Ethical perspectives and cultural differences regarding repatriation and management of human skeletal remains: Rapa Nui case study

(1)

Department of Archaeology and Ancient History

Ethical perspectives and cultural differences regarding repatriation and management of human skeletal remains –

Rapa Nui case study

Olivia Gustafsson

Master’s thesis 45 hp in Archaeology Autumn 2020 Main supervisor: Helene Martinsson-Wallin Assistant supervisor: Sabine Sten and Carl-Gösta Ojala Uppsala University Campus Gotland

Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

(2)

“Do you really need to know everything?”

-Mom & Dad

(3)

Gustafsson, O. 2020. Etiska perspektiv och kulturella skillnader inom repatriering och hantering av mänskliga kvarlevor – en fallstudie på Påskön.

Gustafsson, O. 2020. Ethical perspectives and cultural differences regarding repatriation and management of human skeletal remains – Rapa Nui case study.

Abstract

Rapa Nui (Easter Island) is an island in the Pacific Ocean which has been colonised over a long period of time. Colonisers have exploited the island through looting and trading Rapanui (the Indigenous people) human skeletal remains. Around ninety percent of the stolen Rapanui human skeletal remains have been located at museums and collections around the world on Rapanui initiative. Through the Rapa Nui Ka Haka Hoki Mi Ate Mana Tupuna Repatriation Program the Rapanui are now working on the return of the alienated human skeletal remains to the Island.

This thesis is an analysis of semi structured interviews with inhabitants on Rapa Nui involved in repatriation and ethics of human skeletal remains. It has been carried out through a qualitative method using semi-structured interviews together with participant observation.

The thesis is part of Martinsson-Wallin´s STINT-project ‘Sustainable Visits in Rapa Nui – Glocal Perspectives’. Based on the interviews, the analysis and results are divided into five themes: I) treatment of human skeletal remains, II) what laws exists in treating human skeletal remains, III) the possibility to narrow laws and concretize ethical perspectives before and during a repatriation, IV) theories in post-colonialism and V) recurrent issues between the law of the Indigenous peoples and the national law.

Comparison with other cases of repatriation such as Sámi follows in Chapter 7.

The results of the analysis show that according to the Rapanui, archaeological artefacts and human skeletal remains should be repatriated. Today the involved parties, the Rapanui and the institutions that are keeping collections from Indigenous cultures, are more willing to redress previous events. Such as, colonialization, violence, and social inequality but there is still a lot of respect and understanding that must be developed within several actors.

Keywords: Repatriation, ethics, Indigenous, Rapa Nui, and post-colonialism.

Abstrakt

Rapa Nui (Påskön) är en ö som tillhör Chile och är lokaliserad i Stilla Havet. Under flera århundranden har Rapanui blivit utsatta för kolonialism. Upptäcktsresare och forskare har anlänt till ön med ett syfte att stjäla och sedan sälja eller byta bort de artefakter och mänskliga kvarlevor som de har kommit över. Ungefär 90 % av alla mänskliga kvarlevor som stals från Rapa Nui under de olika upptäcktsresarna har nu lokaliserats på de museum de nu vilar i.

Detta har i sin tur lett till att Rapanui kämpar med att repatriera samtliga mänskliga kvarlevor genom ’The Rapa Nui Ka Haka Hoki Mi Ate Mana Tupuna Repatriation Program’, vilket är ett repatrieringsprogram där involverade hjälper och stöttar invånarna av Rapa Nui att få tillbaka sina förfäder.

Under forskningen skedde semi-strukturerade intervjuer av lokalbefolkning samt med de människor som är närmast i hela repatrieringsprocessen. Tillsammans med en kvalitativ metod och genom att ha tagit del av aktiviteter på Rapa Nui, samt medverkat i intervjuer inom Helene Martinsson-Wallins forskningsprojekt STINT, ’Sustainable Visits in Rapa Nui’. Med jämförelsestudier med ytterligare kulturer som Sámi, har denna forskning utförts.

Baserat på intervjuerna delades analysen och diskussionen in i fem teman: I) Behandlingen av mänskliga kvarlevor, II) Vilka lagar finns vid hantering av mänskliga

(4)

kvarlevor, III) Möjligheten att konkretisera lagar och etiska perspektiv innan och efter en repatriering, IV) Post-kolonialistiska teorier och V) Pågående problematik med lagar hos ursprungsbefolkningen och de nationella lagar.

Arkeologiska artefakter och mänskliga kvarlevor borde repatrieras, enligt

ursprungsbefolkningen på Rapa Nui. Aktörer idag är mer villiga att ta hänsyn till vad dessa individer och deras kultur har blivit utsatta för tidigare, kolonialismen, våldsamma händelser, icke jämställt bemötande, det är en lång väg kvar och en utökad respekt behöver utvecklas.

Nyckelord: Repatriering, etik, Ursprungsbefolkning, Rapa Nui och post-kolonialism.

Master´s thesis 45 hp in Archaeology. Main supervisor: Helene Martinsson-Wallin. Assistant supervisor: Sabine Sten and Carl-Gösta Ojala. Defended and passed 2020–10–23.

Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Campus Gotland, Cramérgatan 3, 621 67 Visby, Sweden.

(5)

Preface

My previous studies have been about human skeletal remains from the prehistory of Gotland Island. In my bachelor I made an osteological study on human skeletal remains of the

executed individuals of Galgberget in Visby, a site mainly used as an executing place during the medieval time on Gotland, Sweden. I focused on the executional marks on the skeletal human remains and identified what wounds in connected to which weapon and way of

execution. I planned to develop this further during my master’s thesis. While visiting the Rapa Nui (Easter Island) participating in an ongoing study, I decided that the ethical point of view on how archaeologists, like myself, handle human skeletal remains is more interesting. I was intrigued by how the Rapanui talked about their heritage and connection to their ancestors.

They made me realize the importance of understanding different cultures and their ethical perspectives of human skeletal remains. The inspiration from these people made me change my thesis topic into immersing on what is important for the Rapanui, but also what to think of as an osteologist and archaeologist while managing human skeletal remains around the world.

During November 2019, I got the opportunity to do an internship on Rapa Nui as a part of the project of Professor Helene Martinsson-Wallin, ‘research project Sustainable Visits in Rapa Nui- Glocal Perspectives’. The purpose was to assist with interviews of different actors somehow involved in tourism and heritage management. I got in contact with the Indigenous people of Rapa Nui, who had started a project about repatriation of human skeletal remains, primarily the human skeletal remains that have been alienated from the island in the

connections of the Europeans and South American colonialism. Several actors take part in every repatriation and a sacred room for the repatriated human remains, called Hare Tapu Tu’u Ivi, has been created at the local Museum (Museo Antropologico Padre Sebastian Englert) Hare Tapu is only available for the Indigenous people but in spite of that, I got the opportunity to visit the ancestors in Hare Tapu together with Participant 1 and for that I am truly grateful.

