Department of Archaeology and Ancient History

Ethical perspectives and cultural differences regarding repatriation and management of human skeletal remains – Rapa Nui case study Olivia Gustafsson

Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

Master’s thesis 45 hp in Archaeology Autumn 2020 Main supervisor: Helene Martinsson-Wallin Assistant supervisor: Sabine Sten and Carl-Gösta Ojala Uppsala University Campus Gotland “Do you really need to know everything?” -Mom & Dad

Gustafsson, O. 2020. Etiska perspektiv och kulturella skillnader inom repatriering och hantering av mänskliga kvarlevor – en fallstudie på Påskön.

Gustafsson, O. 2020. Ethical perspectives and cultural differences regarding repatriation and management of human skeletal remains – Rapa Nui case study.

Abstract Rapa Nui () is an island in the which has been colonised over a long period of time. Colonisers have exploited the island through looting and trading Rapanui (the Indigenous people) human skeletal remains. Around ninety percent of the stolen Rapanui human skeletal remains have been located at museums and collections around the world on Rapanui initiative. Through the Rapa Nui Ka Hoki Mi Ate Mana Tupuna Repatriation Program the Rapanui are now working on the return of the alienated human skeletal remains to the Island. This thesis is an analysis of semi structured interviews with inhabitants on Rapa Nui involved in repatriation and ethics of human skeletal remains. It has been carried out through a qualitative method using semi-structured interviews together with participant observation. The thesis is part of Martinsson-Wallin´s STINT-project ‘Sustainable Visits in Rapa Nui – Glocal Perspectives’. Based on the interviews, the analysis and results are divided into five themes: I) treatment of human skeletal remains, II) what exists in treating human skeletal remains, III) the possibility to narrow laws and concretize ethical perspectives before and during a repatriation, IV) theories in post-colonialism and V) recurrent issues between the of the and the national law. Comparison with other cases of repatriation such as Sámi follows in Chapter 7. The results of the analysis show that according to the Rapanui, archaeological artefacts and human skeletal remains should be repatriated. Today the involved parties, the Rapanui and the institutions that are keeping collections from Indigenous cultures, are more willing to redress previous events. Such as, colonialization, violence, and social inequality but there is still a lot of respect and understanding that must be developed within several actors.

Keywords: Repatriation, ethics, Indigenous, Rapa Nui, and post-colonialism.

Abstrakt Rapa Nui (Påskön) är en ö som tillhör och är lokaliserad i Stilla Havet. Under flera århundranden har Rapanui blivit utsatta för kolonialism. Upptäcktsresare och forskare har anlänt till ön med ett syfte att stjäla och sedan sälja eller byta bort de artefakter och mänskliga kvarlevor som de har kommit över. Ungefär 90 % av alla mänskliga kvarlevor som stals från Rapa Nui under de olika upptäcktsresarna har nu lokaliserats på de museum de nu vilar i. Detta har i sin tur lett till att Rapanui kämpar med att repatriera samtliga mänskliga kvarlevor genom ’The Rapa Nui Ka Haka Hoki Mi Ate Mana Tupuna Repatriation Program’, vilket är ett repatrieringsprogram där involverade hjälper och stöttar invånarna av Rapa Nui att få tillbaka sina förfäder. Under forskningen skedde semi-strukturerade intervjuer av lokalbefolkning samt med de människor som är närmast i hela repatrieringsprocessen. Tillsammans med en kvalitativ metod och genom att ha tagit del av aktiviteter på Rapa Nui, samt medverkat i intervjuer inom Helene Martinsson-Wallins forskningsprojekt STINT, ’Sustainable Visits in Rapa Nui’. Med jämförelsestudier med ytterligare kulturer som Sámi, har denna forskning utförts. Baserat på intervjuerna delades analysen och diskussionen in i fem teman: I) Behandlingen av mänskliga kvarlevor, II) Vilka lagar finns vid hantering av mänskliga kvarlevor, III) Möjligheten att konkretisera lagar och etiska perspektiv innan och efter en repatriering, IV) Post-kolonialistiska teorier och V) Pågående problematik med lagar hos ursprungsbefolkningen och de nationella lagar. Arkeologiska artefakter och mänskliga kvarlevor borde repatrieras, enligt ursprungsbefolkningen på Rapa Nui. Aktörer idag är mer villiga att ta hänsyn till vad dessa individer och deras kultur har blivit utsatta för tidigare, kolonialismen, våldsamma händelser, icke jämställt bemötande, det är en lång väg kvar och en utökad respekt behöver utvecklas.

Nyckelord: Repatriering, etik, Ursprungsbefolkning, Rapa Nui och post-kolonialism.

Master´s thesis 45 hp in Archaeology. Main supervisor: Helene Martinsson-Wallin. Assistant supervisor: Sabine Sten and Carl-Gösta Ojala. Defended and passed 2020–10–23. © Olivia Gustafsson Department of Archaeology and Ancient History, Uppsala University, Campus Gotland, Cramérgatan 3, 621 67 Visby, Sweden. Preface My previous studies have been about human skeletal remains from the prehistory of Gotland Island. In my bachelor I made an osteological study on human skeletal remains of the executed individuals of Galgberget in Visby, a site mainly used as an executing place during the medieval time on Gotland, Sweden. I focused on the executional marks on the skeletal human remains and identified what wounds in connected to which weapon and way of execution. I planned to develop this further during my master’s thesis. While visiting the Rapa Nui (Easter Island) participating in an ongoing study, I decided that the ethical point of view on how archaeologists, like myself, handle human skeletal remains is more interesting. I was intrigued by how the Rapanui talked about their heritage and connection to their ancestors. They made me realize the importance of understanding different cultures and their ethical perspectives of human skeletal remains. The inspiration from these people made me change my thesis topic into immersing on what is important for the Rapanui, but also what to think of as an osteologist and archaeologist while managing human skeletal remains around the world. During November 2019, I got the opportunity to do an internship on Rapa Nui as a part of the project of Professor Helene Martinsson-Wallin, ‘research project Sustainable Visits in Rapa Nui- Glocal Perspectives’. The purpose was to assist with interviews of different actors somehow involved in and heritage management. I got in contact with the Indigenous people of Rapa Nui, who had started a project about repatriation of human skeletal remains, primarily the human skeletal remains that have been alienated from the island in the connections of the Europeans and South American colonialism. Several actors take part in every repatriation and a sacred room for the repatriated human remains, called Hare Tapu Tu’u Ivi, has been created at the local Museum (Museo Antropologico Padre ) Hare Tapu is only available for the Indigenous people but in spite of that, I got the opportunity to visit the ancestors in Hare Tapu together with Participant 1 and for that I am truly grateful.

Acknowledgement Thank you, Professor Helene Martinsson-Wallin and Professor Sabine Sten for your supervision and guidance through this thesis.

Thank you, Dr. Carl-Gösta Ojala, for stepping in at the end of the thesis with great supervision and encouragement so I could finish.

Thank you, all five participants for sharing your culture and answering my questions.

Thank you Amy van der Zee, for sending your transcription of participant four.

The fantastic people I met on Rapa Nui during the internship and for the support and new friendships that were created.

Maururu Isaias Hey y Mattarena Tuki Haoa y tu familia, por las aventuras, una cálida bienvenida en su isla, por tu ayuda y las conversaciones interesantes.

My parents, Annika Gustafsson and Jan Gustafsson for reading and supervise me through this thesis and for the great support during all five years.

My sister, for always being supportive and a great brainstormer.

I would like to thank Alexander Brandt for reading and questioning my thesis and for all the support meanwhile.

Thank you. Hanna Sjöberg, Adam Engvall and Emilia Theidz for a big support and amazing years on Gotland.

Thank you Elfrida Östlund and Anton Uvelius for the encouragement through all rough times and for the great support and help with the thesis.

Thank you, Marije Poort, for reading and commenting my thesis, and for encouraging me on Rapa Nui to follow my dreams and being a fantastic roommate.

Thank you, Maja Barnfield, for your fantastic support and encouragement during this thesis.

Thank you Emmelie Bengtsson and Linda Nilsson for lending me your books, they were a great help during the whole thesis.

A huge gratitude to all my amazing friends for always being supportive.

