Jump to content

Repatriation of Human Remains

Published: 10/24/2025

An online resource developed by the National Committee for Research Ethics on Human Remains (Human Remains Committee), 2024.

See also: Guidelines for Ethical Research on Human Remains (Human Remains Committee, 2022)

Contact person: Lene Os Johannessen, sekretariatsleder

Introduction

On this website, the National Committee for Research Ethics on Human Remains (Human Remains Committee) has compiled knowledge, practices, and resources related to the repatriation of human remains, intended to be of use to professionals engaged in collection management, research, and dissemination.

The website is a “living document” and will be updated as needed. Contributions of relevant resources, cases, or other material are welcome.

The foundation for this resource is the Human Remains Committee’s experience with the topic, as well as input from relevant institutions across Norway.  

The Committee provides advice and guidance on ethically sound and responsible research on human remains but does not establish legal frameworks. Read more about the Committee here.

Repatriation

Repatriation refers to the process of returning something or someone to the place or context from which they originally came, or with which they are associated. Repatriation is closely linked to restitution – the act of redressing past wrongs, such as the unethical collection of cultural material and human remains.

Repatriation is associated with the right of a group (ethnic or otherwise) to safeguard its cultural heritage and to determine the fate of its ancestors’ remains. The issue has gained particular relevance in contemporary debates surrounding the decolonization of academia, art, and culture.

The repatriation of material held in a collection constitutes a form of deaccession and disposal, meaning that an object or set of remains is removed from a collection and transferred to a different institution responsible for its care. For more information on deaccessioning and disposal in museum collections, see the guidelines provided by Spectrum and Samlingsnett (not available in English). 

Human Remains

In the present context, human remains are understood to refer to ancient human remains, including complete skeletons, partial skeletal elements, and other human (biological) material preserved in museums and collections, or that may emerge through future archaeological or other forms of investigation.

Ancient human remains embody multiple identities. They are, first and foremost, the remains of individuals who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect. They also represent groups – ethnic or otherwise – whose history and culture equally merit respectful treatment. At the same time, they constitute scientific material with the potential to enhance our understanding of past societies and peoples, and, depending on their cultural or archaeological context, may be defined as unique or rare. These diverse and overlapping identities can give rise to a wide range of ethical dilemmas.

Human remains held in Norwegian collections have diverse histories of acquisition. The majority originate from archaeological contexts, have been collected over time through legally regulated practices, and are considered to have unproblematic provenance (context of discovery, place of origin, and ownership history). Such remains are generally regarded as part of a shared cultural heritage associated with the majority population.

However, there are also categories of human remains within Norwegian collections that have a more problematic history of collection. One category includes remains that were gathered or purchased for the purpose of research in physical anthropology or ethnographic studies, associated with racist and colonialist ideologies. Another category includes human remains derived from cadavers collected within the medical field for use in teaching and research in anatomy and pathology. Among these categories, the remains often belong to individuals who were marginalized or oppressed in their own time due to factors such as ethnicity, social status, or illness. Such categories of human remains are the most relevant in discussions of repatriation.

Repatriation of Human Remains

The repatriation of human remains, much like the remains themselves, encompasses multiple layers and nuances. Considerations regarding the remains as individuals, as representatives of groups, and as scientific material and cultural heritage all play a role in discussions of repatriation. These considerations are often weighted differently by various stakeholders – such as descendants, researchers, archaeologists, collection managers, and legislators – and may also vary within these groups.

Reasons for repatriating human remains may include, for example, that the remains represent a close relative of living individuals, that they are connected to a marginalized group, or that they were acquired through unethical means. 

A repatriation process may begin as an initiative taken by the curating institution itself, or in response to a claim made by parties outside the institution . Repatriation related to a marginalized group or to unethical acquisition should be anchored in an overarching representative body. 

It is essential to ensure that repatriation is carried out on a sound and responsible basis, taking into account the provenance of the human remains, their contextual association, and any potential genealogical connection.

If the genealogical connection of the remains is uncertain, it may be considered whether preliminary investigations should be undertaken to establish a clearer affiliation. In cases where sufficient material is available, DNA analysis may be considered. However, it is difficult to predict how useful such analyses will be in determining provenance. 

Transfer to Another Repository

A repatriation may involve the transfer of material from one repository to another. In such cases, the remains are removed from one collection and transferred to a new collection, which normally entails a change in the institution responsible for their management.

