005, the New South Wales Government declared seven new sites within parks and reserves for the reburial of Aboriginal remains, giving them extra protection under the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Act 1977.
Sessions on repatriation are now standard at most museums, archaeology and Indigenous affairs conferences (for example, the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies Conference in 2004). Often, there is robust debate as exemplified by: "Give it Back You Bastards": Indigenous Perspectives on the Repatriation of Human Remains', Repatriation for a New Century, World Archaeological Congress, Washington DC, USA, June 2003, paper by Francesca Cubillo, then of the National Museum of Australia). In July 2005, an international conference, The Meanings and Values of Repatriation, was held in Canberra.
http://www.environment.gov.au/soe/2006/publications/emerging/repatriation/pubs/repatriation.pdf
Also recommended : http://www.getty.edu/conservation/publications/newsletters/14_3/feature1_6.html
New Zealand
The repatriation of human remains in New Zealand is occurring today in a
co-operative, low-profile manner, while in most other parts of the world it
attracts high publicity, debate and antagonism. It is shown that the situation in
New Zealand is fundamentally different because aspects of Maori culture
influenced the kind of remains sought, the way they were collected and also the
political and cultural development of the country, so that today Maori are in a
much stronger position in their own country than are other indigenous
populations around the world. The repatriation movement is thus to a large
degree controlled by Maori, whereas other indigenous peoples often require
media attention and government intervention in order to achieve their aims, if
they are able to at all.
http://brianhole.com/download/hole2007_playthingsforthefoe.pdf
Very interesting article from World Archaeological Congress
http://www.worldarchaeologicalcongress.org/site/bulletin/wab15/OneWorld.php
In our defence of the right of the Stonehenge ancestors to rest in peace, we have learned of similar struggles elsewhere in the world.The issue of reburial is most strongly contested where indigenous peoples have been oppressed by colonialists, bringing with them a dominant culture that displaces and devalues the local culture.
Reburial goes some way to re-balancing the impact of this in favour of the indigenous culture.
Modern ‘Pagans’ are ever conscious that in Britain, we were invaded by Rome who set about oppressing and devaluing the local culture, and when Rome was replaced by Christendom the repression continued. Much of the indigenous population converted to the imported ways and were taught to regard those who stuck to the old traditions with the same kind of dismissive contempt as colonialists applied to indigenous peoples elsewhere.
In Britain the wishes of the descendants of our indigenous culture / spirituality are still being largely ignored.
Establishing our claim to indigenous culture is not our prime concern; we are most of all concerned about the correct treatment of human remains which are remains of ‘human beings’ they are not ‘relics’ or ‘curiosities’, and they deserve dignity. We revere our pre Christian ancestors and especially those from sacred sites like Stonehenge.
We do not intend to obstruct scientific discovery or to prevent testing however we strongly insist upon prompt appropriate reburial in most cases, and a fair decision process that gives heavy weighting to the views of our community.
As the benchmark consultation between the DCMS and pagans of Avebury over the child remains of ‘Charlie’ have now closed to submissions, we shall wait to see what results with great interest.
Frank (Feb 19 2009)