Finders Keepers?

Repatriate [ree-pey-tree-eyt] verb: To bring or send back to his/its country of origin.

This has been a term I’ve become familiarized with of the past week or so.  In archaeology, the issue of repatriation seems to be relentless and on-going, with different museums holding different views on the subject. 

Computer generated image of a toi moko

One case of repatriation examined  in class was the return of the Maori toi moko to their homeland of New Zealand.  Toi moko are preserved heads (through smoking) used to honour a deceased loved one, or a trophy of war to reduce the status of the defeated enemy.  When early Europeans arrived in New Zealand, they became fascinated with the toi moko and began trading with the Maori to get them.  Eventually trade of these heads became outlawed, but the toi moko were already in collections around the world.

Two centuries after the trading, New Zealand is still trying to repatriate the toi moko from across the world.  So far 70 toi moko have been returned from 15 countries, with at least 100 others remaining in collections overseas.  This website has a lot of information about the continued repatriation efforts and the history of the toi moko.

What struck me about this issue was that these toi moko were not your average identity-less ancestor.  Maori were commonly extensively tattooed to reflect their genealogy, rank, and character, therefore tattoos could be used for identification.  Tattoos were also preserved during the creation of a toi moko.  This means that they could still possibly be traced to living ancestors, or at least to a living group of people.  For this reason I think that the toi moko should definitely be repatriated.  These are not faceless artifacts, but show who they were through their intricate tattoos, showing that they undoubtedly belong to the Maori, and should be respected as such. 

Sketch of typical Maori tattooed face

We also looked at other cases of repatriation, and this is where my “hurray repatriation” attitude started to waver.  Human remains hold a lot of valuable information that may not be available through written records or other grave goods.  To simply send them back where they came from without analysis would cause the loss of a lot of clues to life in the past.  However, to deny repatriation would be to disrespect the wishes of the ancestors of the individual, and possibly disrespect the religion and final wishes of the deceased.  I still think skeletons should be repatriated to show respect for the deceased and living ancestors, but I also believe that some analysis should take place before repatriation so that valuable scientific information is not lost. 
 

The issue of the repatriation of grave goods gets a little fuzzier for me.  I feel that most grave goods should be fully analysed and used for display for educational purposes, as long as they are also treated respectfully.  Because they are not human remains, I feel that they hold less of an obligation to be reburied.  However, again, there could be exceptions that needed to be made, making this issue more than just black or white.

As I was flip-flopping on this issue myself, I stumbled onto Caitlin’s blog, who also seemed to be having a similar inner battle.  A solution she finds is 3-D displays of artifacts to be displayed instead of the actual artifacts. (Brilliant!)  You can read more on her thoughts here.

The issue may seem easy on the outside, but the issue goes much deeper than that, with limitless twists and turns.  Where do we draw the line? How far do we take the “finders keepers” mentality?  This is on on-going battle that won’t be ending any time soon.

 

 

 

Works Cited:

Toi moko information. 2013.Te Papa Museum of New Zealand. http://www.tepapa.govt.nz/AboutUs/Repatriation/toimoko/Pages/default.aspx

Repatriation. 2013. Dictionary.com. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/repatriation

Te Papa gets 20 more toi moko. 2011. The Dominion Post. http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/5735347/Te-Papa-to-get-20-more-toi-moko