Transfer to another repository is often carried out in cases where material has been stored at a location other than its original repository, or in cases where a request has been made to bring the remains closer to the deceased’s cultural area or place of origin. 

Reburial 

If the remains were removed from a grave in an unethical manner, or if they entered a collection without ever having been buried, (re)burial may be considered an appropriate option. Returning the remains of ancestors to their burial sites can be viewed as a human right – the right to determine the fate of one’s ancestors.

If repatriation involves reburial, it will no longer be possible to conduct research on the remains. The consequence may be that communities lose the opportunity to gain knowledge about their ancestors and history. It is therefore advisable to consider in advance the research potential of the remains and what knowledge might be lost if they are buried.

The desire for reburial is not necessarily in opposition to the research value of the remains. Both concerns can be ethically justified within the framework of research ethics. Dialogue between the relevant parties should therefore be facilitated to address these considerations.

To accommodate a community’s potential future interest in research, it may be appropriate to undertake, for example, osteological analysis, photographic documentation, imaging documentation, and/or sampling – conducted in close dialogue with the source community – prior to any reburial. 

Find Context / Non-Human Remains

Before the human remains were collected, they formed part of a broader context – most often a burial context. In some cases, non-human remains from the same find context, such as clothing, personal belongings, and animal remains, were also collected and are preserved within the collection.

Human and non-human remains originating from the same context should be considered together, as non-human remains can provide valuable information about the identity of the deceased. Decisions concerning the repatriation or reburial of human remains should therefore have implications for how non-human remains from the same context are treated.

If repatriated objects are to be re-used following a repatriation, it should be carefully considered whether this may affect the repatriation of the human remains originating from the same context. 

Complex Questions

Cases concerning the repatriation of human remains are challenging, complex, and context-specific. They raise a range of ethical questions at a time when communities and descendants are seeking greater control not only over historical sites and objects, but also over human remains. There is no uniform practice for the repatriation of human remains. The complexity of such matters requires that each case be treated as unique.

Below are some of the most central questions that may be helpful in the consideration of specific cases:

  • Should the remains be returned?
  • Should the remains be (re)buried?
  • Should the remains be transferred to another repository?
  • Do the remains have research value? Should research be conducted on them?
  • Are the find context, place of origin, and ownership history of the remains known?
  • Who are the legitimate representatives of the remains, and how should they be involved in the repatriation process?
    • Are there indentifiable living descendants of the deceased?
    • Are there groups (such as Indigenous peoples, national minorities, or other historically marginalized groups) that may be affected by the process?
  • Are there non-human remains from the same find context as the human remains, and what should be done with these?
  • Does a legal framework, set of guidelines, or similar instrument exist that must be considered in connection with the repatriation? 

Legislation, Conventions, and Guidelines

A repatriation must comply with relevant legislation. In Norway, the repatriation of human remains is unregulated in the sense that there is no single legal framework governing the field. Various laws, conventions, and guidelines may be partially relevant, but none apply comprehensively to repatriation. Which legal instruments may be applicable depends on the specific nature of the remains and the circumstances of the case.

National Legislation 

The Cultural Heritage Act 

According to Section 4 of the Cultural Heritage Act, all burial monuments from the pre-Reformation period (before 1537) are automatically protected. The same applies to Sámi material older than 1917. Ship finds that are more than 100 years old are the property of the State and are protected under Section 14.  Graves and burial monuments postdating 1537 may be protected in certain situations pursuant to Section 15 of the Cultural Heritage Act. The management of material protected under this Act is regulated by the Regulations on the Allocation of Professional Responsibility, etc., under the Cultural Heritage Act.

See also: Regulations on the Determination of Authority, etc., under the Cultural Heritage Act (in Norwegian) and the Directorate for Cultural Heritage’s (Riksantikvaren) Guidelines to the Regulation.

The Svalbard Environmental Protection Act 

On Svalbard, the protection of cultural heritage is regulated by Chapter V of the Svalbard Environmental Protection Act. According to Section 39, all traces of human graves – including crosses and other grave markers, as well as bones and bone fragments found in or on the ground surface – are automatically protected, regardless of age. The Governor of Svalbard (Sysselmannen) serves as the administrative authority for cultural heritage management on Svalbard. 

The Burial Act

Section 8 of the Burial Act protects graves in active burial grounds for a period of 20 years and in abandoned burial grounds for 40 years. Natural graves – remains of deceased persons located on the seabed or in the natural environment – are protected under Section 1, Paragraph 3. 
Graves of foreign soldiers and prisoners of war (war graves) from the First and Second World Wars are permanently protected (Section 23a). Responsibility for the maintenance of war graves is regulated by the Regulations on War Graves. 