Table of Contents 1. Introduction ...... 2 1.1 Purpose and aims ...... 2 1.2 Materials and demarcation ...... 3 1.3 Method ...... 3 1.4 Source criticism and ethical perspectives ...... 3 2. Rapa Nui history and description of previous analysis of excavated Human skeletal remains ...... 4 2.1 Rapa Nui, its early scientific studies and exploitation ...... 4 2.2 Previous scientific analyses and management of Rapanui human skeletal remains ...... 8 3. Post-colonial theory and Indigenous people ...... 12 4. Repatriation and reburials on Rapa Nui ...... 15 5. Ethical perspectives in Global, National and Local guidelines ...... 17 5.1 Global guidelines ...... 17 5.2 National guidelines ...... 19 5.3 Rapa Nui ...... 21 6. Analyses of interviews ...... 23 6.1 Interviews ...... 23 6.1.1 Interview with Participant one (P1) ...... 23 6.1.2 Interview with Participant two and three (P2 and P3) ...... 26 6.1.3 Interview with Participant four (P4) ...... 29 6.1.4 Interview with Participant five (P5) ...... 30 6.2 Analytical themes ...... 32 6.2.1 Opinions about repatriation and management of human skeletal remains ...... 33 6.2.2 General guidelines regarding management of human skeletal remains and repatriation ...... 34 6.2.3 Ethical perspectives in repatriation ...... 35 6.2.4 Connections to post-colonialism ...... 36 6.2.5 Issues in and collaborations ...... 36 6.3 Participant observation ...... 38 7. Discussion of the five analysed themes ...... 40 7.1 Opinions about repatriation and management of human skeletal remains ...... 40 7.2 General guidelines regarding management of human skeletal remains and repatriation42 7.3 Ethical perspectives in repatriation ...... 44 7.4 Connections to post-colonialism ...... 44 7.5 Issues in legislations and collaborations ...... 45 7.6 Concluding remarks ...... 47 8. Summary ...... 49 9. References ...... 51 9.1 Internet sources ...... 53 9.2 Illustration list ...... 53 Appendix 1: Interviews ...... 55 Interview with Participant 1 on the 2019-11-21 ...... 55 Part 2 ...... 59 Interview with Participant 2 & 3 on the 2019-11-18 ...... 61 Interview with Participant 4 on the 2019-11-25 ...... 76 Interview with Participant 5 on the 2020-04-17 ...... 86 Appendix 2 - WAC, First Code of Ethics ...... 94

1. Introduction

Due to the European colonialization that occurred all around the world from around the 15th century and onwards, there are many unsolved issues regarding the past that relate to identity, political and deep-rooted struggles about sustained structural inequalities. It is obvious that human skeletal remains and archaeological artefacts belonging to different cultures around the world have been collected and alienated from their place of origin during a long time (Harrison and Hughes 2010:239). One example of how artefacts and human skeletal remain have been taken from their origin is collections at the . The British Museum is one of the most famous museums in the world and covers two million years of and culture. The museum has a variety of beautiful and extraordinary collections of the most remarkable artefacts and human skeletal remains represented from all over the world (Duthie 2011:12-13). Museums like this are scattered in different countries, such as the American Museum of Natural History, located in New York. The American Museum of Natural History represents human culture, the natural world and is famous for its exhibitions and scientific collections, which covers studies from all over the world. These two museums are just examples among many others, but they have one interesting exhibition in common, the exhibition of Rapa Nui (Easter Island), and the Rapanui (The culture and the people of Rapa Nui) (Myers 2000:7). Rapa Nui is a solitary island located in the Pacific Ocean and belongs to Chile due to colonization. The island is around 166 km2 and is home to around 7750 inhabitants both Indigenous, and other groups, such as (Arthur 2015:1-9). ‘Indigenous’ is a designation used for those who are, according to UN Declaration, an Indigenous population. It is for those who define themselves as Indigenous and for those who are not a part of the western world but inhabitants of the colonised place (Harrison and Hughes 2010:239). The land of Rapa Nui was traditionally distributed among different tribes, and every tribe had at least one ceremonial site and all around the island these sites have been exploited and exposed to the collecting of human skeletal remains by different researchers (Routledge 1919:200-236; Arthur 2015:1-9;18). Thanks to a Rapanui woman named Ida Luz Hucke Atan (Mama Piru) and the current repatriation program ‘Rapa Nui Ka Haka Hoki Mi Ate Mana Tupuna Repatriation Program’, around 90% of the human skeletal remains that were alienated from Rapa Nui have been located and they are starting to be repatriated to Rapa Nui (Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). Rapa Nui was annexed by the State of Chile in 1888, which means that archaeological remains, including ancient monuments and prehistoric human skeletal remains of Rapa Nui became regulated by National of Monuments (Law 17.288 of National Monuments). The Rapanui can therefore not complete their repatriation with a reburial as their tradition desires.

1.1 Purpose and aims The purpose of this study is to analyse and interpret how human skeletal remains on the island of Rapa Nui have been treated in the past and what the current view is among the Indigenous population on how to repatriate and treat these human skeletal remains. The aim of this thesis is to investigate: - What legislations and issues exist within ethical guidelines to cover global, national and Rapa Nui perspectives of the management of human skeletal remains?

2

-What views do the Rapanui have on the repatriation and treatment of the Indigenous Rapanui human skeletal remains? - How can repatriation occur in the best way based on ethical perspectives?

1.2 Materials and demarcation The results and discussions in this thesis are based on participant observation, other researchers, secondary sources and semi-structured interviews with Indigenous people and locals from Rapa Nui. The interviewed people are familiar with or professionals in the management of archaeological findings and human skeletal remains. Written sources of the legislation and policies regarding human skeletal remains and Indigenous people according to ICOM (International Council of Monuments), WAC (World Archaeology Congress), UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization), State of Chile are used and analysed. In addition, reports and documents base on the inventory made by Mama Piru of alienated human skeletal remains from Rapa Nui. Currently situated in museums and collections around the world have graciously been made available to use in this study.

1.3 Method The methods used are qualitative assessments of semi structured interviews where the questions in the interview are adjusted depending on the participants involvement in the management of human skeletal remains. The participants are aware of the purpose of the study and have agreed on being a part of this thesis. Participant observation of local activities such as dance shows, dinner, barbeques, and other events where I got to see the life of Rapanui people not as a tourist but as a friend. Followed by a highlight of the contents in chapters within 6.1which will be done by using themes based on the compilations of the interviews displayed in chapters within 6.2, the method analysis is from Hedin (1996:7-12). Chapter 6-6.3 will appear repetitive, because it is important to show every step within this analyse to prevent misunderstanding towards the participants. A conscious choice is made to compare Sámi to Rapanui by strengthening the arguments towards an abusive past in chapter 7 ‘Discussion of the five analysed themes’, that strengthens the opinions and arguments towards common historical events within both cultures and how they are affected today.

1.4 Source criticism and ethical perspectives The research and the collection of data has not covered all groups in Rapanui. I aimed my interviews towards people involved in repatriation or professionals in the antiquarian sector, which includes both indigenous Rapanui and Chilean people. To find out general information of how they work with repatriations and human skeletal remains. This aim can therefore clarify issues from both the Indigenous and the outsider perspective. As an outsider and carrying out an academic study, my perspectives can appear invidious to the Rapanui. Therefore, I make a comparison between minorities and international policies focused on the ethical perspectives regarding the management of human skeletal remains based on the interviews. The perspectives from the interviews will be presented into ethical dimensions. I am aware of my outsider ethical perspectives and that it is based on the western society since my education and life is influenced by the western beliefs. Also, that the ethical perspectives might differ between societies outside and inside the west-world. The aim of this thesis is not to tell Indigenous people what to do, it is supposed to try and support their rights towards their colonisers based on their own words.

3

2. Rapa Nui history and description of previous analysis of excavated Human skeletal remains

The following chapters describes what the Rapanui have been exposed to throughout the years, in 2.1 the history and what historical events that the Rapanui have encountered. The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the Rapanui culture and their beliefs, to do that, pictures and history about different traditional sites are presented and what occurred on these specific sites. The information is from written sources and pictures are from participant observation while visiting Rapa Nui during a month in November 2019. Chapter 2.2 presents the previous analysis that have been performed of the Rapanui during the historical events from chapter 2.1.

2.1 Rapa Nui, its early scientific studies and exploitation Rapa Nui is a small island situated in the East Pacific Ocean. Geographically it is the most isolated piece of land in the world with 3700 km to continental and the closest island to the west is Pitcairn which is situated c. 1819 km from Rapa Nui (Arthur 2015:15). Rapa Nui is a triangular land mass formed by three volcanoes, located in each corner of the island. Mount Terevaka with the crater Rano Aroi in the northern part, 510 metres high, Poike in the eastern part, 460 metres high and Mataveri with the volcanic crater in the western part of the island, 300 metres high. The total area of the island is around 166 km2 (Arthur 2015:16). Rapa Nui today is recognized mostly for the (stone statues), these stone figures are situated all around the island and were created with stone tools by hand, in a quarry called and then transported around the island (see figure 2 & 11) by a variety of

Figure 1 The Moai in Tongariki. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

4 transportation methods. The Moai were designated to be placed on top of a ceremonial platform (see example in figure 1), so called ahu but a large number have been left unfinished at the statue quarry or in transport to the ceremonial sites.

Figure 2 Map of Rapa Nui. Picture collected from: Wikimedia.

