Abstract
AbstractThis commentary debunks the poor scholarship in Repatriation and Erasing the Past by Elizabeth Weiss and James Springer. We show that modern bioarchaeological practice with Indigenous remains places ethics, partnership, and collaboration at the fore and that the authors’ misconstructed dichotomous fallacy between “objective science” and Indigenous knowledge and repatriation hinders the very argument they are espousing. We demonstrate that bioarchaeology, when conducted in collaboration with stakeholders, enriches research, with concepts and methodologies brought forward to address common questions, and builds a richer historical and archaeological context. As anthropologists, we need to acknowledge anti-Indigenous (and anti-Black) ideology and the insidious trauma and civil rights violations that have been afflicted and re-afflicted through Indigenous remains being illegally or unethically obtained, curated, transferred, and used for research and teaching in museums and universities. If we could go so far as to say that anything good has come out of this book, it has been the stimulation in countering these beliefs and developing and strengthening ethical approaches and standards in our field.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Subject
Museology,Anthropology,History,Cultural Studies,Conservation
Reference37 articles.
1. Cultural Continuity as a Hedge against Suicide in Canada's First Nations
2. NAGPRA’s Achilles Heel: The Disposition of Culturally Unidentifiable Human Remains
3. Museums and restorative justice: heritage, repatriation and cultural education
4. Springer, James W. , and Smail, J. Kenneth . 2007. “The Conflict between Scholarship and the Repatriationism Movement.” https://www.web.archive.org/save/; https://www.friendsofpast.org/nagpra/0711Paper.pdf (accessed 1 May 2021).
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献