International Conventions

ILO Convention No. 169 concerning Indigenous and Tribal Peoples in Independent Countries (1989)

This convention recognizes the Sámi as an Indigenous people in Norway and establishes specific rights for Indigenous peoples. 

UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007)

This declaration affirms that Indigenous peoples have the right to preserve, control, protect, and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge, and cultural expressions, and the right to participate in decision-making and be consulted on matters affecting them.

Article 12 explicitly states that Indigenous peoples have “the right to the repatriation of their human remains.”

Council of Europe Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities (1995)

The convention affirms that national minorities have the right to preserve and develop their culture, religion, language, traditions, and cultural heritage (Article 5). 

UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1976) 

The covenant establishes that ethnic, religious, or linguistic minorities shall not be denied the right to express their own culture, to profess and practice their own religion, or to use their own language (Article 27).

Other relevant covenants concerning cultural heritage:

National Guidelines and Advisory Documents

Áimmahuššan – The Sámi Parliament White Paper on Sámi Cultural Heritage Management (Sámediggi, 2021), 2021)

In 2021, the Sámi Parliament (Sámediggi) adopted its own white paper on Sámi cultural heritage management, outlining the direction for Sámi cultural heritage protection in the coming years, including the management of human remains and burial materials (Chapter 6). The document emphasizes the value of Sámi skeletal material as a source of knowledge about Sámi presence, way of life, and history, while also acknowledging that the collection history of parts of this material is problematic. The Sámi Parliament underscores the importance of exploration and dialogue concerning the complex issues surrounding the management, research, and reburial of Sámi skeletal material.

Ethical Guidelines for Sámi Health Research

The Sámi Parliament has adopted its own ethical guidelines for Sámi health research, which also address research involving human biological material. The guidelines discuss, among other things, the rights of Indigenous peoples to self-determination and informed consent in relation to research activities.

Agreement on the Management of Sámi Human Remains at the University of Oslo (2020)

A specific agreement has been established between the University of Oslo (UiO) and the Sámi Parliament regarding the management of Sámi human remains in the Biological Anthropology Collection (formerly the Schreiner Collection) at UiO. 

Guidelines for Ethical Research on Human Remains (Human Remains Committee, 2022)

This advisory document is grounded in well-established ethical norms within the research community. Its purpose is to encourage reflection and self-assessment regarding ethical issues in research on human remains (human biological material). 
The guideline consists of eleven points divided into two sections: “Part A: Recognition, Consideration and Context”, and “Part B: Analyses, Results, Dissemination, and Repatriation”, as well as an introduction and an appendix. Part A addresses considerations related to individuals, descendants, affected groups, finds context, and provenance. Part B covers research quality, the use of destructive analytical methods, data management, repatriation, and visual dissemination. 

Guide for the Discovery of Human Remains (Human Remains Committee, 2018) 

Norway has national laws that protect graves and human remains. However, the legal framework in this area is not comprehensive and does not provide legal protection for all human remains. This creates a number of practical challenges, making it difficult to ensure that the management – and thus the research – of human remains is conducted in an ethically sound manner. Furthermore, many different institutions are involved, and it is not always clear which institution, if any, holds administrative responsibility. The main challenges in this field are associated with unforeseen discoveries of human remains and with remains lacking legal protection. The purpose of this guide is to provide an overview of the current situation regarding the handling of human remains upon discovery and in subsequent management, and to highlight some of the key challenges that exist in this area.

Advisory Resources from the Human Remains Committee

Seminar and Webinar on the Return of Human Remains and Research Ethics

In 2021, Skjelettutvalget organized a seminar on the return of human remains and research ethics. The seminar sought to explore various pathways for the return of human remains, as well as the different practices, voices, and stakeholder groups involved. In 2020, the committee hosted a webinar as a brief introduction to the seminar.