The European colonial history can be said to start in 1722, when the Dutchman Jacob Roggeveen arrived at the island. Roggeveen and his crew were the first people from ‘the other world’, which means that the ‘European world’ discovered Rapa Nui (Heyerdahl 1989:18-19; Flenley & Bahn 2003:3). During this time Rapa Nui was an island only inhabited by the Indigenous people who called the island ‘Te pito o´ te henua’ which means ‘The Navel of the World’ (Heyerdahl 1989:18-19; Martinsson-Wallin 1994:26; Martinsson-Wallin 2007:19). According to Flenley & Bahn (2003), Roggeveen, did not ask what the natives called their island, so Roggeveen named it Easter Island because he arrived on Easter day (Flenley & Bahn 2003:2). However, Flenley & Bahn (2003) argue that it is not certain that Roggeveen and his crew were the first Europeans to come to the island. This argument is based on the Roggeveen´s and a crew member´s journals where they both claim that the native people on Rapa Nui did not get surprised by their visit (Flenley & Bahn 2003:3). The visit of Roggeveen and his crew was the beginning of the colonial violence that Rapa Nui was about to encounter (Arthur 2015:19). During 1770 the Spanish Captain, Felipe González de Haedo discovered the island and named the island after their king ‘Isla San Carlos’. Felipe Gonzalés de Haedo took possession of the island and they started putting up crosses on the Poike. As soon as the Spanish crew left the island, the native people took the crosses down (Heyerdahl 1989:28; Martinsson-Wallin 1994:27; Arthur 2015:19). The first scientifically studies of Rapa Nui began when Captain arrived at the island in 1774. As far as we know this was when the collecting of human skeletal remains began (Flenley & Bahn 2003:4; Arthur 2015:19-21). Cook found out that the Spanish crew had been on the island before him, even though it is told that he did not plan on going to Rapa Nui. Cook had read a text from Roggeveen describing that Rapa Nui had a lot of remains that he thought needed to be studied (Flenley & Bahn 2003:4). When Cook arrived at the island he could not understand how anyone would want to stop there unless it was an emergency. Cook 5 described the inhabitants as short, skinny, and miserable with few women. Cooks conclusion about the island is that there would be no competition about the artefacts because of the lack of artefacts appearing in plain sight (Heyerdahl 1989:37). Cook developed the trading into acknowledging scientific value of the natural and different specimen. On Cook´s trip to Rapa Nui he collected Rapa Nui findings, for example a wooden hand that can be seen in the British Museum, 2015. In 1786 Comte la Pérouse, Jean Francois de Galaup and their crew arrived at Rapa Nui. They showed the natives different animals and botanical species (Heyerdahl 1989:35-37; Martinsson-Wallin 1994:29; Martinsson-Wallin 2007:20; Arthur 2015:20). In 1808 an American ship came to Rapa Nui and enslaved the natives. The natives were brought out to sea where they were thrown overboard. They died while trying to swim back to the island. A few years later, another American ship arrived at Rapa Nui. The visitors raped Rapanui women and threw them into the sea (Arthur 2015:20). In 1859-62 the slave raids took place and more than half of the population of Rapa Nui were taken as slaves to . Thanks to the French government and Bishop Jaussen of Tahiti, many of the Rapanui slaves were released there. On their journey back, several of the Rapanui were killed by smallpox. The returning survivors brought the disease to the island and infected almost every inhabitant on Rapa Nui (Martinsson-Wallin 2007:20; Arthur 2015:19- 23). In 1864 came to Rapa Nui and settled. The missionaries claimed to have baptized every inhabitant. After staying on Rapa Nui for several years, a group developed among the missionaries, a man named Dutrou-Bornier. He led the new group, the exploiters and he was remembered as violent, abusive, and a man who stole land, while exploiting cattle enterprises. The missionaries and exploiters got into an economic war and ended up splitting Rapa Nui in two, several Rapanui left the island and only 101 inhabitants remained on Rapa Nui (Arthur 2015:21). In 1888, Chile annexed Rapa Nui and today activists from Rapa Nui are protesting the colonialization and fight for their self-determination. In 1895 the Chilean government used the Rapa Nui society as a sheep farm, for profit which was not to benefit the natives. More violence and torture towards the native people occurred. The natives were moved from their ancestral lands, their tribe areas, to live in today´s (see figure 7), while the colonisers took their animals and destroyed everything the natives owned (Martinsson-Wallin 2007:20; Arthur 2015:19-23). Some archaeological/ethnographical investigations were made by Captain Wilhelm Geiseler when they made a visit in 1883. He argued that the Rapanui people came from the island Rapa and that they came to Rapa Nui with boats to Vinapu, and (Flenley & Bahn 2003:4 and 41). In 1886 an American team from the USS Mohican began archaeological studies at the island, they investigated the statues, the quarry, the stone houses, and the platforms that the moai stood on. They stayed at the island for eleven days. They made a survey of 555 stone statues, recording over 113 platforms, and record of the ceremonial and previous settlements in (see figure 3) (Flenley & Bahn 2003:6). The second proper archaeological researcher that came to Rapa Nui was , she arrived with her team in 1914, measuring and mapping the island and its ground Figure 3 Orongo settlements. Picture taken by Olivia surface. Routledge and her team only Gustafsson. made a few excavations, but she

6 mentions in her book that the island has a lot more to explore and that the island has a prevailing mysticism (Heyerdahl 1957:33). Further locations excavated by expeditions were settlements at Anakena (see figure 4 & 5) where they carbon dated charcoal to AD 1400-1700. They found houses that were shaped as boats with stone curb along the sides (Martinsson-Wallin 2007:32). Poike the volcano (see figure 8, view from Ovahe Beach) in eastern part is a well-known historical site, where the battle between Figure 4 Anakena. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson. the different inhabitants of the island occurred at AD

Figure 5 Anakena. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

1680 and got confirmed to be used at AD 1600-1700 (Martinsson-Wallin 2007:32-37). The American archaeological team dated activities at Orongo, which is a famous ceremonial site close to the volcano in the west, Rano Kau, where the birdman ritual occurred during AD 1300-1900. The time frame is unsure because there are no written sources of the beginning of the ritual and several scientists disagree. Some say that it started around 1300 and some that it all started 1760. There is only a list of 86 previously birdmen, the last one occurred in 1860. This birdman ritual occurred once a year in September and the purpose was to find the new birdman in the society. The birdman that won, got the honour to represent (the supreme god (Martinsson-Wallin 1994:51)) on earth. The birdman ritual started with a strong

7

Figure 6 The island where the birdmen collected the egg. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson. representative from each tribe, whom the tribe leader chose to represent him. Their tasks were to take themselves down on the side of a 300 metres high cliff and then swim for 2 kilometres through powerful currents and tide with sharks, out to the big islet, Motu Nui (see figure 6). Sometimes the participants had to wait on this islet for weeks, for the seabird from whom they were going to steal the eggs from. The first who found it had to swim back with it, securely wrapped to his head. Then he became the new sacred birdman. The winner had to shave his head, eyebrows, and eyelashes and then the tribe painted his head. After the ceremony, he had to live alone in a house in Rano Raraku and were not allowed to wash himself for a year, nor cut his fingernails (Flenley & Bahn 2003:175-177).

2.2 Previous scientific analyses and management of Rapanui human skeletal remains For a long time, researchers have discussed where the original people came from and if there have been one or several external contacts prior to European colonisation of Rapa Nui. According to Flenley and Bahn (2003:27), there are only two different directions where the first people could have come from, west, or east, South America. The Polynesian people or the Boat People as Flenley and Bahn called them, were the first inhabitants on the island according to oral traditions. Martinsson-Wallin (1994), Skjølsvold (1994) and Martinsson-Wallin and Crockford (2002) suggest that Rapa Nui initially was settled by between AD 800-1000 based on radiocarbon dates from the early settlement site at Anakena. Martinsson-Wallin also base her dates on oral tradition of the successions of chiefs on the island (1994:71-84). Martinsson-Wallin suggest an around AD 1300-1400 contact with South America that brought the sweet potato and the stone masonry building technique of the ahu (1994:78-84). The early radiocarbon dates from Anakena has later been re-assessed by Wallin et al (2010) to

8 point out an initial colonisation from Polynesia around AD1100-1200 and Hunt and Lipo (2009) suggest the initial colonisation be set to later than AD 1350. During ´s visit and their work in caves, they got visitors from Chile, Professor Peña. He chose to keep some information to himself, as he noticed that the mayor talked to some men, about getting rich. By this time, it got clear to Heyerdahl that the Professor was interested in buying the sculptures and other artefacts that were replicas of the ones from the caves. The mayor said no however, because these artefacts were promised to the Kon- ship. The Professor had heard that if you just flipped a stone on Rapa Nui, you would find artefacts and that you would become rich. Since the island belonged to, and still does, the Chilean state, archaeologists and the mayor during this time were afraid that the Professor came from the state in purpose of taking all the archaeological findings and human skeletal remains that they had found during their research (Heyerdahl 1957:187-188). The greed, as Heyerdahl puts it, and the interest of buying artefacts and the rumours about the island are a confirmation that the island was interesting for several parts of the black market and trading goods (Heyerdahl 1957:187-188). Within the caves, Thor Heyerdahl explains the amount of human skeletal remains as he was surrounded by bones when he entered the caves, they were wrapped in carpets of reed and they broke just by a simple touch (Heyerdahl 1957:265-266). Heyerdahl and his team wrapped what they could find inside the cave, and they brought the statues that they found with them outside the cave (Heyerdahl 1957:297-299). From a few of the caves that Thor Heyerdahl and his team visited, consisted of human skeletal remains from the Rapanui ancestors and several stone statues (Heyerdahl 1957:300). The rumours about the caves and the values of the stone statues made the inhabitants urgent to create statues themselves and cover them with different substances such as dirt, so they could sell or trade them as old artefacts (Heyerdahl 1957:301). Showing off their ancestor’s graves seemed like a good idea for the locals, until the visitors started to get fussy about collecting them, then the locals immediately changed their minds (Heyerdahl 1957:305). During 1955, a group of archaeologists came to the island with Thor Heyerdahl as their expedition leader. They stayed for six months, while doing different research on the island together with Rapanui. Thor Heyerdahl claimed that Polynesia was colonized from both North- and South America (Flenley & Bahn 2003:27-33; Martinsson-Wallin 2014:81-83). After spending one year in the Marquesas’ island in 1937-38 (Heyerdahl 1974) he argued that the winds and currents could take anyone on a boat from the ‘New World’, Peru, to Polynesia and as an experiment he built a copy of a traditional raft. In 1947 he sailed to eastern Polynesia, well-known as the Kon Tiki expedition (Heyerdahl 1948). After 101 days at sea, they finally reached the east coast of Rarioa in the Tuamotus Archipelago. After the trip, he decided that the first that have colonised east Polynesia could only have come from one direction, South America. The expedition of Thor Heyerdahl had a big part in the upcoming archaeological research. Heyerdahl financed the excavations for the archaeologists Arne Skjølsvold, , Edwin Ferdon, Carlyle Smith, Gonzalo Figueroa, and Rapanui people (Martinsson-Wallin 2007:24-28). Flenley & Bahn (2003) claimed that Heyerdahl was obsessed with the belief that Rapa Nui colonizers came from the east. In his obsession, he argued that tools, vegetables etc, that were used and/or produced, on the island, to strengthen his arguments that they must have been brought to the island from Peru. Thor Heyerdahl continues his arguments that the stone carving and stone monuments on Rapa Nui is like the walls built by the Inca people in Peru. After a time, he seems to have changed his mind. Then he believed that the Moai have no similarity to any of the stone monument on the eastern cultures. Thor Heyerdahl argued that the human skeletal remains found on Rapa Nui belongs to the much more recent population and therefore it is only representative from the Polynesian and the first population on the island is gone and according to Flenley and Bahn, Heyerdahl only used specific evidence that would support his theory of an ‘Amerindian cultural superiority’ (Flenley & Bahn, 2002:34).

