Post #528312 by Quiet Village Idiot on Thu, May 6, 2010 3:40 AM

One 2010-05-05 23:31, bigbrotiki wrote:
On could argue that the Maori chiefs and families willingly TRADED these heads in for goods.

Then again, one could also argue the same with regard to the African slave trade.

My take on it is that you have to consider issues of this nature in the wider context of Western colonialism and the distortion this caused to indigenous economic systems and ways of life. Yes, the Maoris traditionally collected their enemies' heads, just as certain African peoples traditionally enslaved their enemies - but once western-style demand (backed by the muscle of an industrialised economy) entered the picture, these traditional practices became distorted and expanded out of all proportion. I think that this makes it our responsibility to make amends, and thus I am happy to lend my support to the claims of all colonised peoples for the return of the remains of their ancestors.

However, I also think that the situation can become less clear in the case of particularly ancient remains (maybe once you start counting in thousands of years, rather than hundreds). In this situation, it can become unclear whether the remains in question are actually the ancestors of the people making a claim to them, considering issues of migration, for example.

The case we're discussing here seems crystal-clear to me, though. I also understand that the issue of ancient human remains is incredibly sensitive in New Zealand; a professional archaeologist once told me that archaeological excavations in New Zealand are immediately called off in the event that human remains are found. The archaeologists just pack up and go home and the road or whatever just has to be built elsewhere.