The repatriation and reburial of human remains is a current issue in archaeology and museum management on the holding of human remains. Between the descendant-source community and anthropologists, there are a variety of opinions on whether or not the remains should be repatriated. There are numerous case studies across the globe of human remains that have been or still need to be repatriated.
Perspectives The repatriation and reburial of human remains is considered controversial within archaeological ethics.Scarre and Scarre (2006). The ethics of archaeology : philosophical perspectives on archaeological practice, p. 206-208. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. . Often, descendants and people from the source community of the remains desire their return. Meanwhile, Anthropologists, scientists who study the remains for research purposes, may have differing opinions. Some anthropologists feel it is necessary to keep the remains in order to improve the field and historical understanding. Others feel that repatriation is necessary in order to respect the descendants.
Descendant and source community perspective The descendants and source community of the remains commonly advocate for repatriation. This may be due to human rights and spiritual beliefs. For example, Henry Atkinson of the Yorta Yorta Nation describes the history that motivates this advocacy. He explains that his ancestors were invaded and massacred by the Europeans. After this, their remains were plundered and "collected like one collects stamps." Finally, the ancestors were shipped away as specimen to be studied. This made the Yorta Yorta people feel subhuman—like animals and decorative trinkets. Atkinson explains that repatriation will help to soothe the generational pain that resulted from the massacres and collections.
Additionally, there is a repeated theme that descendants have a spiritual connection to their ancestors. Many Indigenous people feel that resting places are sacred and freeing for their ancestors. However, ancestors who are boxed in foreign institutions are trapped and unable to rest. This can cause tremendous distress for their descendants. Some descendants feel that the ancestors can only be free and rest in peace after they are repatriated.
This is a similar sentiment within Botswana. Connie Rapoo, a Botswana native, explained the importance of ancestors being repatriated. Rapoo explains that people must return to their home for a sense of kinship and belonging. If they're not returned, the ancestors' souls may wander restlessly. They may even transform into evil spirits who haunt the living. They believe repatriation helps to grant peace to both ancestors and descendants.
Historical trauma
The argument for repatriation is further complicated by the historical trauma that many Indigenous people experience. Historical trauma refers to the emotional trauma experienced by ancestors that is passed onto generations today. Historically, Indigenous people have experienced massacres and the loss of their children to residential schools. This immense grief is also shared and felt by descendants. Historical trauma is perpetuated by the status of ancestors being boxed away and studied. Some Indigenous people believe that the pain will be alleviated when their ancestors are repatriated and free.
Anthropologists' perspective Anthropologists have divided opinions on supporting or rejecting repatriation.
Anti-repatriation Some anthropologists feel that repatriation will harm anthropological research and understanding. For example, Elizabeth Weiss and James W. Springer believe that repatriation is the loss of collections, and thereby the "loss of data." This is due to the nature of Western science and epistemology. To improve scientific accuracy, biological anthropologists test new methods and retest old methods on collections. Weiss and Springer describe Indigenous remains as the most abundant and significant resource to the field. They believe that reburial prevents the improvement and legitimacy of anthropological methods.
According to some anthropologists, this in turn prevents many important findings. Studying human remains may reveal information on human pre-history. It helps anthropologists learn how humans evolved and came to be. Additionally, the study of human remains reveals numerous characteristics about ancient populations. It may reveal population's health status, diseases, labor activities, and violence they experienced. Anthropology may identify cultural practices such as the cranial modification. It can also help populations today. Specifically, anthropologists have found signs of early arthritis on ancient remains. They believe this identification is beneficial for the early detection of arthritis in people today.
Some anthropologists feel that these discoveries will be lost with the reburial of human remains.
Pro-repatriation Not all anthropologists are anti-repatriation. Rather, some feel that repatriation is an ethical necessity that the field has been neglecting. Sian Halcrow et al. explains that anthropology has a history of racist double standards. Specifically, White remains within archaeological and disaster cases are reburied in coffins. Meanwhile, Indigenous and non-White remains are infamously boxed and studied. She notes that the unethical sourcing and study of remains without permission is considered a civil rights violation. Halcrow et al. proposes that the repatriation is the bare minimum request to have one's remains treated the same as others.
Some anthropologists view repatriation—not as a privilege—but as a human right that had been refused to people of colour for too long. They don't view repatriation as the loss or downfall of anthropology. Rather, they feel that repatriation is the start of anthropology moving toward more ethical methods.