See the webinar and read about the seminar:

Advisory Opinion on the Repatriation and Burial of the Remains of Julia Pastrana 

Julia Pastrana was a woman from Mexico who is believed to have suffered from a condition that caused excessive hair growth and an unusually pronounced jaw structure. She was exhibited as the so-called “ape woman” in circuses and sideshows across the United States and Europe, both during her lifetime and after her death. Pastrana’s remains eventually became part of the Schreiner Collection (now the Biological Anthropology Collection) at the University of Oslo (UiO). In 2012, a formal request for the return and burial of her remains was submitted to UiO, along with a request for advice from the Human Remains Committee. Julia Pastrana’s remains were repatriated to Mexico in 2013, where they were subsequently buried. The Committee’s advisory opinion can be read via the link above, and the case is also presented as an example for discussion below.

Advisory Opinion on the Reburial of Skeletons from Gravholmen in Pasvik

The East Sámi burial ground at Gravholmen in the Pasvik River was excavated archaeologically in 1958 and 1959, as the site was threatened by planned dam construction. Following the excavation, human osteologist Johan Torgersen from the University of Oslo took 21 skeletons to Oslo for further study. While some of the remains of these 21 indviduals were later returned and reburied, 20 skulls and various long bones from 16 individuals were retained at UiO. In 2013, the Institute of Basic Medical Sciences (IMB) at UiO received a formal request for the repatriation of these remains and sought advice from the Human Remains committee regarding the matter. The Committee’s advisory opinion is available via the link above, and the case is also presented as an example for discussion below.

Advisory Opinions on Research Involving Skeletons from Easter Island

During his 1955–56 expedition to Easter Island, Thor Heyerdahl brought skeletal remains back to Norway. The specific burial sites from which the remains were collected are not documented, and much evidence suggests that Heyerdahl did not have the consent of the local population to collect them. In Norway, the remains were incorporated into the Schreiner Collections (now the Biological Anthropology Collection) at the University of Oslo (UiO) and into the Kon-Tiki Museum’s collection. In 2013, 2017, and 2018, the Human Remains Committee received inquiries from a research group at UiO requesting permission to take samples from twelve skulls from Easter Island (Rapa Nui) to shed light on the question of how the island was originally settled.

The Human Remains Committee has issued three advisory opinions to the research group concerning this matter:

International Resources

Below is an overview of relevant international resources: 

ICOM Code of Ethics for Museums

The International Council of Museums (ICOM) Code of Ethics outlines professional principles and minimum standards based on the shared values of the international museum community. The code provides guidance on a range of museum-related matters, including repatriation and restitution. It was first adopted in 1986, revised in 2004, and has been translated into 38 languages.

Support in the Handling of Human Remains in Museum Collections

This resource was developed by the Swedish National Heritage Board (Riksantikvarieämbetet). It provides guidance for the management of human remains held in museum collections in Sweden. The aim is to support museums in their internal work as well as in their external engagement with society. 

Support for Museums in Repatriation Cases

Also produced by the Swedish National Heritage Board (Riksantikvarieämbetet), this resource offers guidance for the repatriation of objects and materials – including human remains – held in museum collections in Sweden. The purpose is to assist museums both in their internal processes and in their external communication and cooperation with communities and stakeholders. 

Restitution and Repatriation: A Practical Guide for Museums in England

This guide, prepared by the Arts Council England, provides advice and guidance on best practices for museums in England in matters of repatriation and reconciliation. 
It addresses all aspects of museum operations that may be affected by repatriation cases. Grounded in the values of transparency, collaboration, and fairness, the guide aims to empower museums to take a proactive role in these processes.  

AIATSIS Code of Ethics for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Research (2020)

The AIATSIS Code of Ethics was developed by the Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies (AIATSIS). It is founded on the recognition of and respect for Indigenous rights as articulated in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The purpose of the code is to promote ethical and responsible practice in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander research in Australia, to enhance the contribution of Indigenous knowledge to Australian research, to ensure that research has a positive impact for Indigenous peoples, and to continuously improve the quality and standards of research in this field.

The AIATSIS Code identifies four key principles for ethical Indigenous research in Australia:

  1. Indigenous self-determination;
  2. Indigenous leadership;
  3. Impact and value;
  4. Sustainability and accountability.

Each principle frames a set of responsibilities for researchers, institutions, and review bodies.

Ethical guidelines for research with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples: Guidelines for researchers and stakeholders (2018)

These guidelines are developed by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) in Australia for researchers and other stakeholders. They set out ethical principles to ensure that research is safe, respectful, responsible, of high quality, and beneficial for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and communities. Earlier versions of the guidelines focused solely on health research, but the revised guidelines apply to all research contexts. Keeping Research on Track II serves as a companion document, offering practical advice on how to implement the values and principles set out in the main guidelines. 