(6)

Acknowledgement

Thank you, Professor Helene Martinsson-Wallin and Professor Sabine Sten for your supervision and guidance through this thesis.

Thank you, Dr. Carl-Gösta Ojala, for stepping in at the end of the thesis with great supervision and encouragement so I could finish.

Thank you, all five participants for sharing your culture and answering my questions.

Thank you Amy van der Zee, for sending your transcription of participant four.

The fantastic people I met on Rapa Nui during the internship and for the support and new friendships that were created.

Maururu Isaias Hey y Mattarena Tuki Haoa y tu familia, por las aventuras, una cálida bienvenida en su isla, por tu ayuda y las conversaciones interesantes.

My parents, Annika Gustafsson and Jan Gustafsson for reading and supervise me through this thesis and for the great support during all five years.

My sister, for always being supportive and a great brainstormer.

I would like to thank Alexander Brandt for reading and questioning my thesis and for all the support meanwhile.

Thank you. Hanna Sjöberg, Adam Engvall and Emilia Theidz for a big support and amazing years on Gotland.

Thank you Elfrida Östlund and Anton Uvelius for the encouragement through all rough times and for the great support and help with the thesis.

Thank you, Marije Poort, for reading and commenting my thesis, and for encouraging me on Rapa Nui to follow my dreams and being a fantastic roommate.

Thank you, Maja Barnfield, for your fantastic support and encouragement during this thesis.

Thank you Emmelie Bengtsson and Linda Nilsson for lending me your books, they were a great help during the whole thesis.

A huge gratitude to all my amazing friends for always being supportive.

(7)

(8)

1. Introduction

Due to the European colonialization that occurred all around the world from around the 15^th century and onwards, there are many unsolved issues regarding the past that relate to identity, political and deep-rooted struggles about sustained structural inequalities. It is obvious that human skeletal remains and archaeological artefacts belonging to different cultures around the world have been collected and alienated from their place of origin during a long time

(Harrison and Hughes 2010:239). One example of how artefacts and human skeletal remain have been taken from their origin is collections at the British Museum. The British Museum is one of the most famous museums in the world and covers two million years of human history and culture. The museum has a variety of beautiful and extraordinary collections of the most remarkable artefacts and human skeletal remains represented from all over the world (Duthie 2011:12-13). Museums like this are scattered in different countries, such as the American Museum of Natural History, located in New York. The American Museum of Natural History represents human culture, the natural world and is famous for its exhibitions and scientific collections, which covers studies from all over the world. These two museums are just examples among many others, but they have one interesting exhibition in common, the exhibition of Rapa Nui (Easter Island), and the Rapanui (The culture and the people of Rapa Nui) (Myers 2000:7).

Rapa Nui is a solitary island located in the Pacific Ocean and belongs to Chile due to colonization. The island is around 166 km² and is home to around 7750 inhabitants both Indigenous, and other groups, such as Chileans (Arthur 2015:1-9).

‘Indigenous’ is a designation used for those who are, according to UN Declaration, an Indigenous population. It is for those who define themselves as Indigenous and for those who are not a part of the western world but inhabitants of the colonised place (Harrison and Hughes 2010:239). The land of Rapa Nui was traditionally distributed among different tribes, and every tribe hadat least one ceremonial site and all around the island these sites have been exploited and exposed to the collecting of human skeletal remains by different researchers (Routledge 1919:200-236; Arthur 2015:1-9;18). Thanks to a Rapanui woman named Ida Luz Hucke Atan (Mama Piru) and the current repatriation program ‘Rapa Nui Ka Haka Hoki Mi Ate Mana Tupuna Repatriation Program’, around 90% of the human skeletal remains that were alienated from Rapa Nui have been located and they are starting to be repatriated to Rapa Nui (Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). Rapa Nui was annexed by the State of Chile in 1888, which means that archaeological remains, including ancient monuments and prehistoric human skeletal remains of Rapa Nui became regulated by National Legislation of Monuments (Law 17.288 of National Monuments). The Rapanui can therefore not complete their

repatriation with a reburial as their tradition desires.

1.1 Purpose and aims

The purpose of this study is to analyse and interpret how human skeletal remains on the island of Rapa Nui have been treated in the past and what the current view is among the Indigenous population on how to repatriate and treat these human skeletal remains. The aim of this thesis is to investigate:

- What legislations and issues exist within ethical guidelines to cover global, national and Rapa Nui perspectives of the management of human skeletal remains?

(11)

3 -What views do the Rapanui have on the repatriation and treatment of the Indigenous Rapanui human skeletal remains?

- How can repatriation occur in the best way based on ethical perspectives?

1.2 Materials and demarcation

The results and discussions in this thesis are based on participant observation, other

researchers, secondary sources and semi-structured interviews with Indigenous people and locals from Rapa Nui. The interviewed people are familiar with or professionals in the management of archaeological findings and human skeletal remains. Written sources of the legislation and policies regarding human skeletal remains and Indigenous people according to ICOM (International Council of Monuments), WAC (World Archaeology Congress),

UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), State of Chile are used and analysed. In addition, reports and documents base on the inventory made by Mama Piru of alienated human skeletal remains from Rapa Nui. Currently situated in

museums and collections around the world have graciously been made available to use in this study.

1.3 Method

The methods used are qualitative assessments of semi structured interviews where the questions in the interview are adjusted depending on the participants involvement in the management of human skeletal remains. The participants are aware of the purpose of the study and have agreed on being a part of this thesis. Participant observation of local activities such as dance shows, dinner, barbeques, and other events where I got to see the life of

Rapanui people not as a tourist but as a friend.

Followed by a highlight of the contents in chapters within 6.1which will be done by using themes based on the compilations of the interviews displayed in chapters within 6.2, the method analysis is from Hedin (1996:7-12). Chapter 6-6.3 will appear repetitive, because it is important to show every step within this analyse to prevent misunderstanding towards the participants. A conscious choice is made to compare Sámi to Rapanui by strengthening the arguments towards an abusive past in chapter 7 ‘Discussion of the five analysed themes’, that strengthens the opinions and arguments towards common historical events within both cultures and how they are affected today.

1.4 Source criticism and ethical perspectives

The research and the collection of data has not covered all groups in Rapanui. I aimed my interviews towards people involved in repatriation or professionals in the antiquarian sector, which includes both indigenous Rapanui and Chilean people. To find out general information of how they work with repatriations and human skeletal remains. This aim can therefore clarify issues from both the Indigenous and the outsider perspective.