9

The results from the excavations by Heyerdahl and his team divided the Rapa Nui history into three time periods, the Early phase, when the island got its first population and settlements, AD c. 400-1100. The second period is the Middle phase, AD 1100-1680 when the population increased and the inhabitants built the ceremonial sites and the creation of the stone statues, Moai, occurred. The last period is the Proto-historic phase, AD 1680-1860, the destruction of the ceremonial places took place and the civil war. By the information and dating from the excavations during 1955-1956 it is possible to indicate that Rapa Nui had an early connection to South America and distinct changes during time, according to Thor Heyerdahl and his team. During this time, it was legal to buy and sell archaeological artefacts from the Rapanui (Martinsson-Wallin 2007:19-44). Some of these was excavations, for example on 1 and 2 the archaeologists discovered human remains in the most recent part of the ceremonial place (Martinsson-Wallin 2007:23-24). Several investigations have been carried out on human skeletal remains from Rapa Nui. In the anthology of Gill and Vincent (2016) there are several articles on analysis of human skeletal remains from Rapa Nui, such as postcranial and extremities metrics in purpose of getting a general vision of how the Rapanui ancestors looked like and how they have moved around the world (Gill & Vincent 2016:79 & 66). Between 1981 and 1991 excavations occurred and they picked up 426 individuals were 110 of them got identified as adults and measured, on each cranium 50 different measurements were made. Based on these measurements Gill and Vincent concludes general features on adult Rapanui. Gill and Vincent made general features of the shape on the cranium, such as orbits, nasal and the general face and further connects these features with specific parts on Rapa Nui (Gill & Vincent, 2016:66- 79). After the analysis Gill and an artist, Long, made together facial reconstructions of the Rapanui ancestors and then put up on exhibition at an anthropological museum in Laramie, Wyoming (Gill & Vincent, 2016:76). Other reconstructions were made on two individuals that got excavated in 1978 by Sonia Haoa and Sergio Rapu that got exhibited in the museum on Rapa Nui. While exhibiting these two Rapanui ancestors, locals came to see them and were able to see characteristics in these reconstructions, characteristics that made it possible to connects written sources, excavation site to a tribe area (Gill & Vincent, 2016:79). Researchers have made DNA-studies on human skeletal remains that got collected somewhere between 1445 and 1945. In 2017 DNA-tests were made on human skeletal remains with an estimated excavation period, it was during the 1980s. These DNA-tests from 1980s shows a clear picture that they were from Polynesia and 6 % of the samples also contains DNA from the Native South America (Fehren-Schmitz et al., 2017:3209-3210). In writing moment (2020) the latest DNA-studies revealed that the more recently DNA samples were influenced by Chilean DNA, which shows clearly that contact before the European contact of Rapa Nui occurred (Ioannidis et al. 2020:6). Conclusively current DNA research on present day Rapanui indicate that the initial population on Rapa Nui was Polynesian but there is also a Native American input from where Colombia is now (Ioannidis et al. 2020).

10

Figure 7 ‘Te Ara o te Ao’ to Orongo. View over Hanga Roa. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

Figure 8 Ovahe beach, view over the volcano Poike. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

11

3. Post-colonial theory and Indigenous people

Post-colonial studies emerged around the 1950s and forward, based on the ‘political activism of post-World War II anti-colonial liberation movements’ (Lydon 2010), and had the focus on dealing with the colonial impact on individuals and society. It occurred as a theory about power between colonisers from the west and the colonised Indigenous people when the colonisers established the mentality of inferiority among the cultural and ethnical society. Post-colonial theory is based on the revealing of multicultural politics and hybridity within a colonised society and how it appears today. Even though the increased knowledge about the previous effects on a colonised culture, is the post-colonial literature based on a westerly mindset. The westerly mindset makes it complicated within an identification because the literature formed the individuals and the group constellation in what way the colonialization formed the society (Harrison and Hughes 2010:237-238). Post-colonial theory is an attempt to use archaeology for an understanding of minorities and how they are affected today based on previous events (Gosden 2012:255). Gosden (2012) and Nilsson Stutz (2007) argue that post-colonialism is based on politics, mainly in relation to the claim of land, indigenous heritage, and political rights. By using the archaeological knowledge within for example repatriation cases, the Indigenous people would get help to establish their rights (Gosden 2012:252). Political approaches are set by the need to control the archaeological management of human skeletal remains and of the ownership of a heritage. This can appear as a negative fact because it does not accommodate to the needs of an Indigenous population, despite this, the political approach is seen to have its advantages. As a result of the political approach, archaeologists and Indigenous people have connected and built a better relationship with each other as well as the Indigenous people being more asserted (Harrison & Hughes 2010:239-240; Johnson 2019:208). Even though the relationship between archaeologists and Indigenous people has improved, there is still a lot of tension between the two (Ojala 2016:993). During the European colonialization, the archaeologists often ended up carrying out or assisting in racial studies. Generally, there has been and still is, a lack of ability among the archaeologists to convey and inform about their studies to the locals. Before and during the colonialization, archaeologists made studies for the sake of archaeological research. The archaeologists classified the possibility and the authority to do research, as a hierarchy with a mindset of the ones who have the knowledge is the only ones allowed to do research (Atalay 2006:282). Western archaeologists had a romanticized view on their cultural history during the colonialization, which the Indigenous groups, in this case Sámi and Rapanui, did not comprehend due to the cultural differences. The greater the difference between the western culture and the Indigenous culture, the greater the gap of knowledge by the archaeologists. The gap encouraged an uncontrollable collecting of human skeletal remains both for studies and for placing them at the museums around the world (Atalay 2006:281). During colonialization archaeologists naïve deemed that archaeological studies reflect the value from Western cultures (Atalay 2006:280). To prevent these different behaviours within archaeology, an increase of collaborative studies began with a better communication with the communities. During the excavations on Rapa Nui, Thor Heyerdahl included Indigenous people to join the excavations (Martinsson-Wallin 2014:19-44). Further development has come and the Indigenous people are now working as archaeologists with a main focus on creating the new archaeology called ‘Indigenous archaeology’, where they originate their

12 practices from their understanding and experience of post-processual critiques and the postcolonial thinking to resume their cultural beliefs from the Western approaches (Ojala 2016:1015). As Nicholas’ (2008a:1660 in McNiven, 2016:28) quote: Indigenous archaeology is an expression of archaeological theory and practice in which the discipline intersects with Indigenous values, knowledge, practice, ethics, and sensibilities, and through collaborative and community-originated or -directed projects, and related critical perspectives. Indigenous archaeology seeks to (1) make archaeology more representative of, responsible to, and relevant for Indigenous communities;(2) redress real and perceived inequalities in the practice of archaeology; and (3) inform and broaden the understanding and interpretation of the archaeological record through the incorporation of Aboriginal worldviews, histories, and science. Sámi and Rapanui are two of many Indigenous groups that have been exposed to racial studies during the colonialization. This thesis focuses on mainly Rapa Nui but uses Sámi to strengthen the thoughts and previous events of these two Indigenous cultures. During the colonialization concepts such as dichotomy, the separation between ‘us’ and ‘them’ was common, with the purpose of separating two cultures (Western versus Indigenous culture). As mentioned before, this separation occurred as racial studies and collecting of human skeletal remains, as a way of assessing the cultures of the west and the Indigenous culture separately and not as a unity (Ojala 2009:45). The research that was made in Sweden, Norway and Finland on Sámi were primarily on cranial measurements and studies. These studies created an economical value on the international markets. The ones who were responsible for these studies were scientists, Swedish churches, museums, and the police, who now need to gain the Sámi trust back (Aurelius 2019:11-12). While the Church of Sweden took part in collecting human skeletal remains from Sámi in the purpose of racial studies, the collecting encouraged a marginalization and cultural repression (Ojala 2016:993). Regardless of the Western world´s collecting, the Indigenous cultures and minority groups such as Rapanui and Sámi do not have any specific regarding their right to dictate their own culture heritage. This is despite the fact that today, the rights of repatriations of Indigenous cultural remains are stressed, and there is an emphasis on the local culture´s rights to their own heritage which is designated as, in essence, a human right. (Nilsson Stutz 2007:5). Instead of regulations, the Sámi culture created demands of how their patrimonies should be treated by others, for example, as they say on their webpage (Sametinget.se), “Nations should acknowledge their responsibility in the injustices and return that which have been stolen” (Sametinget, collected: 2020-06-02). I argue based on the different actors in ‘The Long Way Home’ by Turnbull and Pickering (2010) that managing human skeletal remains requires a great understanding of ethics, especially when it involves Indigenous people and minority groups. We need to remember that repatriations are not just a return of human skeletal remains or archaeological artefacts, it is also a way of returning the dignity and culture of their past. For many Indigenous cultures, the human skeletal remains connect their past and present, the human skeletal remains are classified as sacred and spiritual. It is, therefore, a part of an archaeologist’s responsibility to manage human skeletal remains with ethical guidelines. Turnbull and Pickering (2010) argues that the archaeologists need to respect differences between cultures and their heritage, there is no longer one specific correct way of treating human remains as an archaeologist. Since every Indigenous group have their own way of honouring their cultural heritage, and it is no longer the task for an archaeologist to narrate the past of Indigenous cultures. The archaeologists need to accept several ways of managing human skeletal remains from different Indigenous cultures (Turnbull and Pickering 2010). Nowadays many Indigenous people are archaeologists and they collaborate with non-Indigenous archaeologists and have their

