Wilson, Christopher --- "Ngarrindjeri Experiences of Repatriation: Engaging in an Effective Consultation Process for Returning Old People" [2007] IndigLawB 45; (2007) 6(29) Indigenous Law Bulletin 16

• Ngarrindjeri Experiences of Repatriation: Engaging in an Effective Consultation Process for Returning Old People
• Introduction
• Repatriation in Australia
• Repatriation and Reburial of Ngarrindjeri Old People: A Collaborative Process
• Implications of Repatriation
• A Ngarrindjeri or an Archaeological Experience?
• Conclusion

Ngarrindjeri Experiences of Repatriation: Engaging in an Effective Consultation Process for Returning Old People

by Christopher Wilson

Introduction

This paper outlines the Ngarrindjeri nation’s experiences of repatriation, including some of the cultural and political implications of the repatriation and reburial process for Ngarrindjeri people.^[1] In particular, I draw upon my experiences as a Ngarrindjeri archaeologist working with my community and discuss how the application of a culturally appropriate consultation process during the return of Old People^[2] from Museum Victoria was fundamental to achieving positive outcomes in the repatriation process. This insight is significant to current repatriation debates as the process adopted by the Ngarrindjeri could contribute to and inform future repatriation negotiations.

In light of recent debates between the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre (‘TAC’) and the Natural History Museum in London,^[3] repatriation of ancestral remains has re-entered the public sphere as a highly contentious issue that continues to challenge the position of the Australian and British Governments on repatriation. Highlighted through such cases is the debate between the pursuit of ‘scientific knowledge’ and ‘Indigenous cultural obligations’ towards respecting Old People. This collision of knowledge systems reflects the complexities of repatriation, particularly within an international context.

Repatriation in Australia

Within Australia the repatriation of Old People to their communities has been termed the repatriation debate^[4] and the reburial issue.^[5] Both issues emerge from the theft of Old People from their original resting place, with subsequent ‘study’, ‘display’ and ‘storage’ in museums, university departments and other ‘collecting’ institutions around the world.

Repatriation and reburial of Old People is a familiar process evident in countries colonised by western civilisations. Until very recently, many museums and collecting institutions around the world continued to display or have possession of Old People and have more recently been challenged to return them to their community of origin.

Following decades of debate and requests from Indigenous communities, collecting institutions within Australia have made ongoing efforts to repatriate domestically through the repatriation process.^[6] Archaeologists have also been active in this process through research- and community-based archaeological practices with Indigenous communities.^[7] Repatriation in an international context however has proven to be an even more complex experience for Indigenous communities.

The treatment of Old People by the Natural History Museum demonstrates a continuous process of colonialism and lack of accountability to Indigenous communities in Australia. This treatment is far behind the development of proactive processes in the repatriation of human remains within colonised countries such as Australia, the United States, Canada and New Zealand.^[8]

Although contentious and highly political, repatriation should also be viewed as an opportunity to form mutual agreements and memoranda of understanding with Indigenous communities. The TAC case, in addition to previous repatriation events in Australia, highlights the importance for Indigenous communities to discuss and share their experiences of negotiating the return of Old People and its ongoing implications for their community. To follow, I will share my own experiences as a Ngarrindjeri archaeologist who assisted in the repatriation of Ngarrindjeri Old People. In addition, I will outline the complexity of working with your own community as well as operating as an archaeologist within the academy and how this (re-negotiated) space is a transformative process.

Repatriation and Reburial of Ngarrindjeri Old People: A Collaborative Process

The Ngarrindjeri nation is familiar with the repatriation process in Australia and the United Kingdom. In 2003, over 300 Old People were repatriated to the Ngarrindjeri nation from the University of Edinburgh, in collaboration with the National Museum of Australia (‘NMA’) Repatriation Unit; one of the largest repatriation events to occur in Australia. In the following year, another 74 Old People were repatriated from Museum Victoria under the ‘Return of Indigenous Cultural Property Program’.^[9] As an invited member of the delegation that traveled to Museum Victoria, I was able to obtain an insight into and experience of the repatriation process.^[10]

So how did Ngarrindjeri Elders manage the process? Initially, Museum Victoria approached the Ngarrindjeri Heritage Committee (‘NHC’) to inform them of their desire to repatriate Old People in their possession. As a result, the Ngarrindjeri sought a formal process of consultation through a ‘Kungun Ngarrindjeri Yunnan Agreement’^[11] (‘Listen to Ngarrindjeri People Talking Agreement’) recognising Ngarrindjeri people and Ngarrindjeri culture.