Collection management: Repatriation guide 

This resource was created by the New Zealand Repatriation Research Network. 
Established in 2018, the network comprises 17 participating museums and works to provide advice and research to confirm the provenance of all kōiwi (ancestral Māori human remains) held in museum collections in New Zealand, in support of repatriation processes. The purpose of the resource is to provide museums with a foundation for developing their own policies and practices regarding the repatriation of kōiwi tangata (Māori skeletal remains). It includes case studies and research on best practices and aims to provide key information on processes and practices for repatriation in the New Zealand context. 

Routes to Return – Working Towards International Repatriation

This resource was developed as part of a research project at the University of Exeter. Its purpose is to open global networks, share knowledge, and facilitate international repatriation. The guide aims to provide Indigenous communities with an overview of the political and legal landscape of European countries, while also serving as a resource for European museums to compare approaches and learn from one another.

Case Studies / Discussion Examples

1) Discovery of remains belonging to an executed woman of known identity

Themes in this case: 

  • Known identity
  • Lack of consent
  • National minority
  • Museum exhibition

In 2010, roadwork at Flisa, Åsnes, uncovered human skeletal remains. The site is known to have been an historical execution site, and the skull was notably missing from the burial. Anatomical examination and radiocarbon dating  suggested that the remains belonged to Anna Østmo, who had been executed in 1783 for giving birth to two children in secret and killing them shortly after. Following her execution, her body was reportedly buried in unconsecrated ground at the execution site, with her head placed on a stake.

It was quickly determined that the discovery of the remains did not constitute a police matter. The remains were also not old enough to be automatically protected under the Cultural Heritage Act.

Several ethical issues were raised in connection with the case, including discussions about whether: 

  • the remains could be exhibited in a display at the Hedmark Museum / The Women's Museum Norway – focused on abortion and women’s history – or whether they should be reburied;
  • a DNA test should be conducted to determine whether the individual was of Forest Finn (Skogfinn) descent.

Anna Østmo’s final wish had been to be buried in consecrated ground. This, together with the fact that the case concerned a named individual, was given particular weight in the assessment by the Human Remains Committee. The committee’s recommendation was followed, and Anna Østmo was reburied in the churchyard at Hof in Åsnes. It was decided that the remains would be interred in an anonymous grave in the municipality where they had been found. However, she has since been given a gravestone bearing her name (visible on Digitalt Museum). A DNA test was conducted before reburial, for potential future research purposes.

The committee’s statement in this case can be found under Case 2 here:

Media coverage:

2) Remains of a woman displayed as the “Ape Woman”  

Themes in this case: 

  • Known identity
  • Exhibition  in travelling freak show
  • Retention without purpose

The Mexican woman Julia Pastrana lived a brutal life in which she was exhibited as the so-called “Ape Woman” in a circus that toured both the United States and Europe. Her presumed medical condition caused excessive hair growth on her body and face, as well as an abnormally large jaw. In 1860, both Pastrana and her infant son died due to complications during childbirth. Their bodies were embalmed, and the circus continued to display them for many years. The child’s remains were eventually destroyed in a burglary, while Julia Pastrana’s body ended up as part of the Schreiner Collection (now the Biological Anthropology Collection) at the University of Oslo (UiO).

In 2012, the Human Remains Committee received four separate inquiries concerning the case. The submissions argued that Julia Pastrana’s remains should be buried, noting that no research had been conducted on them and that, in the absence of concrete research plans, they should not remain part of a collection. The committee conducted an ethical assessment regarding whether the remains should be buried, returned to Pastrana’s home country of Mexico, and whether DNA samples should be taken. It was recommended that Julia Pastrana’s remains be returned to Mexico for burial. The committee also concluded that it would be ethically acceptable to take samples from the remains and to make relevant research institutions aware of their existence.

In its evaluation, the committee emphasized that the remains belonged to a known, named individual whose life and death were relatively close in time to our own. The committee further noted that the treatment of Julia Pastrana during her life and after her death had been highly unethical. It was deemed unlikely that she would have wished for her remains to be part of a research collection; rather, it was more plausible that she would have desired a Catholic burial. 
Julia Pastrana’s remains were placed in a white coffin and flown from Norway to Mexico in 2013, where she was finally laid to rest.