13 support, especially within the Indigenous archaeology (Nicholas 2011: 9–19; Ojala 2016:1015). Because of the lack of specific regulations regarding the management of human skeletal remains in Rapanui and Sámi, a study with a post-colonial theoretic perspective is used, in purpose of increasing the understanding about the effects of colonializations. The analysis is based on the semi-structured interviews with some of the local people on Rapa Nui with the closest connection to repatriations, which is not influenced by the western beliefs but on the actual parties themselves. By using the post-colonial theory, it will be possible to see political differences and similarities between Sámi and Rapanui, specially within the multicultural and hybridity aspects.

14

4. Repatriation and reburials on Rapa Nui

Repatriation comes from the Latin ‘repatrio’ (return) and ‘patrio’ (ancestral land) and together ’repatriation’. It means that a country or an Indigenous group are reclaiming their heritage that were taken from them during either colonialization or during other circumstances and are occurring all around the world (Sametinget). Repatriation started in 1960s when several colonised cultures and minorities started spreading their word about their heritages (Arthur 2015:259). The last decade, Rapanui have made surveys about the inhabitants on the island, where it got concluded that the majority is Chilean. For the authority and the community this immigration of Chilean people is the reason behind some big crisis within the social, environmental, cultural, and economic sector. These crises have led to a development of the Commission CODEIPA (Comisíon de Desarollo para Isla de Pascua) (Arthur, 2015:315) on Rapa Nui to work together with the Rapa Nui Parliament to present a need of Migratory Control (Arthur, 2015:25-26). After many years of collaboration to create statutes, the next administration went back to start by ignoring the previous statutes. After the administration’s ignorance Rapanui developed a movement that touched directly the Chilean economic interests, which is the National Park of Rapa Nui, the National Park takes up around 40% of the Rapa Nui surface. The Rapanui oversee 15 % of the landmass on Rapa Nui, the rest belongs to the ‘territorio fiscal’, which means the federal lands (Arthur, 2015:26). The is included in the federal land, where the Forest National Corporation (CONAF) took a fee from every visitor which CONAF used for maintaining other National Parks in Chile, and a small amount went to Rapa Nui (Arthur, 2015:26). After the mobilization, the Rapanui got the responsibility to take care of the Rapa Nui National Park (Arthur, 2015:26-27). Rapanui, together with other cultures, demand their ancestors to be repatriated to their home, to let them get their peace and eternal rest (Arthur 2015:214-215). Rapanui do not have specific regulations or legislation in how a repatriation should occur, because for them, every case is different. Rapanui have guidelines and must follow the National Law of Chile but other than that the Rapanui creates a plan before the repatriations takes place. Rapanui have completed a few repatriations; the most recent Rapanui repatriation was from New Zealand and consisted of two human skulls that were taken from the island. The repatriation of these two ancestors were led by the Local Council of Monuments which are led by the Indigenous people of Rapa Nui. When the documentation was done The Rapanui had to pick them up, one of the Indigenous people went to New Zealand to fly back to the island together with the human skeletal remains. When they landed on Rapa Nui, the locals gathered to celebrate and walked with their ancestors to the museum. Outside the museum they had a minor celebration and feast to welcome their ancestors back. After the feast, the locals let them rest alone for two weeks since they have been gone for so long, they need to acclimatize back to their home. When they have had time to adapt to their society in the Hare Tapu, the sacred room where they rest, Indigenous people are welcome to visit them (Participant 5, oral: 2020-04-17). As argued in the interviews (Chapter 6), there are more regulations towards researchers’ possibilities of doing research on the human skeletal remains than an actual repatriation. Currently, 2020, Rapa Nui is working on a big repatriation from Santiago de Chile, the mainland. This repatriation was supposed to be done in March 2020 but had to be postponed due to circumstances at the time. This repatriation involves 109 human skeletal remains which

15 have been kept in Santiago for a long time (Participant 5, oral: 2020-04-20, Participant 2 and 3, oral: 2019-11-18). Issues about repatriations on Rapa Nui are that the locals want them to be reburied when they return to their home since no one knows exactly where they were collected, i.e., from what tribe area (see figure 10) they cannot just bury the human remains anywhere. The Local council of monuments is conducting a plan for the remains to be buried in a neutral ground for their final rest time (Participant 5, oral: 2020-04-20, Participant 2 and 3, oral: 2019-11-18).

Figure 9 A full graveyard on Rapa Nui. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

Figure 10 Tribal distribution of Rapa Nui. Picture from Arthur 2015:18.

16

5. Ethical perspectives in Global, National and Local guidelines

Belief in the afterlife has existed and exists in almost every culture and religion, some with and some without grave gods to support their life after death. Studying graves has been a widespread research subject within archaeology during many years increasing the understanding of previous societies and how they lived. Depending on society and culture, analysis and research can be a discovery or a desecration. The difference between discovery and desecration is either scientific and/or religious. Depending on who responds to the research, different experiences will point towards either and therefore change the ethical and moral correctness (Lambert 2012:2). The following chapter presents specific laws, regulations, and the ethical perspectives about both the management of human skeletal remains and repatriations from different actors involved in any sector of the cultural heritage management.

5.1 Global guidelines Several guidelines and legislations regarding human rights are a result after World War II. It became a human right to travel anywhere in terms of being free. Gibbon (2005) compares the human right with the legislations of a human’s belongings, that you are not truly free if you cannot travel with your belongings. Such as your cultural findings that are classified as a patrimony (Gibbon 2005:7). UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) was founded in 1945, post-war, with purpose of bringing back the art that the Germans stole during World War II. In 1954 UNESCO presented their latest measure to protect cultural heritages. Damage to cultural property belonging to any people whatsoever means damage to the cultural heritage of all mankind, since each people makes its contribution to the culture of the world. – (Gibbon 2005:5). The World Archaeological Congress (WAC) is working as a support towards Indigenous archaeology and creating ethical guidelines concerning what kind of right the Indigenous groups have regarding their heritage. Their starting points are respect, consideration, and freely informed content between scientists/archaeologists and Indigenous groups. As archaeologists we have the ethical responsibility to take all cultures into consideration while managing their heritage, since we are working in a ‘post-conflict’ world (Meskell 2009:2). Further some of the ethical codes of WAC follows and how the starting points are presented: All display should be culturally appropriate. – (WAC). To acknowledge the special importance of indigenous ancestral human remains, and sites containing and/or associated with such remains, to indigenous peoples. – (WAC). Previous quotes mean that the way of display the culture/ancestors is based on what the culture wants. If the culture does not want anything on display no one should put them on display. To establish equitable partnerships and relationships between Members and indigenous peoples whose cultural heritage is being investigated - (WAC).

17

The quote above shows clearly that WAC understands the importance of a collaboration between the locals and the researchers. Further quotes from WAC are presented in Appendix 2. Today the parties involved in heritage management are more willing to redress previous events such as, colonialization, violence, social inequality etc. Despite these frequently appearing regulations, some archaeologists are still very sceptic towards repatriations and reburials, they cannot use/analyse the remains whenever they like to. I wonder, is it really the needs of the archaeologists that we should consider or is it about loss of power? I argue that it is a part of an archaeologist responsibility to manage human skeletal remains with ethical guidelines. Archaeologists need to respect differences between cultures and their heritages, there is no longer a correct way of treating human skeletal remains as an archaeologist and it is no longer the task for an archaeologist to narrate the past of Indigenous cultures. In 1970 UNESCO developed a convention for the nations to sign to prevent selling, trading, and looting cultural heritages (Gibbon 2005:5). Together a national and international cooperation within UNESCO began in the 1970s to develop the ethical standard of the museums. This cooperation was a result of the colonialization and the beginning of the post- colonial time. The cooperation increased the number of repatriations and an understanding of value regarding Indigenous heritage. International Council of Museum (ICOM) produced during the 1980s a specific code for developing new ethical perspectives within museum ‘ICOM code’. This code works as a guideline for the staff at the museums and for those who are involved in managing human skeletal remains around the World. ICOM code is based on two different tools; it has eight principles on how the involved can respond to the ethical complexity. Secondly, the code gives the responsible contact information for any further questions (ICOM 2018:1). Between 2006 and 2011 ICOM developed a code of Ethics for Natural History Museum, which included sciences about nature and life and how to store, build and support studies and collections of natural history. This code includes support towards conservations, and a proliferation about every study that has been made towards the society. The code of Ethics of Natural History is presented in six sections, with different focuses. The first section is the storing of human skeletal remains, and they are divided into seven standards that needs to be followed. These standards cover everything from how to exhibit human skeletal remains and how to work with the human skeletal remains, for example, the human skeletal remains should be analysed and exhibited only by professionals, and regarding human skeletal remains that belong to an Indigenous culture, the culture should be involved in deciding wherever the analyse is necessary or not (ICOM 2018:1-2). The following quotes represents the idea of ICOM and what they stand for and that they support the Indigenous right. The first is about the storage process and how they are supposed to be stored, second, sixth to nine explains what duty the museums have regarding management of collections, third quote is recommendations that the museums should do. The fourth quote presents the different professional responsibilities and the fifth is about the personal use of storage and collections. In the Ethical Code of the International Council of Museum (ICOM), ICOM stated that: ICOM (International Council of Museums): Museums have the duty to acquire, preserve and promote their collections as a contribution to safeguarding the natural, cultural, and scientific heritage. Their collections are a significant public inheritance, have a special position in law and are protected by international legislation. Inherent in this public trust is the notion of stewardship that includes rightful ownership, permanence, documentation, accessibility, and responsible disposal. – ICOM 2018:9. The museum should establish and apply policies to ensure that its collections (both permanent and temporary) and associated information, properly recorded, are available for current use and will be passed on to future generations in as good and safe a