As an outsider and carrying out an academic study, my perspectives can appear invidious to the Rapanui. Therefore, I make a comparison between minorities and international policies focused on the ethical perspectives regarding the management of human skeletal remains based on the interviews. The perspectives from the interviews will be presented into ethical dimensions. I am aware of my outsider ethical perspectives and that it is based on the western society since my education and life is influenced by the western beliefs. Also, that the ethical perspectives might differ between societies outside and inside the west-world. The aim of this thesis is not to tell Indigenous people what to do, it is supposed to try and support their rights towards their colonisers based on their own words.

(12)

4

2. Rapa Nui history and description of previous analysis of excavated Human skeletal remains

The following chapters describes what the Rapanui have been exposed to throughout the years, in 2.1 the history and what historical events that the Rapanui have encountered. The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the Rapanui culture and their beliefs, to do that, pictures and history about different traditional sites are presented and what occurred on these specific sites. The information is from written sources and pictures are from participant observation while visiting Rapa Nui during a month in November 2019. Chapter 2.2 presents the previous analysis that have been performed of the Rapanui during the historical events from chapter 2.1.

2.1 Rapa Nui, its early scientific studies and exploitation

Rapa Nui is a small island situated in the East Pacific Ocean. Geographically it is the most isolated piece of land in the world with 3700 km to continental South America and the closest island to the west is Pitcairn which is situated c. 1819 km from Rapa Nui (Arthur 2015:15).

Rapa Nui is a triangular land mass formed by three volcanoes, located in each corner of the island. Mount Terevaka with the crater Rano Aroi in the northern part, 510 metres high, Poike in the eastern part, 460 metres high and Mataveri with the volcanic crater Rano Kau in the western part of the island, 300 metres high. The total area of the island is around 166 km² (Arthur 2015:16). Rapa Nui today is recognized mostly for the Moai (stone statues), these stone figures are situated all around the island and were created with stone tools by hand, in a quarry called Rano Raraku and then transported around the island (see figure 2 & 11) by a

variety of

Figure 1 The Moai in Tongariki. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

(13)

5 transportation methods. The Moai were designated to be placed on top of a ceremonial

platform (see example in figure 1), so called ahu but a large number have been left unfinished at the statue quarry or in transport to the ceremonial sites.

The European colonial history can be said to start in 1722, when the Dutchman Jacob

Roggeveen arrived at the island. Roggeveen and his crew were the first people from ‘the other world’, which means that the ‘European world’ discovered Rapa Nui (Heyerdahl 1989:18-19;

Flenley & Bahn 2003:3). During this time Rapa Nui was an island only inhabited by the Indigenous people who called the island ‘Te pito o´ te henua’ which means ‘The Navel of the World’ (Heyerdahl 1989:18-19; Martinsson-Wallin 1994:26; Martinsson-Wallin 2007:19).

According to Flenley & Bahn (2003), Roggeveen, did not ask what the natives called their island, so Roggeveen named it Easter Island because he arrived on Easter day (Flenley &

Bahn 2003:2). However, Flenley & Bahn (2003) argue that it is not certain that Roggeveen and his crew were the first Europeans to come to the island. This argument is based on the Roggeveen´s and a crew member´s journals where they both claim that the native people on Rapa Nui did not get surprised by their visit (Flenley & Bahn 2003:3). The visit of Roggeveen and his crew was the beginning of the colonial violence that Rapa Nui was about to encounter (Arthur 2015:19). During 1770 the Spanish Captain, Felipe González de Haedo discovered the island and named the island after their king ‘Isla San Carlos’. Felipe Gonzalés de Haedo took possession of the island and they started putting up crosses on the volcano Poike. As soon as the Spanish crew left the island, the native people took the crosses down (Heyerdahl 1989:28; Martinsson-Wallin 1994:27; Arthur 2015:19).

The first scientifically studies of Rapa Nui began when Captain James Cook arrived at the island in 1774. As far as we know this was when the collecting of human skeletal remains began (Flenley & Bahn 2003:4; Arthur 2015:19-21). Cook found out that the Spanish crew had been on the island before him, even though it is told that he did not plan on going to Rapa Nui. Cook had read a text from Roggeveen describing that Rapa Nui had a lot of remains that he thought needed to be studied (Flenley & Bahn 2003:4). When Cook arrived at the island he could not understand how anyone would want to stop there unless it was an emergency. Cook

Figure 2 Map of Rapa Nui. Picture collected from: Wikimedia.

(14)

6 described the inhabitants as short, skinny, and miserable with few women. Cooks conclusion about the island is that there would be no competition about the artefacts because of the lack of artefacts appearing in plain sight (Heyerdahl 1989:37).

Cook developed the trading into acknowledging scientific value of the natural and

different specimen. On Cook´s trip to Rapa Nui he collected Rapa Nui findings, for example a wooden hand that can be seen in the British Museum, 2015. In 1786 Comte la Pérouse, Jean Francois de Galaup and their crew arrived at Rapa Nui. They showed the natives different animals and botanical species (Heyerdahl 1989:35-37; Martinsson-Wallin 1994:29;

Martinsson-Wallin 2007:20; Arthur 2015:20).

In 1808 an American ship came to Rapa Nui and enslaved the natives. The natives were brought out to sea where they were thrown overboard. They died while trying to swim back to the island. A few years later, another American ship arrived at Rapa Nui. The visitors raped Rapanui women and threw them into the sea (Arthur 2015:20).

In 1859-62 the slave raids took place and more than half of the population of Rapa Nui were taken as slaves to Peru. Thanks to the French government and Bishop Jaussen of Tahiti, many of the Rapanui slaves were released there. On their journey back, several of the Rapanui were killed by smallpox. The returning survivors brought the disease to the island and

infected almost every inhabitant on Rapa Nui (Martinsson-Wallin 2007:20; Arthur 2015:19- 23).

In 1864 missionaries came to Rapa Nui and settled. The missionaries claimed to have baptized every inhabitant. After staying on Rapa Nui for several years, a group developed among the missionaries, a man named Dutrou-Bornier. He led the new group, the exploiters and he was remembered as violent, abusive, and a man who stole land, while exploiting cattle enterprises. The missionaries and exploiters got into an economic war and ended up splitting Rapa Nui in two, several Rapanui left the island and only 101 inhabitants remained on Rapa Nui (Arthur 2015:21).

In 1888, Chile annexed Rapa Nui and today activists from Rapa Nui are protesting the colonialization and fight for their self-determination. In 1895 the Chilean government used the Rapa Nui society as a sheep farm, for profit which was not to benefit the natives. More violence and torture towards the native people occurred. The natives were moved from their ancestral lands, their tribe areas, to live in today´s Hanga Roa (see figure 7), while the

colonisers took their animals and destroyed everything the natives owned (Martinsson-Wallin 2007:20; Arthur 2015:19-23).