Furthermore, one of the key arguments put forward by Ngarrindjeri Elders such as Uncle Tom Trevorrow (Chair of the NHC) is that the process was not complete with the formal handover of Old People. In fact, formal handover marks the beginning of a long process that should be supported by all institutions in possession of human remains. A stepping-stone toward this goal of completing the process between Museum Victoria and the Ngarrindjeri nation began with an apology from Museum Victoria and its acceptance by the Ngarrindjeri community. This not only bridged a gap between the two parties, but it formed the basis for building a positive relationship for future negotiations.

More importantly, this process returned ownership and control over the fate of Ngarrindjeri Old People held in Museum Victoria collections back to the Ngarrindjeri nation. Overall, it marked one of the first agreements, if not the first, to be negotiated and signed between a museum and an Indigenous community during a repatriation event in Australia.

Implications of Repatriation

Following the handover of the Old People, Ngarrindjeri Elders began to discuss some of their major concerns as a result of repatriation such as:

• appropriate holding places for Old People at Camp Coorong;^[12]
• whether the documentation was accurate;
• how land will be obtained and negotiated for reburials;
• which ceremonies each individual should be given during reburial; and,
• where the time and resources are to follow this process through.

The repatriation of Old People from Museum Victoria identified and highlighted a range of issues, which would prove significant for future negotiations. Paramount is maintaining respect and limiting any damage to the Old People.

In September 2006, Ngarrindjeri began reburying Old People returned from the University of Edinburgh, following three years of discussions and debate within the Ngarrindjeri community. The process involved management and planning between the NHC, Flinders University staff, and the Repatriation Unit at the NMA to ensure that there were enough resources, specialists and community members involved in the preparation, organisation and reburial processes.

As a result of this collective effort, a total of 22 Old People were reburied at Hacks Point and Parnka within Ngarrindjeri Ruwe (country). The reburial ceremonies marked the end of a long journey for the Old People as well as Ngarrindjeri community members who were affected by their removal.

A Ngarrindjeri or an Archaeological Experience?

Do western knowledge systems provide the appropriate tools to engage appropriately with Indigenous communities – especially when that community is your own? Although this has been a fundamental question for the development of my personal and professional journey through archaeology, it is also a question that should be considered by anyone working in contexts such as repatriation.

Repatriation has provided an opportunity for me to draw upon my experiences as an Indigenous archaeologist^[13] within Australia. At present, there are only a handful of Indigenous peoples who have graduated with degrees in archaeology and even fewer who have pursued postgraduate studies and academic careers. This has meant limited opportunities for Indigenous archaeologists and thus limited contributions to wider debates on such topics as repatriation.

As a Ngarrindjeri archaeologist, one of the largest responsibilities I carry is to ensure that my research (whether involving human remains or not) is conducted in negotiation and collaboration with my Elders – a responsibility that many non-Indigenous archaeologists are increasingly adopting. It is this process and method for working with Indigenous communities which can be applied to other contexts and although it may vary depending on the community context, the basic principles are similar.

During my involvement in the repatriation of Ngarrindjeri Old People from Museum Victoria, an important feature of this work was engaging in culturally appropriate negotiations and consultation. The process required me to respond to community requests as well as my profession. This included disengaging from the academy; re-engaging with my community; exploring cultural identity; and developing a culturally appropriate research methodology. This brought about a critical process of ‘transformation’ from being a Ngarrindjeri person and operating within the academy to becoming a Ngarrindjeri archaeologist working for the benefit of my community.