18

condition as practicable, having regard to current knowledge and resources. – ICOM 2018:14-15. Professional responsibilities involving the care of the collections should be assigned to persons with appropriate knowledge and skill or who are adequately supervised. – ICOM 2018:14-15. Personal Use of Museum Collections Museum personnel, the governing body, their families, close associates, or others should not be permitted to expropriate items from the museum collections, even temporarily, for any personal use. – ICOM 2018:14-15. Museums have particular responsibilities to all for the care, accessibility and interpretation of primary evidence collected and held in their collections. – ICOM 2018:18 Museums have an important duty to develop their educational role and attract wider audiences from the community, locality, or group they serve. Interaction with the constituent community and promotion of their heritage is an integral part of the educational role of the museum. – ICOM 2018:24. Museums must conform fully to international, regional, national, and local legislation and treaty obligations. In addition, the governing body should comply with any legally binding trusts or conditions relating to any aspect of the museum, its collections, and operations. – ICOM 2018:36. One of the Swedish guidelines regarding artefacts and human skeletal remains containing ritual acts is the one from ICOM which covers treatment of any culture says that: Human remains and artefacts within research, both storing and managing of these, needs to be performed in an acceptable way, not just according to for the professionals, but also for people with different beliefs especially for those whose human remains are concerned. – Stadsmuseiförvaltningen 2006:1-5. Translated by author. In September 2007, 143 countries in UN (United Nations) voted ’yes’ for the rights of Indigenous cultures within the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The rights of which the UN voted on are among several presented in article 11, were the first right is elucidated, the right among an Indigenous group to express and revive their culture, which includes protecting, maintaining and developing their traditions, archaeological artefacts, sites both from the past and the present. They can perform and visualize arts, literature, ceremonies, and their traditional designs. The second right describes how governments are obligated to support the indigenous groups and that said governments need to cooperate with the indigenous groups, as well as respect their culture, intellect, religion, and their rituals. This will occur in consent and without violations of the Indigenous traditions, laws and/or customs (FIAN 2015). In article 12, they develop the rights further from article 11 with a possibility to perform their traditions, ceremonies and customs in privacy and that they have the right to use and take control over their artefacts and human remains, for example in a repatriation. The states should also take responsibility to repatriate and enable the access to artefacts and human remains in consent with the Indigenous people (FIAN 2015).

5.2 National guidelines The national monuments that remain under the custody and protection of the state are the sites, ruins, constructions or objects of historical or artistic character, burials or cemeteries or other aborigine remains, artefacts or objects anthropo-archaeological, paleontological or of natural formation, that exist below or on the surface of the national territory or in the submarine platform of the territorial waters and whose conservation is

19

of historical, artistic or scientific interest… - National Monuments Law 17,288 (1970), Article 1. According to the Swedish publication (Iregren & Hedelin 2010), Iregren and Hedelin mentions that there are regulations regarding managing and reburials of human remains and it continues to be a ‘hot topic’. For example, as mentioned earlier, Iregren and Hedelin mentions that there are several Indigenous groups demanding repatriations of their ancestors (Iregren & Hedelin 2010:54). On the other hand, according to me, researchers throw light on the importance of exhibiting human skeletal remains, the researchers argue that there is pedagogical and scientific value, particularly from a historical and forensics point of view. In Östergötland, a county in Sweden, the museums have been discussing a ‘blessed storage’ (heligt rum) where they can keep the human skeletal remains, but the Sámi in Sweden does not have any control over the human skeletal remains. While in Norway, a committee of archaeologists, theologists, forensics, medical historians, palaeontologists, judiciary faculty, an antiquary government and the department of education, decided how to treat and keep the human skeletal remains of Sámi and the Sámi Parliament in Norway have control over the human skeletal remains (Iregren & Hedelin 2010:55). Further discussions and thoughts in the Swedish community are the two museums within Uppsala University, Gustavianum and the Museum of Evolution (Evolutionsmuseet) (Uppsala University 2014:1). In these museums the human skeletal remains are divided by two groups; the first one is unburnt and burnt human skeletal remains from archaeological research, including mummies. The second one is the anatomical collection, which is mostly osteological remains, everything within the category of human body by the species Homo sapiens, both human bones and soft tissues. Exceptions in this category is archaeological findings, for example tools and other supplies that are made from human remains. The human remains at those two museums are available for use in research for scientists and education. The caring of the human remains is made with respect for the individual, ethical judgements, with restrictiveness and transparency (Uppsala University 2014:2). The remains that are stored at these museums are not separated by dates, the reason for this is that the remains are to be treated equally and they should all be well marked in the storages. Two groups can access these areas, students, and researchers of the archaeological faculty. The exhibitions are then made open for the public, this means that a portion of the collection is displayed for all to see. Exhibitions are made to show the public results from previous research as well as the evolutionary timeline. Not only human skeletal remains are displayed but also material findings. The exhibitions can be summed up as a melting pot for the biological sciences in relation to ancient people and culture, showing what separates them from each other. These ethical questions at Uppsala University are based on the guidelines of International Council of Museum, ICOM (Uppsala University 2014:3). To apply for permission to perform analyses on human remains, researchers need a purpose, qualification, i.e. what you need and for what. The university will not lend human skeletal remains if they are in a process of repatriation. The researcher must do and publish a report within four years after the research. Regarding pictures of the human skeletal remains, the researchers need an approval from the university, but not if it is within the inventory or documentation for their own use at the university (Uppsala University 2014:4). In 2014 the university developed a new way for applications to be done, especially regarding human skeletal remains. The development of the application process made it more difficult for researchers to get permission. Now researchers need to apply through an institution to get the permission. If the scientist gets the permission, they preferably see that the research is done at the storage where the human skeletal remains are stored, to prevent damages on the human skeletal remains during transportation. Regarding repatriations and re-burials within the guidelines of Uppsala University, the principal is responsible for deciding what happens with the repatriations. After this decision, the preparations can start. Every case is analysed separately and before the final decision all aspects need to be carefully investigated, through an ethical, cultural point of view and that

20 the receivers have fulfilled the legitimate requirement for storing the human skeletal remains. Uppsala University prefers to avoid re-burials and instead lets the human skeletal remains get well stored and then lets scientists in the future use them as well. By then go through ‘Ossuarium’ (a house in Uppsala where they store all human remains), this place will therefore prevent the destruction of the human skeletal remains. The cases ending up with a re-burial anyway, firstly need to be thoroughly analysed and documented and that result will then be stored at the museum of Gustavianum (Uppsala University 2014:4). By explaining the different issues within other cultures, it increases the understanding of the issues in Rapa Nui. For example, in the , the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) is developed to make inventories of the Native American heritages to return and stands for the Indigenous people’s rights (Gibbon 2005:6). Although some researchers are against NAGPRA for example, Vincent argues that the United States of America focus on the political thoughts and automatically ends up talking about race, and that NAGPRA confuses the myths with science and what is sacred and what is profane. That in its turn is confirming the Western behaviour, especially from the past (Vincent 2005:35). Vincent also mentions that it turned into a law and that the law was signed by George H.W. Bush, that pushed on giving money to the federal agencies to make an inventory on every native object of United States and repatriate them on request to their origin (Vincent 2005:35). This its turn turned out to something good and supportive towards Indigenous people. As a result of different conventions and congresses about cultural heritages during the 1970s and 1980s, at least The United States created a law that makes it possible to claim an object which was certainly looted from any cultural heritage or monument (Pearlstein 2005:9). United States were repatriating tens of thousands of human skeletal remains and their belongings to their origin, this repatriation is the world’s biggest ever made (Vincent 2005:36).

5.3 Rapa Nui Rapa Nui legislations regarding human skeletal remains and archaeological artefacts and how they should be managed are different comparing to what the international policies say. Rapa Nui is based on the National Heritage Law of Chile and the Chilean policies. In detail, Rapanui have their own policies where the Local Council of Monuments decides how the archaeological artefacts and human skeletal remains should be managed. The ‘Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales de Chile’, decides if researchers can do archaeological research and take care of the archaeological sites and findings (CNM). The Local Council of Monuments is based on a group of elders, the people who know the cultural heritage and the traditions the best, and they have the last word while deciding how things should be treated. The repatriation occurs in two stages which includes both International and National actors. At first the Repatriation Team contacts the organisation holding the remains of their ancestors, then they apply for a repatriation. Once the repatriation is approved one of Rapanui travels to the place and manages the hand over. While returning, the Rapanui have specific traditions, that will be presented later. The repatriation occurs differently depending on the circumstances. Within the first step, the Indigenous people decides how it should happen, these decisions are made in the beginning of the process (Arthur 2015:298-301). Rapanui have two different actors where the communication with other actors such as researchers and foreign museums happens. For example, CODEIPA, works mainly with conservation and are creating agreements with organisations over the world in terms of communication and they have representatives from many of the cultural heritage organisations (CONADI).