Some archaeological/ethnographical investigations were made by Captain Wilhelm Geiseler when they made a visit in 1883. He argued that the Rapanui people came from the island Rapa and that they came to Rapa Nui with boats to Vinapu, and Anakena (Flenley &

Bahn 2003:4 and 41).

In 1886 an American team from the USS Mohican began archaeological studies at the island, they investigated the statues, the quarry, the stone houses, and the platforms that the

moai stood on. They stayed at the island for eleven days. They made a survey of 555 stone statues, recording over 113 platforms, and record of the ceremonial and previous settlements in Orongo (see figure 3) (Flenley & Bahn 2003:6).

The second proper archaeological researcher that came to Rapa Nui was Katherine Routledge, she arrived with her team in 1914, measuring and mapping the island and its ground surface. Routledge and her team only made a few excavations, but she

Figure 3 Orongo settlements. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

(15)

7 mentions in her book that the island has a lot more to explore and that the island has a

prevailing mysticism (Heyerdahl 1957:33).

Further locations excavated by expeditions were settlements at

Anakena (see figure 4 & 5) where they carbon dated charcoal to AD 1400-1700.

They found houses that were shaped as boats with stone curb along the sides (Martinsson-Wallin 2007:32).

Poike the volcano (see figure 8, view from Ovahe Beach) in eastern part is a well-known historical site, where the battle between the different inhabitants of the island occurred at AD

1680 and got confirmed to be used at AD 1600-1700 (Martinsson-Wallin 2007:32-37). The American archaeological team dated activities at Orongo, which is a famous ceremonial site close to the volcano in the west, Rano Kau, where the birdman ritual occurred during AD 1300-1900. The time frame is unsure because there are no written sources of the beginning of the ritual and several scientists disagree. Some say that it started around 1300 and some that it all started 1760. There is only a list of 86 previously birdmen, the last one occurred in 1860.

This birdman ritual occurred once a year in September and the purpose was to find the new birdman in the society. The birdman that won, got the honour to represent Makemake (the supreme god (Martinsson-Wallin 1994:51)) on earth. The birdman ritual started with a strong

Figure 5 Anakena. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

Figure 4 Anakena. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

(16)

8 representative from each tribe, whom the tribe leader chose to represent him. Their tasks were to take themselves down on the side of a 300 metres high cliff and then swim for 2 kilometres through powerful currents and tide with sharks, out to the big islet, Motu Nui (see figure 6).

Sometimes the participants had to wait on this islet for weeks, for the seabird from whom they were going to steal the eggs from. The first who found it had to swim back with it, securely wrapped to his head. Then he became the new sacred birdman. The winner had to shave his head, eyebrows, and eyelashes and then the tribe painted his head. After the ceremony, he had to live alone in a house in Rano Raraku and were not allowed to wash himself for a year, nor cut his fingernails (Flenley & Bahn 2003:175-177).

2.2 Previous scientific analyses and management of Rapanui human skeletal remains

For a long time, researchers have discussed where the original people came from and if there have been one or several external contacts prior to European colonisation of Rapa Nui.

According to Flenley and Bahn (2003:27), there are only two different directions where the first people could have come from, west, Polynesia or east, South America.

The Polynesian people or the Boat People as Flenley and Bahn called them, were the first inhabitants on the island according to oral traditions.

Martinsson-Wallin (1994), Skjølsvold (1994) and Martinsson-Wallin and Crockford (2002) suggest that Rapa Nui initially was settled by Polynesians between AD 800-1000 based on radiocarbon dates from the early settlement site at Anakena. Martinsson-Wallin also base her dates on oral tradition of the successions of chiefs on the island (1994:71-84).

Martinsson-Wallin suggest an around AD 1300-1400 contact with South America that

brought the sweet potato and the stone masonry building technique of the ahu (1994:78-84).

The early radiocarbon dates from Anakena has later been re-assessed by Wallin et al (2010) to

Figure 6 The island Motu Nui where the birdmen collected the egg. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

(17)

9 point out an initial colonisation from Polynesia around AD1100-1200 and Hunt and Lipo (2009) suggest the initial colonisation be set to later than AD 1350.

During Thor Heyerdahl´s visit and their work in caves, they got visitors from Chile, Professor Peña. He chose to keep some information to himself, as he noticed that the mayor talked to some men, about getting rich. By this time, it got clear to Heyerdahl that the

Professor was interested in buying the sculptures and other artefacts that were replicas of the ones from the caves. The mayor said no however, because these artefacts were promised to the Kon-Tiki ship. The Professor had heard that if you just flipped a stone on Rapa Nui, you would find artefacts and that you would become rich. Since the island belonged to, and still does, the Chilean state, archaeologists and the mayor during this time were afraid that the Professor came from the state in purpose of taking all the archaeological findings and human skeletal remains that they had found during their research (Heyerdahl 1957:187-188). The greed, as Heyerdahl puts it, and the interest of buying artefacts and the rumours about the island are a confirmation that the island was interesting for several parts of the black market and trading goods (Heyerdahl 1957:187-188).

Within the caves, Thor Heyerdahl explains the amount of human skeletal remains as he was surrounded by bones when he entered the caves, they were wrapped in carpets of reed and they broke just by a simple touch (Heyerdahl 1957:265-266). Heyerdahl and his team wrapped what they could find inside the cave, and they brought the statues that they found with them outside the cave (Heyerdahl 1957:297-299). From a few of the caves that Thor Heyerdahl and his team visited, consisted of human skeletal remains from the Rapanui ancestors and several stone statues (Heyerdahl 1957:300). The rumours about the caves and the values of the stone statues made the inhabitants urgent to create statues themselves and cover them with different substances such as dirt, so they could sell or trade them as old artefacts (Heyerdahl 1957:301). Showing off their ancestor’s graves seemed like a good idea for the locals, until the visitors started to get fussy about collecting them, then the locals immediately changed their minds (Heyerdahl 1957:305).

During 1955, a group of archaeologists came to the island with Thor Heyerdahl as their expedition leader. They stayed for six months, while doing different research on the island together with Rapanui. Thor Heyerdahl claimed that Polynesia was colonized from both North- and South America (Flenley & Bahn 2003:27-33; Martinsson-Wallin 2014:81-83).