Health considerations Some of the remains were preserved with pesticides that are now known to be harmful to human health.
Case studies
Australia Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestral remains were removed from graves, burial sites, hospitals, asylums, and prisons from the 19th century through to the late 1940s. Most of those which ended up in other countries are in the United Kingdom, with many also in Germany, France, and other European countries, as well as in the US. Official figures do not reflect the true state of affairs, with many in private collections and small museums. More than 10,000 corpses or part-corpses were probably taken to the UK alone. Australia has no laws directly governing repatriation, but the Australian Government established its Policy on Indigenous Repatriation in 2011. it is run by the Office for the Arts. This programme "supports the repatriation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestral remains and secret sacred objects, which contributes to healing and reconciliation" and assists community representatives work towards repatriation of remains in various ways. In July 2020, the government promised funding to AIATSIS to implement the Return of Cultural Heritage Initiative over four years. The government website reported that as of March 2025, 1741 Indigenous ancestors' remains had been repatriated from other countries. In April 2025 ABC News reported that over 1,775 remains had been repatriated. The majority of these – 1,300 – had been sent from collecting institutions and private holdings in the UK.
In March 2020, a documentary titled Returning Our Ancestors was released by the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council based on the book Power and the Passion: Our Ancestors Return Home (2010) by Shannon Faulkhead and Uncle Jim Berg, partly narrated by award-winning musician Archie Roach. It was developed primarily as a resource for secondary schools in the state of Victoria, to help develop an understanding of Aboriginal history and culture by explaining the importance of ancestral remains.
The Queensland Museum's program of returning and reburying ancestral remains which had been collected by the museum between 1870 and 1970 has been under way since the 1970s. As of November 2018, the museum had the remains of 660 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people stored in its "secret sacred room" on the fifth floor.
In March 2019, 37 sets of Australian Aboriginal ancestral remains were set to be returned, after the Natural History Museum in London officially gave back the remains by means of a solemn ceremony. The remains would be looked after by the South Australian Museum and the National Museum of Australia until such time as reburial could take place.
In April 2019, work began to return more than 50 ancestral remains from five different German institutes, starting with a ceremony at the Five Continents Museum in Munich.
The South Australian Museum reported in April 2019 that it had more than 4,600 Old People in storage, awaiting reburial. Whilst many remains had been shipped overseas by its 1890s director Edward C. Stirling many more were the result of land clearing, construction projects or members of the public. With a recent change in policy at the museum, a dedicated Repatriation Officer would implement a program of repatriation.
A notorious South Australian case in 1903 involved the grave-robbing of Ngarrindjeri man Tommy Walker by the SA state coroner, Dr William Ramsay Smith. This exposed a broader, hidden trade in mainly Aboriginal human remains by medical and scientific institutions to supply UK institutions. Public outrage over the scandal highlighted deep cultural violations and contributed to a struggle for repatriation that would span more than a century.
In April 2019, the skeletons of 14 Yawuru and Karajarri people which had been sold by a wealthy Broome pastoralist and pearler to a museum in Dresden in 1894 were brought home to Broome, in Western Australia. The remains, which had been stored in the Grassi Museum of Ethnology in Leipzig, showed signs of head wounds and malnutrition, a reflection of the poor conditions endured by Aboriginal people forced to work on the pearling boats in the 19th century. The Yawuru and Karajarri people were still in negotiations with the Natural History Museum in London to enable the release of the skull of the warrior known as Gwarinman.
On 1 August 2019, the remains of 11 Kaurna people which had been returned from the UK were laid to rest at a ceremony led by elder Jeffrey Newchurch at Kingston Park Coastal Reserve, south of the city of Adelaide. In November 2021, the South Australian Museum apologised to the Kaurna people for having taken their ancestors' remains, and buried 100 of them a new site at Smithfield Memorial Park, donated by Adelaide Cemeteries. The memorial site is in the shape of the Kaurna shield, to protect the ancestors buried there. In October 2025, many more Kaurna remains were buried at the site, after being repatriated from state government agency Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation, as well as Adelaide and Edinburgh universities.
In October 2023, the Austrian Academy of Sciences handed over to Australia the remains of six Aboriginal ancestors that had been part of the Pöch collection. The remains of 47 further Aborigines had been returned previously, between 2009 and 2011.
In mid-April 2025, the Natural History Museum in London handed over the remains of a further 36 ancestors in a formal ceremony at the institution.
New Zealand