21

Rapa Nui have five different principles in how they control the repatriations, but I choose to focus on only the first one. The first is ‘Haka Ara’ and represents how the Rapanui think about and how they meet the world, how they learn, store and sees the world, these are just a few of many different meanings of the world (Arthur, 2015:292-293). Haka Ara is used in the repatriation program as two main groups, the Repatriation Team, and the Expert Committee. The Repatriation Team are responsible for the research on the collections, the connection with the museums, eases the way the actual repatriation and leads the research. The Expert Committee are based on Rapanui elders and they give advice about research areas, helps regarding protocols and are responsible of talking with the community in terms of making decisions about repatriations and doing reburials (Arthur, 2015:292-293). Haka Ara within research is used to locate the repatriated human skeletal remains’ tribe areas by studying the documentations from the museums that the repatriated human skeletal remains come from.

Figure 11 Moai at Rano Raraku. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

22

6. Analyses of interviews

In this chapter follows a presentation of the interviews from the transcriptions in Appendix 1. Each Participant is presented separately. After the presentation of the interviews all the interviews are analysed and presented within five different themes that are based on recurrent arguments and thoughts of the participants. Participant observation will be presented under 6.3.

6.1 Interviews Interviews were made with five participants on the island, they were selected due to their participation in repatriations and managing of human skeletal remains. Some of them are from the Indigenous population and some are Chileans who work in the antiquarian sector. I chose for them to remain anonymous and name them as participants followed by numbers as they are presented through a conclusion made from the transcriptions in appendix 1. They all share the same understandings of the value of the ancestors to the Rapanui people.

6.1.1 Interview with Participant one (P1) P1 says that the museum (Father Sebastian Englert Anthropological Museum) on Rapa Nui has a big collection of human skeletal remains. These human skeletal remains have been collected during a long period, by different researchers and from other locals that have encountered them at different locations. The storage of the museum on Rapa Nui has a well- organized room, where they keep all the collected artefacts and human skeletal remains. They are marked with time of excavation, by whom and where it occurred. This makes it very easy to locate any finding or human skeletal remain in the storage (Participant 1 oral: 2019-11-21). P1 says that in the extra room that the manager of the museum applied for, the ancestors can rest when they have been repatriated. P1 explains that the Indigenous people see the human skeletal remains as being alive, and that the remains need to be close to their relatives, so they do not feel lonely. P1 argues that if you explain this view from the political perspective, according to the Chilean law every human skeletal remain need to be kept in a storage with inventory numbers. The Indigenous people made their own special protocol as P1 explains, which means that they have a sacred room instead, but they still have their inventory number which follows the Chilean law of property. P1 argues that since the treatment of the ancestors are different, they are kept in another room (Hare Tapu) and therefore follow other regulations made by the Rapanui, the room is meant for repatriated human skeletal remains that have been repatriated to the island. No one else but the manager on the museum is using the Hare Tapu, the responsibility includes both rooms and the community. The Rapanui believe that the ancestors need to have their rest, and Hare Tapu also where the Indigenous people can visit their ancestors and talk to them. The manager is Rapanui and an antiquarian, which makes it possible to include and combine researchers’ and the indigenous point of view. P1 explains that being an archaeologist in Rapa Nui is advantageous in the matter of repatriation due to the fact that the Indigenous population can take part in every decision and make sure that, what happens to the human skeletal remains are by ethical perspectives. Therefore, the Rapa Nui interests in repatriation matters can be represented. P1 argues that for the manager at the museum it is not possible to say no to an archaeologist, to researchers if they want to study the human skeletal

23 remains in the storage. However, the researchers are not permitted to move the human skeletal remains from the storage. P1 tells that the manager is responsible of the storage and makes decisions after discussing with the local people (Participant 1 oral: 2019-11-21). When I visited the museum, I saw that the Hare Tapu is situated at the end of the storage and has two entrances, one from the storage and one from outside. The one from the storage is only used by the manager. The one from the outside has a small fireplace and a ceremonial construction above the entrance serves as a roof. Beside the door they have two wooden statues and one other wooden statue inside of the Hare Tapu. According to P1, the outside entrance is used by the local people where they can celebrate their arrival and have a meal together with their ancestors. As a tradition, the ancestors get seven days of not being seen by anyone and then two months of rest when they return because they need to acclimatize back to their home environment (Participant 1 oral: 2019-11-21). The storage room is open for anyone, not a touristic site but it is open for the local people that want to visit their ancestors, and the committee comes to the Hare Tapu just to sit there. P1 says that the local people can sit in the Hare Tapu for hours and that the manager use to put some nice cloths in the Hare Tapu (Participant 1 oral: 2019-11-21). On the island they have a local council of monuments, it is based on Indigenous elderly people, they decide if research is allowed on the island, in most cases they do not permit research on the island, which all the interviewed agreed on. The reason for this is that in the past they have been treated poorly, an example of this is the colonialization and collecting of human skeletal remains. The local council of monuments, including the Indigenous people, want their ancestors to be left in peace, and that repatriated human skeletal remains should be reburied (Participant 1 oral: 2019-11-21). Issues regarding reburials is that they do not have a neutral place for the human skeletal remains to rest, since the island is divided into tribes, the indigenous people cannot rebury an ancestor that they cannot connect to a specific tribe area. The Indigenous people need to find a neutral place where they can rebury all repatriated ancestors after their rest in the Hare Tapu. Perhaps such neutral place can be created if the museum could buy a piece of land from someone on the island, to make a common mausoleum based on traditional designs from the past (Participant 1 oral: 2019-11-21). While interviewing P1, clear issues about the repatriation and ethical perspectives on how the management of human skeletal remains appear. The main issue lays in the heritage law in Chile, which says that the human skeletal remains belong to the society. P1 argues that since the manager is an Indigenous person and are managing the human skeletal remains at the museum, it is impossible to say no to researchers that want to study, but it goes against the local council of monuments wishes. But if researchers want to study the repatriated human skeletal remains, the question always goes through the local council of monuments, however as mentioned before, this will most likely result in a no (Participant 1 oral: 2019-11-21). One big issue on the island is regarding what is made for the public and what is not. When the repatriation program started, they composed two groups in the society to develop a structure, one with representatives of the elder in the community. They have the last word on basically every decision regarding repatriation. Because they are passing on the cultural practices on the mortuary rites and cultural issues, that are included in the Rapanui society. The other group is for the younger people, and they are responsible for the technical part, for example executing papers and many actions online. The younger group is guided by the elders and their fight for the Rapanui name and their place. The younger generation is creating a database, with names of tribes, names of the different places, information about the traditional way of choosing a leader in every tribe. But this is not something that P1 is part of. P1 informs that the museum staff’s role is to be with the people, be with the ancestors at the museum with the community (Participant 1 oral: 2019-11-21). The traditions are not taught by arbitrary people, it is the experts that inform the community about their traditions. Through the repatriation programme, the Indigenous people have been talking, discussing, reflecting, and organising together and started taking contact to

24 all the museums and began with the research in purpose of presenting repatriation issues to the authorities. P1 argues that the only thing the authorities want is the protocols, a clear protocol, but it is difficult because the protocols were made together with the local people a long time ago and they are not consensus by the community. The problem is that these protocols are not working for every repatriation. Because when Rapa Nui repatriated the two human skulls from New Zealand, they could sit next to the person on the airplane who came and picked them up, but for example the arrival of 109 human skeletal remains from Chile, they have to make new protocols on how they are going to come back to their island. Therefore, the protocols are changing depending on the matter (Participant 1 oral: 2019-11- 21). A repatriation can occur like this; the first thing you want to do is to involve the community, you can also involve the repatriation programme since they have a lot of expertise. During a period, the repatriation programme could come to your home depending on where the human skeletal remains or artefact are located, to decide what the best way are of bringing them back to Rapa Nui. But the issue is that many western societies wants written protocols, but the Indigenous people are more useful in this situation because they know how this return should happen. Since the human skeletal remains are considered living people, and they belong to the Rapanui heritage, every protocol is made for each separate case and depends on the amount of human skeletal remains. The Maori people on New Zealand have helped Rapa Nui a lot, since they are basically like the cousins of Rapa Nui, it is possible to use the protocols of their rights, from the Maori culture (Participant 1 oral: 2019-11-21). P1 means that the hardest thing to understand for a person who is non-Rapanui, is that the protocols are not just a bunch of papers and policies, they are something else, more like practices and understanding (Participant 1 oral: 2019-11-21). They take findings that do not have a purpose and give it a protection purpose, that is where the Tupuna comes in, it is spiritual and something cosmogony and exists within anything, the fire, the art and archaeology close to them. If researchers want to study archaeological sites, artefact, or human skeletal remains, they need to start including the local people, let them decide what they want to know, let them participate. It always brings more problem than understanding if a researcher does not include the local people. We like to talk at the same level, because now, we have our hierarchy-way, with our elders, but if I am talking to someone that is not part of this culture, why do I have to assume that he or she knows this – P1 P1 wants to start teaching and learning about other cultures and their political relations. For example, Chile, they are very hierarchic. The state of Chile understands that the Indigenous people on Rapa Nui have protocols in terms of practices, but they do not like it. The reason Chile wants to do it their way is because of the relation after colonialization, it cannot be separated. But it has gotten better, because the Rapanui have professionals now, educated people that can negotiate with the state of Chile. P1 means that, this long-lasting tension comes from ignorance. P1 describes the repatriation programs tasks as connecting with the community with passion and feelings and not through a University degree but by letting the community participate in every decision and learning by their elders (Participant 1 oral: 2019- 11-21). The museum on Rapa Nui have plans for building a house, a mausoleum for the human skeletal remains, they want to make the design inspired traditional way. The house needs to be well organized. The issue about this is that they need a piece of land, and every land is owned by someone, so they must ask the owner for a piece through the authority with some sort for application. This application needs to include the functioning, for example how big, and how many people needed to administrate the mausoleum and how they are going to administrate all necessary protocols. After that they can finance and build the mausoleum. As long as the discussion about repatriation is on the table, things will happen, for example, the Kon-Tiki museum in Norway is going to repatriate, and one of the museum staff is going to the British