After spending one year in the Marquesas’ island in 1937-38 (Heyerdahl 1974) he argued that the winds and currents could take anyone on a boat from the ‘New World’, Peru, to Polynesia and as an experiment he built a copy of a traditional raft. In 1947 he sailed to eastern

Polynesia, well-known as the Kon Tiki expedition (Heyerdahl 1948). After 101 days at sea, they finally reached the east coast of Rarioa in the Tuamotus Archipelago. After the trip, he decided that the first that have colonised east Polynesia could only have come from one direction, South America. The expedition of Thor Heyerdahl had a big part in the upcoming archaeological research. Heyerdahl financed the excavations for the archaeologists Arne Skjølsvold, William Mulloy, Edwin Ferdon, Carlyle Smith, Gonzalo Figueroa, and Rapanui people (Martinsson-Wallin 2007:24-28). Flenley & Bahn (2003) claimed that Heyerdahl was obsessed with the belief that Rapa Nui colonizers came from the east. In his obsession, he argued that tools, vegetables etc, that were used and/or produced, on the island, to strengthen his arguments that they must have been brought to the island from Peru. Thor Heyerdahl continues his arguments that the stone carving and stone monuments on Rapa Nui is like the walls built by the Inca people in Peru. After a time, he seems to have changed his mind. Then he believed that the Moai have no similarity to any of the stone monument on the eastern cultures. Thor Heyerdahl argued that the human skeletal remains found on Rapa Nui belongs to the much more recent population and therefore it is only representative from the Polynesian and the first population on the island is gone and according to Flenley and Bahn, Heyerdahl only used specific evidence that would support his theory of an ‘Amerindian cultural superiority’ (Flenley & Bahn, 2002:34).

(18)

10 The results from the excavations by Heyerdahl and his team divided the Rapa Nui history into three time periods, the Early phase, when the island got its first population and

settlements, AD c. 400-1100. The second period is the Middle phase, AD 1100-1680 when the population increased and the inhabitants built the ceremonial sites and the creation of the stone statues, Moai, occurred. The last period is the Proto-historic phase, AD 1680-1860, the destruction of the ceremonial places took place and the civil war. By the information and dating from the excavations during 1955-1956 it is possible to indicate that Rapa Nui had an early connection to South America and distinct changes during time, according to Thor Heyerdahl and his team. During this time, it was legal to buy and sell archaeological artefacts from the Rapanui (Martinsson-Wallin 2007:19-44).

Some of these was excavations, for example on ahu Vinapu 1 and 2 the archaeologists discovered human remains in the most recent part of the ceremonial place (Martinsson-Wallin 2007:23-24).

Several investigations have been carried out on human skeletal remains from Rapa Nui.

In the anthology of Gill and Vincent (2016) there are several articles on analysis of human skeletal remains from Rapa Nui, such as postcranial and extremities metrics in purpose of getting a general vision of how the Rapanui ancestors looked like and how they have moved around the world (Gill & Vincent 2016:79 & 66). Between 1981 and 1991 excavations occurred and they picked up 426 individuals were 110 of them got identified as adults and measured, on each cranium 50 different measurements were made. Based on these

measurements Gill and Vincent concludes general features on adult Rapanui. Gill and Vincent made general features of the shape on the cranium, such as orbits, nasal and the general face and further connects these features with specific parts on Rapa Nui (Gill & Vincent, 2016:66- 79). After the analysis Gill and an artist, Long, made together facial reconstructions of the Rapanui ancestors and then put up on exhibition at an anthropological museum in Laramie, Wyoming (Gill & Vincent, 2016:76). Other reconstructions were made on two individuals that got excavated in 1978 by Sonia Haoa and Sergio Rapu that got exhibited in the museum on Rapa Nui. While exhibiting these two Rapanui ancestors, locals came to see them and were able to see characteristics in these reconstructions, characteristics that made it possible to connects written sources, excavation site to a tribe area (Gill & Vincent, 2016:79).

Researchers have made DNA-studies on human skeletal remains that got collected somewhere between 1445 and 1945. In 2017 DNA-tests were made on human skeletal remains with an estimated excavation period, it was during the 1980s. These DNA-tests from 1980s shows a clear picture that they were from Polynesia and 6 % of the samples also contains DNA from the Native South America (Fehren-Schmitz et al., 2017:3209-3210).

In writing moment (2020) the latest DNA-studies revealed that the more recently DNA samples were influenced by Chilean DNA, which shows clearly that contact before the European contact of Rapa Nui occurred (Ioannidis et al. 2020:6). Conclusively current DNA research on present day Rapanui indicate that the initial population on Rapa Nui was

Polynesian but there is also a Native American input from where Colombia is now (Ioannidis et al. 2020).

(19)

11

Figure 7 ‘Te Ara o te Ao’ to Orongo. View over Hanga Roa. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

Figure 8 Ovahe beach, view over the volcano Poike. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

(20)

12

3. Post-colonial theory and Indigenous people

Post-colonial studies emerged around the 1950s and forward, based on the ‘political activism of post-World War II anti-colonial liberation movements’ (Lydon 2010), and had the focus on dealing with the colonial impact on individuals and society. It occurred as a theory about power between colonisers from the west and the colonised Indigenous people when the colonisers established the mentality of inferiority among the cultural and ethnical society.

Post-colonial theory is based on the revealing of multicultural politics and hybridity within a colonised society and how it appears today. Even though the increased knowledge about the previous effects on a colonised culture, is the post-colonial literature based on a westerly mindset. The westerly mindset makes it complicated within an identification because the literature formed the individuals and the group constellation in what way the colonialization formed the society (Harrison and Hughes 2010:237-238).

Post-colonial theory is an attempt to use archaeology for an understanding of minorities and how they are affected today based on previous events (Gosden 2012:255). Gosden (2012) and Nilsson Stutz (2007) argue that post-colonialism is based on politics, mainly in relation to the claim of land, indigenous heritage, and political rights. By using the archaeological

knowledge within for example repatriation cases, the Indigenous people would get help to establish their rights (Gosden 2012:252). Political approaches are set by the need to control the archaeological management of human skeletal remains and of the ownership of a heritage.

This can appear as a negative fact because it does not accommodate to the needs of an

Indigenous population, despite this, the political approach is seen to have its advantages. As a result of the political approach, archaeologists and Indigenous people have connected and built a better relationship with each other as well as the Indigenous people being more asserted (Harrison & Hughes 2010:239-240; Johnson 2019:208). Even though the

relationship between archaeologists and Indigenous people has improved, there is still a lot of tension between the two (Ojala 2016:993).

During the European colonialization, the archaeologists often ended up carrying out or assisting in racial studies. Generally, there has been and still is, a lack of ability among the archaeologists to convey and inform about their studies to the locals. Before and during the colonialization, archaeologists made studies for the sake of archaeological research. The archaeologists classified the possibility and the authority to do research, as a hierarchy with a mindset of the ones who have the knowledge is the only ones allowed to do research (Atalay 2006:282).

Western archaeologists had a romanticized view on their cultural history during the colonialization, which the Indigenous groups, in this case Sámi and Rapanui, did not comprehend due to the cultural differences. The greater the difference between the western culture and the Indigenous culture, the greater the gap of knowledge by the archaeologists.