Read the statement from the Human Remains Committee here:

Media coverage:

3) Reburial of Sámi skeletons in Neiden 

Themes in this case: 

  • Indigenous peoples
  • Remains of different ages and religious affiliations
  • Disagreement within the affected group

In 1915, the Department of Anatomy at the University of Oslo carried out excavations of Skolt Sámi skeletal remains in the Skolt settlement of Neiden, in spite of some opposition from the local Skolt Sámi. The purpose of the excavations was to shed light on questions regarding the ethnic identity of the region’s prehistoric population and to investigate issues related to the population’s “race,” composition, biological relationship to other population groups, and prehistoric migrations. The skeletons were taken to the Department of Anatomy in Oslo and became part of the institution’s extensive racial anthropological research on the Sámi.

In 2006, the head of the Orthodox Church in Norway submitted a request to the Diocese of Hålogaland, on behalf of the Orthodox St. George’s Parish in Neiden, for the repatriation of the skeletons to Neiden. The diocese forwarded the matter to the Sámi Parliament of Norway and the University of Oslo, where the skeletal material was being stored. The Sámi Parliament adopted a resolution in accordance with the recommendations of a designated working group in the case: repatriation and prompt reburial in Neiden. The reburial ceremony took place in 2011.

Following the reburial, criticisms of the repatriation and reburial process were raised. The main issues  concerned representation, religious context, excavation and research context, legal frameworks, and the potential research value of the remains.

Among the points discussed were: 

  • Several descendants did not wish for an immediate reburial, preferring instead to postpone it in order to gain knowledge about their ancestors through research on the material. This perspective was reportedly not given sufficient consideration. Some Skolt Sámi also expressed that they did not feel represented by the Orthodox parish or by the Sámi Parliament, and that not all relevant parties had been adequately heard in the process. 
  • The request for repatriation in the Neiden case was made by the Orthodox Church of Norway; however, dating of the remains indicated that some may have been buried in a pre-Christian context. Questions were therefore raised as to whether a Christian reburial was the most appropriate solution. 
  • A wish to enable research on the remains was also cited as a reason to postpone or avoid reburial. It was emphasized that such research could contribute to greater insight and engagement regarding the cultural richness of Skolt Sámi traditions and history.

More on this and related cases:

4) Skeleton of a convicted prisoner on display 

Themes in this case:

  • Known identity
  • Lack of consent
  • Museum exhibition 

After the brutal murder of a man from Stavanger in 1854, Even Olsen Tagholdt was arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment with hard labour. He died of pneumonia in 1859, while serving his sentence at Akershus Fortress. Following his death, his skeleton was deposited in the collections of Stavanger Museum, where it was researched and displayed for more than a century. The circumstances under which the skeleton came to the museum remain a mystery. One possible explanation is that Tagholdt may have donated his body to science, but no documentation exists to confirm this.

In recent years, Stavanger Museum determined that it was ethically inappropriate to curate the skeleton of a known, named prisoner without verified consent. 
The museum consulted the Bishop of Stavanger, who supported the cremation and subsequent burial of the remains. The mayor and parish priest from Tagholdt’s home municipality reached the same conclusion, and agreed that he should be buried there. He was thus laid to rest at the cemetery in Moi, Lund Municipality, 158 years after his death.

Further reading:

5) Repatriation of collected remains of New Zealand’s Indigenous Peoples 

Themes in this case: 

  • Indigenous peoples
  • Repatriation

In 2011, a delegation from Te Papa Tongarewa – The Museum of New Zealand in Wellington travelled to Oslo to bring the remains of their Māori ancestors home. The remains (two skulls) had been held at the University of Oslo since the early 20th century — one at the Museum of Cultural History, the other at the Faculty of Medicine.

One skull had been acquired in 1933 from a German collector during a period of strong academic interest in race science at the university. The other had been collected by a Swedish zoologist. Both skulls were returned to New Zealand.

In cases of this nature, particularly relevant issues include the archaeological context, provenance, and ownership history of the remains. Equally important is a thorough understanding of the views and perspectives of the affected communities.

In addition to the two repatriated skulls, the remains of 48 other Māori individuals are held in the Biological Anthropology Collection at the University of Oslo (formerly known as the Schreiner Collection), a historical university collection comprising several thousand human skeletons and skulls.

These remains were collected by the Norwegian zoologist Ørjan Olsen during an expedition to Polynesia in 1927–1928. They were, however, not disclosed to the New Zealand representatives during their 2011 visit.

The case is further described in the media:

The case is further discussed in a master’s thesis:

 

This page has been translated to English with assistance from ChatGPT.