Embedded Files
Ownership
Scientists have been excavating Aboriginal burial sites and collecting artefacts since the earliest days of European contact. Often bones were taken and sent to museums around the world without permission, causing great distress to families. Sometimes they were used to justify pseudoscientific theories about the superiority of the European race.
Scientists argue that knowledge about human history has been hugely advanced by bringing together examples from many places and times for comparison. Some suggest ancient remains are key evidence in reconstructing the global story of human evolution and exploration and belong to everyone. As finds of ancient remains are so rare and new techniques for analysis are constantly being developed, it makes sense to preserve them indefinitely in museums so our knowledge continues to grow. Over the last few decades this has become the source of many bitter conflicts between academia and Aboriginal people.
The arguments centre on the question of custody and who has the right to decide what happens to the remains of Aboriginal people’s ancestors. Many Aboriginal people find the crushing of bones for analyses like radiocarbon dating abhorrent and are fiercely opposed to the removal of remains from their original resting place to a remote museum. Until recently, their wishes and spiritual beliefs have been ignored.
In the midst of the Aboriginal cultural revival, which began in the 1970s, legislation gave recognition to the Aboriginal groups’ moral right to be involved in decisions about their heritage. In NSW this culminated in the protection of all Aboriginal relics under the NSW National Parks and Wildlife Act (1974) and Heritage Act (1977), while sovereignty to the land was partially acknowledged with the passing of the Land Rights Act (1983).
What happened to the Rock Flat Creek remains?
As had always been promised, the human remains from Rock were returned to the Merricmans Land Council soon after the scientific studies had been completed. That same day, ceremoniously wrapped in stringy bark, the remains were reburied on a rock knoll near the original site.
The service was conducted before a group of about 60 Aboriginal people by widely respected Yuin elder, Guboo Ted Thomas. He talked and sang about the past, paying tribute to his ancestor and their deep respect for the land.
The Land Council had entertained the prospect of reburying the artefacts but decided these cultural treasures were far too valuable. They asked NPWS to act as guardian until they could build a suitable safe display space at the Umbarra Cultural Centre at Wallaga Lake.
Was reburial a good thing?
Merriman’s Land Council Chairman Stephen Kelly, said, “Much bitterness could have been avoided if white people had included us in the equation instead of ignoring our basic human right to be involved in decisions about such discoveries and the future of our ancestors’ remains. The Cooma burial has been a good example of how these issues should be dealt with. We have been involved from the beginning and our wishes have been respected by the NPWS.”
The reburial is bittersweet for archaeology. Sue Feary reflected on the degree of cooperation, “There have been a few anxious moments and some soul searching done by us all, but there’s no doubt we have a better understanding about just how they want these sorts of finds handled. That’s an achievement in itself and sets an example for the future. The bottom line is, as long the Kooris believe they are in control and not being dictated to, as they have been so many times in the past, then they will help and they will work with you.” If the bones were kept for study, we would know more about these individuals. Stable isotope analysis, which was not available in the 1990s, could show where they had lived and what they ate. Advances in DNA analysis could now tell us a lot about their origins and relationship to contemporary Aboriginal groups.
Page updated
Report abuse