The gap encouraged an uncontrollable collecting of human skeletal remains both for studies and for placing them at the museums around the world (Atalay 2006:281). During

colonialization archaeologists naïve deemed that archaeological studies reflect the value from Western cultures (Atalay 2006:280). To prevent these different behaviours within

archaeology, an increase of collaborative studies began with a better communication with the communities. During the excavations on Rapa Nui, Thor Heyerdahl included Indigenous people to join the excavations (Martinsson-Wallin 2014:19-44). Further development has come and the Indigenous people are now working as archaeologists with a main focus on creating the new archaeology called ‘Indigenous archaeology’, where they originate their

(21)

13 practices from their understanding and experience of post-processual critiques and the

postcolonial thinking to resume their cultural beliefs from the Western approaches (Ojala 2016:1015). As Nicholas’ (2008a:1660 in McNiven, 2016:28) quote:

Indigenous archaeology is an expression of archaeological theory and practice in which the discipline intersects with Indigenous values, knowledge, practice, ethics, and

sensibilities, and through collaborative and community-originated or -directed projects, and related critical perspectives. Indigenous archaeology seeks to (1) make archaeology more representative of, responsible to, and relevant for Indigenous communities;(2) redress real and perceived inequalities in the practice of archaeology; and (3) inform and broaden the understanding and interpretation of the archaeological record through the incorporation of Aboriginal worldviews, histories, and science.

Sámi and Rapanui are two of many Indigenous groups that have been exposed to racial studies during the colonialization. This thesis focuses on mainly Rapa Nui but uses Sámi to strengthen the thoughts and previous events of these two Indigenous cultures.

During the colonialization concepts such as dichotomy, the separation between ‘us’ and

‘them’ was common, with the purpose of separating two cultures (Western versus Indigenous culture). As mentioned before, this separation occurred as racial studies and collecting of human skeletal remains, as a way of assessing the cultures of the west and the Indigenous culture separately and not as a unity (Ojala 2009:45).

The research that was made in Sweden, Norway and Finland on Sámi were primarily on cranial measurements and studies. These studies created an economical value on the

international markets. The ones who were responsible for these studies were scientists, Swedish churches, museums, and the police, who now need to gain the Sámi trust back (Aurelius 2019:11-12).

While theChurch of Sweden took part in collecting human skeletal remains from Sámi in the purpose of racial studies, the collecting encouraged a marginalization and cultural

repression (Ojala 2016:993). Regardless of the Western world´s collecting, the Indigenous cultures and minority groups such as Rapanui and Sámi do not have any specific regulations regarding their right to dictate their own culture heritage. This is despite the fact that today, the rights of repatriations of Indigenous cultural remains are stressed, and there is an emphasis on the local culture´s rights to their own heritage which is designated as, in essence, a human right. (Nilsson Stutz 2007:5).

Instead of regulations, the Sámi culture created demands of how their patrimonies should be treated by others, for example, as they say on their webpage (Sametinget.se),

“Nations should acknowledge their responsibility in the injustices and return that which have been stolen” (Sametinget, collected: 2020-06-02).

I argue based on the different actors in ‘The Long Way Home’ by Turnbull and Pickering (2010) that managing human skeletal remains requires a great understanding of ethics, especially when it involves Indigenous people and minority groups. We need to remember that repatriations are not just a return of human skeletal remains or archaeological artefacts, it is also a way of returning the dignity and culture of their past. For many Indigenous cultures, the human skeletal remains connect their past and present, the human skeletal remains are classified as sacred and spiritual. It is, therefore, a part of an archaeologist’s responsibility to manage human skeletal remains with ethical guidelines. Turnbull and Pickering (2010) argues that the archaeologists need to respect differences between cultures and their heritage, there is no longer one specific correct way of treating human remains as an archaeologist. Since every Indigenous group have their own way of honouring their cultural heritage, and it is no longer the task for an archaeologist to narrate the past of Indigenous cultures. The archaeologists need to accept several ways of managing human skeletal remains from different Indigenous cultures (Turnbull and Pickering 2010). Nowadays many Indigenous people are

archaeologists and they collaborate with non-Indigenous archaeologists and have their

(22)

14 support, especially within the Indigenous archaeology (Nicholas 2011: 9–19; Ojala

2016:1015).

Because of the lack of specific regulations regarding the management of human skeletal remains in Rapanui and Sámi, a study with a post-colonial theoretic perspective is used, in purpose of increasing the understanding about the effects of colonializations. The analysis is based on the semi-structured interviews with some of the local people on Rapa Nui with the closest connection to repatriations, which is not influenced by the western beliefs but on the actual parties themselves. By using the post-colonial theory, it will be possible to see political differences and similarities between Sámi and Rapanui, specially within the multicultural and hybridity aspects.

(23)

15

4. Repatriation and reburials on Rapa Nui

Repatriation comes from the Latin ‘repatrio’ (return) and ‘patrio’ (ancestral land) and together ’repatriation’. It means that a country or an Indigenous group are reclaiming their heritage that were taken from them during either colonialization or during other circumstances and are occurring all around the world (Sametinget). Repatriation started in 1960s when several colonised cultures and minorities started spreading their word about their heritages (Arthur 2015:259).

The last decade, Rapanui have made surveys about the inhabitants on the island, where it got concluded that the majority is Chilean. For the authority and the community this

immigration of Chilean people is the reason behind some big crisis within the social,

environmental, cultural, and economic sector. These crises have led to a development of the Commission CODEIPA (Comisíon de Desarollo para Isla de Pascua) (Arthur, 2015:315) on Rapa Nui to work together with the Rapa Nui Parliament to present a need of Migratory Control (Arthur, 2015:25-26). After many years of collaboration to create statutes, the next administration went back to start by ignoring the previous statutes. After the administration’s ignorance Rapanui developed a movement that touched directly the Chilean economic interests, which is the National Park of Rapa Nui, the National Park takes up around 40% of the Rapa Nui surface. The Rapanui oversee 15 % of the landmass on Rapa Nui, the rest belongs to the ‘territorio fiscal’, which means the federal lands (Arthur, 2015:26). The Rapa Nui National Park is included in the federal land, where the Forest National Corporation (CONAF) took a fee from every visitor which CONAF used for maintaining other National Parks in Chile, and a small amount went to Rapa Nui (Arthur, 2015:26). After the

mobilization, the Rapanui got the responsibility to take care of the Rapa Nui National Park (Arthur, 2015:26-27).

Rapanui, together with other cultures, demand their ancestors to be repatriated to their home, to let them get their peace and eternal rest (Arthur 2015:214-215).