Conclusion

The aim of this paper was to provide an example of a positive consultation process between a collecting institution and the Ngarrindjeri community, which resulted in dual outcomes – return of the Old People and development of mutual relationships. The overall process of working with my community on the repatriation of Old People from Museum Victoria has enabled me to ‘re-discover’ my Ngarrindjeri heritage whilst obtaining additional skills and training outside the university, under the guidance of Ngarrindjeri Elders. This process is reciprocal, as not only did I witness the repatriation of Old People back to Ngarrindjeri country, I also underwent a transformation and repatriation to my community.

Furthermore, it represented an important step toward bridging gaps between Indigenous peoples and museums in Australia who are engaging in repatriation. Increasingly, relationships are slowly forming through processes of negotiation and collaboration whereby museums are returning more than human remains – they return ownership, control and a sense of identity back to Indigenous peoples.

Christopher Wilson is a PhD Candidate in the Department of Archaeology at Flinders University, South Australia. His honours research focused largely on the repatriation of Ngarrindjeri Old People from Museum Victoria in 2004 and his current PhD research is an investigation into settlement and subsistence systems within the Lower Murray region in the southeast of South Australia.

---

^[1] The Ngarrindjeri are a collective nation of the Lower Murray Lakes and Coorong, South Australia.

^[2] Ngarrindjeri people, when referring to human remains, commonly use the term Old People.

^[3] ‘High Cost of Bitter Battle of the Bones, The Age (Melbourne), 11 March 2007, <http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/high-cost-of-bitter-battle-of-the-bones/2007/03/10/1173478727763.html?page=fullpage> at 21 May 2007.

^[4] Moira Simpson, Making Representations: Museums in the Post-Colonial Era (2001).

^[5] Jane Hubert, ‘A Proper Place for the Dead: A Critical Review of the Reburial Issue’ in Robert Layton (ed), Conflict In The Archaeology Of Living Traditions (1989) 131-166.

^[6] Cressida Fforde, ‘Collection, Repatriation and Identity’ in Cressida Fforde, Jane Hubert and Paul Turnbull, The Dead and Their Possessions: Repatriation in Principle, Policy and Practice (2002) 25-46; ABC Radio (Reporter: Nance Haxton), ‘Ngarrindjeri Remains Returned to Ancestral Lands’, AM, 10 May 2003 <http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2003/s851655.htm> at 21 May 2007; Michael Pickering, ‘Repatriation, Rhetoric and Reality: The Repatriation of Australian Indigenous Human Remains and Sacred Objects’ (Paper presented at the Australian Registrars Committee Conference, Melbourne, 9 October 2001).

^[7] Steven Webb, ‘Reburying Australian Skeletons’ (1987) 61 Antiquity 292; Sandra Bowdler, ‘Unquiet Slumbers: The Return of the Kow Swamp Burials’ (1992) 66 Antiquity 103.

^[8] See, eg, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 25 USC (1990); Task Force on Museums and First Peoples, ‘Turning the Page: Forging New Partnerships between Museums and First Peoples’ (1992) cited in Canada, Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, Volume 3: Gathering Strength Appendix 6A (1996) <http://www.ainc-inac.gc.ca/ch/rcap/sg/cia6a_e.pdf> at 21 May 2007.

^[9] Robert Barnes, ‘We’re Sorry, Says Museum’ The Advertiser (Adelaide), 26 August 2004, 13.

^[10] Chris Wilson, Return of the Ngarrindjeri: Repatriating Old People Back to Ruwe (Country), (BArch (Hons) Thesis, Flinders University, 2005).

^[11] Steve Hemming and Tom Trevorrow, ‘Kungun Ngarrindjeri Yunnan: Archaeology, Colonialism and Re-Claiming the Future’ in Claire Smith and H Martin Wobst (eds), Indigenous Archaeologies: Decolonising Theory and Practice (2005) 243.

^[12] Camp Coorong Race Relations Centre is located approximately 250km southeast of Adelaide and is run by Ngarrindjeri people.

^[13] ‘Indigenous archaeologist’ refers to Indigenous people who are archaeologists.