Rapanui do not have specific regulations or legislation in how a repatriation should occur, because for them, every case is different. Rapanui have guidelines and must follow the

National Law of Chile but other than that the Rapanui creates a plan before the repatriations takes place. Rapanui have completed a few repatriations; the most recent Rapanui repatriation was from New Zealand and consisted of two human skulls that were taken from the island.

The repatriation of these two ancestors were led by the Local Council of Monuments which are led by the Indigenous people of Rapa Nui. When the documentation was done The Rapanui had to pick them up, one of the Indigenous people went to New Zealand to fly back to the island together with the human skeletal remains. When they landed on Rapa Nui, the locals gathered to celebrate and walked with their ancestors to the museum. Outside the museum they had a minor celebration and feast to welcome their ancestors back. After the feast, the locals let them rest alone for two weeks since they have been gone for so long, they need to acclimatize back to their home. When they have had time to adapt to their society in the Hare Tapu, the sacred room where they rest, Indigenous people are welcome to visit them (Participant 5, oral: 2020-04-17). As argued in the interviews (Chapter 6), there are more regulations towards researchers’ possibilities of doing research on the human skeletal remains than an actual repatriation.

Currently, 2020, Rapa Nui is working on a big repatriation from Santiago de Chile, the mainland. This repatriation was supposed to be done in March 2020 but had to be postponed due to circumstances at the time. This repatriation involves 109 human skeletal remains which

(24)

16 have been kept in Santiago for a long time (Participant 5, oral: 2020-04-20, Participant 2 and 3, oral: 2019-11-18).

Issues about repatriations on Rapa Nui are that the locals want them to be reburied when they return to their home since no one knows exactly where they were collected, i.e., from what tribe area (see figure 10) they cannot just bury the human remains anywhere. The Local council of monuments is conducting a plan for the remains to be buried in a neutral ground for their final rest time (Participant 5, oral: 2020-04-20, Participant 2 and 3, oral: 2019-11-18).

Figure 9 A full graveyard on Rapa Nui. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

Figure 10 Tribal distribution of Rapa Nui. Picture from Arthur 2015:18.

(25)

17

5. Ethical perspectives in Global, National and Local guidelines

Belief in the afterlife has existed and exists in almost every culture and religion, some with and some without grave gods to support their life after death. Studying graves has been a widespread research subject within archaeology during many years increasing the

understanding of previous societies and how they lived. Depending on society and culture, analysis and research can be a discovery or a desecration. The difference between discovery and desecration is either scientific and/or religious. Depending on who responds to the research, different experiences will point towards either and therefore change the ethical and moral correctness (Lambert 2012:2). The following chapter presents specific laws,

regulations, and the ethical perspectives about both the management of human skeletal remains and repatriations from different actors involved in any sector of the cultural heritage management.

5.1 Global guidelines

Several guidelines and legislations regarding human rights are a result after World War II. It became a human right to travel anywhere in terms of being free. Gibbon (2005) compares the human right with the legislations of a human’s belongings, that you are not truly free if you cannot travel with your belongings. Such as your cultural findings that are classified as a patrimony (Gibbon 2005:7). UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) was founded in 1945, post-war, with purpose of bringing back the art that the Germans stole during World War II. In 1954 UNESCO presented their latest measure to protect cultural heritages.

Damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world. – (Gibbon 2005:5).

The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) is working as a support towards Indigenous archaeology and creating ethical guidelines concerning what kind of right the Indigenous groups have regarding their heritage. Their starting points are respect, consideration, and freely informed content between scientists/archaeologists and Indigenous groups. As

archaeologists we have the ethical responsibility to take all cultures into consideration while managing their heritage, since we are working in a ‘post-conflict’ world (Meskell 2009:2).

Further some of the ethical codes of WAC follows and how the starting points are presented:

All display should be culturally appropriate. – (WAC).

To acknowledge the special importance of indigenous ancestral human remains, and sites containing and/or associated with such remains, to indigenous peoples. – (WAC).

Previous quotes mean that the way of display the culture/ancestors is based on what the culture wants. If the culture does not want anything on display no one should put them on display.

To establish equitable partnerships and relationships between Members and indigenous peoples whose cultural heritage is being investigated -(WAC).

(26)

18 The quote above shows clearly that WAC understands the importance of a collaboration between the locals and the researchers. Further quotes from WAC are presented in Appendix 2.

Today the parties involved in heritage management are more willing to redress previous events such as, colonialization, violence, social inequality etc. Despite these frequently appearing regulations, some archaeologists are still very sceptic towards repatriations and reburials, they cannot use/analyse the remains whenever they like to. I wonder, is it really the needs of the archaeologists that we should consider or is it about loss of power? I argue that it is a part of an archaeologist responsibility to manage human skeletal remains with ethical guidelines. Archaeologists need to respect differences between cultures and their heritages, there is no longer a correct way of treating human skeletal remains as an archaeologist and it is no longer the task for an archaeologist to narrate the past of Indigenous cultures.

In 1970 UNESCO developed a convention for the nations to sign to prevent selling, trading, and looting cultural heritages (Gibbon 2005:5). Together a national and international cooperation within UNESCO began in the 1970s to develop the ethical standard of the museums. This cooperation was a result of the colonialization and the beginning of the post- colonial time. The cooperation increased the number of repatriations and an understanding of value regarding Indigenous heritage. International Council of Museum (ICOM) produced during the 1980s a specific code for developing new ethical perspectives within museum

‘ICOM code’. This code works as a guideline for the staff at the museums and for those who are involved in managing human skeletal remains around the World. ICOM code is based on two different tools; it has eight principles on how the involved can respond to the ethical complexity. Secondly, the code gives the responsible contact information for any further questions (ICOM 2018:1). Between 2006 and 2011 ICOM developed a code of Ethics for Natural History Museum, which included sciences about nature and life and how to store, build and support studies and collections of natural history. This code includes support towards conservations, and a proliferation about every study that has been made towards the society. The code of Ethics of Natural History is presented in six sections, with different focuses. The first section is the storing of human skeletal remains, and they are divided into seven standards that needs to be followed. These standards cover everything from how to exhibit human skeletal remains and how to work with the human skeletal remains, for

example, the human skeletal remains should be analysed and exhibited only by professionals, and regarding human skeletal remains that belong to an Indigenous culture, the culture should be involved in deciding wherever the analyse is necessary or not (ICOM 2018:1-2). The following quotes represents the idea of ICOM and what they stand for and that they support the Indigenous right. The first is about the storage process and how they are supposed to be stored, second, sixth to nine explains what duty the museums have regarding management of collections, third quote is recommendations that the museums should do. The fourth quote presents the different professional responsibilities and the fifth is about the personal use of storage and collections.

In the Ethical Code of the International Council of Museum (ICOM), ICOM stated that:

ICOM (International Council of Museums): Museums have the duty to acquire, preserve and promote their collections as a contribution to safeguarding the natural, cultural, and scientific heritage. Their collections are a significant public inheritance, have a special position in law and are protected by international legislation. Inherent in this public trust is the notion of stewardship that includes rightful ownership, permanence,

documentation, accessibility, and responsible disposal. – ICOM 2018:9.

The museum should establish and apply policies to ensure that its collections (both permanent and temporary) and associated information, properly recorded, are available for current use and will be passed on to future generations in as good and safe a

(27)

19 condition as practicable, having regard to current knowledge and resources. – ICOM

2018:14-15.

Professional responsibilities involving the care of the collections should be assigned to persons with appropriate knowledge and skill or who are adequately supervised. – ICOM 2018:14-15.

Personal Use of Museum Collections Museum personnel, the governing body, their families, close associates, or others should not be permitted to expropriate items from the museum collections, even temporarily, for any personal use. – ICOM 2018:14-15.

Museums have particular responsibilities to all for the care, accessibility and interpretation of primary evidence collected and held in their collections. – ICOM 2018:18

Museums have an important duty to develop their educational role and attract wider audiences from the community, locality, or group they serve. Interaction with the constituent community and promotion of their heritage is an integral part of the educational role of the museum. – ICOM 2018:24.

Museums must conform fully to international, regional, national, and local legislation and treaty obligations. In addition, the governing body should comply with any legally binding trusts or conditions relating to any aspect of the museum, its collections, and operations. – ICOM 2018:36.

One of the Swedish guidelines regarding artefacts and human skeletal remains containing ritual acts is the one from ICOM which covers treatment of any culture says that:

Human remains and artefacts within research, both storing and managing of these, needs to be performed in an acceptable way, not just according to for the professionals, but also for people with different beliefs especially for those whose human remains are concerned.

– Stadsmuseiförvaltningen 2006:1-5. Translated by author.

In September 2007, 143 countries in UN (United Nations) voted ’yes’ for the rights of Indigenous cultures within the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The rights of which the UN voted on are among several presented in article 11, were the first right is elucidated, the right among an Indigenous group to express and revive their culture, which includes protecting, maintaining and developing their traditions, archaeological artefacts, sites both from the past and the present. They can perform and visualize arts,

literature, ceremonies, and their traditional designs. The second right describes how

governments are obligated to support the indigenous groups and that said governments need to cooperate with the indigenous groups, as well as respect their culture, intellect, religion, and their rituals. This will occur in consent and without violations of the Indigenous traditions, laws and/or customs (FIAN 2015).

In article 12, they develop the rights further from article 11 with a possibility to perform their traditions, ceremonies and customs in privacy and that they have the right to use and take control over their artefacts and human remains, for example in a repatriation. The states should also take responsibility to repatriate and enable the access to artefacts and human remains in consent with the Indigenous people (FIAN 2015).

5.2 National guidelines

The national monuments that remain under the custody and protection of the state are the sites, ruins, constructions or objects of historical or artistic character, burials or

cemeteries or other aborigine remains, artefacts or objects anthropo-archaeological, paleontological or of natural formation, that exist below or on the surface of the national territory or in the submarine platform of the territorial waters and whose conservation is

(28)

20 of historical, artistic or scientific interest… - National Monuments Law 17,288 (1970),

Article 1.

According to the Swedish publication (Iregren & Hedelin 2010), Iregren and Hedelin

mentions that there are regulations regarding managing and reburials of human remains and it continues to be a ‘hot topic’. For example, as mentioned earlier, Iregren and Hedelin mentions that there are several Indigenous groups demanding repatriations of their ancestors (Iregren &

Hedelin 2010:54). On the other hand, according to me, researchers throw light on the importance of exhibiting human skeletal remains, the researchers argue that there is pedagogical and scientific value, particularly from a historical and forensics point of view.

In Östergötland, a county in Sweden, the museums have been discussing a ‘blessed storage’ (heligt rum) where they can keep the human skeletal remains, but the Sámi in Sweden does not have any control over the human skeletal remains. While in Norway, a committee of archaeologists, theologists, forensics, medical historians, palaeontologists, judiciary faculty, an antiquary government and the department of education, decided how to treat and keep the human skeletal remains of Sámi and the Sámi Parliament in Norway have control over the human skeletal remains (Iregren & Hedelin 2010:55).

Further discussions and thoughts in the Swedish community are the two museums within Uppsala University, Gustavianum and the Museum of Evolution (Evolutionsmuseet) (Uppsala University 2014:1). In these museums the human skeletal remains are divided by two groups;

the first one is unburnt and burnt human skeletal remains from archaeological research, including mummies. The second one is the anatomical collection, which is mostly

osteological remains, everything within the category of human body by the species Homo sapiens, both human bones and soft tissues. Exceptions in this category is archaeological findings, for example tools and other supplies that are made from human remains. The human remains at those two museums are available for use in research for scientists and education.

The caring of the human remains is made with respect for the individual, ethical judgements, with restrictiveness and transparency (Uppsala University 2014:2).

The remains that are stored at these museums are not separated by dates, the reason for this is that the remains are to be treated equally and they should all be well marked in the storages. Two groups can access these areas, students, and researchers of the archaeological faculty. The exhibitions are then made open for the public, this means that a portion of the collection is displayed for all to see. Exhibitions are made to show the public results from previous research as well as the evolutionary timeline. Not only human skeletal remains are displayed but also material findings. The exhibitions can be summed up as a melting pot for the biological sciences in relation to ancient people and culture, showing what separates them from each other. These ethical questions at Uppsala University are based on the guidelines of International Council of Museum, ICOM (Uppsala University 2014:3).

To apply for permission to perform analyses on human remains, researchers need a purpose, qualification, i.e. what you need and for what. The university will not lend human skeletal remains if they are in a process of repatriation. The researcher must do and publish a report within four years after the research. Regarding pictures of the human skeletal remains, the researchers need an approval from the university, but not if it is within the inventory or documentation for their own use at the university (Uppsala University 2014:4).

In 2014 the university developed a new way for applications to be done, especially regarding human skeletal remains. The development of the application process made it more difficult for researchers to get permission. Now researchers need to apply through an

institution to get the permission. If the scientist gets the permission, they preferably see that the research is done at the storage where the human skeletal remains are stored, to prevent damages on the human skeletal remains during transportation.

Regarding repatriations and re-burials within the guidelines of Uppsala University, the principal is responsible for deciding what happens with the repatriations. After this decision, the preparations can start. Every case is analysed separately and before the final decision all aspects need to be carefully investigated, through an ethical, cultural point of view and that

Ethical perspectives and cultural differences regarding repatriation and management of human skeletal remains: Rapa Nui case study