25 museum next European summer and says the more they work with it, something good is going to develop and artefacts and human skeletal remains will come back. The repatriation that occurred from Aotearoa (New Zealand), is called the ‘historical’ one, because it was the first repatriation that was made on Rapa Nui and purposed by the community and shipped by them. This repatriation was through the representatives of the repatriation program, which means that the Rapanui, made the decisions what was going to happen with the human skeletal remains. The repatriation went against Chilean law of monuments which became a big issue, the Rapanui had to fight for two years because the Chilean systems never agree to the conditions because they are unconstitutional and claims that the human skeletal remains is a property of the state. After this the repatriation program had to change their focus towards other agreements with the Chilean state. The Chilean museum and the museum on Rapa Nui, both runs as Chilean museum, so when the human skeletal remains returns from for example a Chilean museum it just switches storage room, but it is the same type of institution. P1 argues that the Chilean state can decide and act, and these decisions have not been fluent through time, and during November they were in a big political crisis themselves. Another issue that P1 argues about is that the Chilean state does not have any representatives from the island which gives them a lack of knowledge and the importance. P1s work is to take care of the ancestors that have returned to Rapa Nui and that P1 would not chase after other human skeletal remains and tupunas, because they are coming back, they have already started to come back (Participant 1 oral: 2019-11-21). P1 says that the museum on Rapa Nui have an agreement with the Kon-Tiki museum about repatriation and that the Kon-Tiki museum is going to repatriate everything they have from Rapa Nui, back to Rapa Nui. The issue with their repatriation is that the Kon-Tiki museum does not understand that every matter needs a different protocol. P1 says that the manager of the storage room is Indigenous and involved in the repatriations. Therefore, the manager can represent both the museum and the community and therefore the local council of monuments do not have to send several people from different places (Participant 1 oral: 2019-11-21).

6.1.2 Interview with Participant two and three (P2 and P3) Participant two and three agrees with the people, that the human skeletal remains from other museums and/countries should be repatriated back to the island (Participants 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). The museum on Rapa Nui have a lot of human skeletal remains and most of them come from the excavation and restoration of Anakena during the 1980s. This excavation was performed by Georg Gill, an American bio anthropologist who ran a project of collecting human skeletal remains from the island. The storage has only human skeletal remains from the island. The museum does not have any specific regulation regarding the management of human skeletal remains, more than the Chilean heritage law, that all artefacts and human skeletal remains are a natural heritage. The law for the museum on Rapa Nui is very general because everything is protected by Chilean heritage law, which includes all human skeletal remains from archaeological origin. For the Indigenous people, this law needs to change, get adapted to be suitable for today’s topics, for example repatriation and managing human skeletal remains in a more ethical way. P2 says that the human skeletal remain collection on Rapa Nui is the most studied collection of the museum and the closest they got to develop any kind of policy involving The Local Council of monuments in every researchers wish of studying the archaeological human skeletal remains of Rapa Nui (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). P3 informs that even though the Indigenous people on Rapa Nui are getting their ancestors back, the human skeletal remains, still belong to the National heritage law, and since the museum belongs to the state, the museum on Rapa Nui needs to keep the human skeletal remains in their storage and in this case the Hare Tapu. But P3 says that the museum is trying to find a way for the Indigenous people to rebury their ancestors when they arrive 26 back to the island. P3 argues that, it is not possible to bury an ancestor in the wrong territory (Participant 3 oral: 2019-11-18). P2 and P3 argues that it is the Local council of monuments who decides where this neutral place will be, and it is also very important for the museum to support the repatriation programme. According to P2 and P3 will the museum support the local council of monument, regardless of what the Chilean council decides. P2 also think it would be positive if they could receive scientific information from the human skeletal remains and maybe take some samples (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). The issue now, when the 109 human skeletal remains are coming back (repatriation from Chile), the museum do not have that much space left in their storage, that is why they are fighting to get a new museum. From November 2019 until the day the museum has their new storage, the museum is using containers that are located outside the museum, where they keep archaeological artefacts. P2 and P3 hope that the new museum will be finished in the end of 2025-2026. In the new museum the museum staff are planning on having a special area for the human skeletal remains and other bones, one area for the archaeological artefacts and a third area for the big artefacts, such as pieces of Moai, Hare Paenga (Boat House) and stones and finally in the last area, the different samples of soils (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). There are not many researchers that can study the human skeletal remains on Rapa Nui because The Local Council of Monuments are tired of the ongoing interest of studying their ancestors. P3 mentions that the local people feel like guinea pigs to Americans and Europeans, because, the research the Americans and Europeans are doing on the island, the Rapanui does not get to take any part in. P2 and P3 informs that the museum are trying to give lectures to researchers that comes to the island, about how they should work, how they can include the society and how they can interact as a researcher with the community (Participant 3 oral: 2019-11-18). All archaeological artefacts and human skeletal remains are important to the locals, it is their ancestors. P3 wonders how people would react if someone came to another country and started excavating the cemeteries, maybe take someone’s grandfather, they would not like that, neither do the Rapanui. Within the last five years, some researchers applied for DNA- studies, they got rejected. P3 and P2 are not sure if the answer towards taking samples of the ancestors will remain negative in the future, because not everyone agreed on the rejection towards taking samples for DNA the last time. The arguments were; if it only takes one tooth from my ancestor to learn more about their lives, it would be worth it. The reason they said no, is because they do not want to make a decision, and now since their opinions are divided, The Local Council of Monuments and Honui (the group with representatives from the 36 Indigenous families on Rapa Nui), are separated into two different groups, yes/no, which makes it more complicated (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). When the ancestors return to the island, they have a celebration and the funerals are the same. It is more like a feast; people sing and wear white clothes and have a lot of flowers. Because of full cemeteries (see figure 9), people have started burying their relatives in their gardens, which was from the beginning a traditional way of burying people in the Polynesia (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). The museum on Rapa Nui have not exhibited human skeletal remains for 20-30 years or so, exhibitions are not customary (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). When P2 came to the island, during the 1990s, they had some human skeletal remains exhibited, but when the current director at that time came back after studies in United States, he changed the policy and decided, no more human skeletal remains on display. P3 informs that the museums on the mainland (Chile) also stopped putting human skeletal remains on display around the same time as Rapa Nui. P2 and P3 informs that since two years back, the museum on Rapa Nui belongs to the ministry of culture and have been a part of the development in how to treat human skeletal remains and what to do with the collections. This group invites personnel from all over the world to participate and discuss ethics in managing human skeletal remains. The ministry of culture´s idea is to establish general policies on the

27 island, which declares that every time human skeletal remains appear, they need to be collected and immediately transported to the museum because the human skeletal remains is per definition an archaeological artefact. And through this group, the ministry has realised that most of the museums wants to repatriate human skeletal remains to their native communities (Participant 2 oral: 2019-11-18). It appears that people often find human skeletal remains in caves, close to platforms, or on beaches, because the waves and the wind are moving them around. People show respect for the human skeletal remains because they believe that the bones are connected to their spirit and do not want to disturb them (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). Today, human skeletal remains from Rapa Nui are spread out in different museums all over the world, for example in Norway and in . Basically, residents from different countries who visited the island between 1700-1900 took human skeletal remains with them when they left (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). The museum on Rapa Nui have a big collection, but only a small part of them are exhibited but even though the small amount, they cover basically the whole island and represent different parts of the society. There are eight different parts, for example, fishing, stones, Moai, Kava (the spirit with ribs), the wooden sculptures and so on, altogether there are 70 artefacts exhibited. Even though the museum does not exhibit human skeletal remains as mentioned above, some of the fishhooks are made of bones, but the museum staff have not identified where the bones come from. According to traditions the human bones consist of mana, which means power, P3 and P2 discusses if the ancestors made fishhooks from human skeletal remains to get the mana or if they are made from whalebones or something else (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). The museum on Rapa Nui also exhibits artefacts from different time periods, every period from the Rapanui history are exhibited in some way, but not all of them are presented as written sources (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). The previous analyses of the human skeletal remains and excavations did not increase the understanding about the culture of the local people, especially not regarding the human skeletal remains. P2 think that further development within research of the archaeological artefacts and the pictures from the history have helped the understanding about the culture. P2 also mentioned that the story that the Rapanui are telling, has changed along with new results. These kinds of changing are not happening over a night, it is more like an extended process. An important fact to remember is when a tourist or anyone find human skeletal remains, the first to analyse them are the police, to make sure the remains are identified as contemporary or not, because there are some people that are missing and they need to clarify that first (Participant 2 oral: 2019-11-18). The latest research that were made, concluded that the human skeletal remains come from Polynesia/Australia but some of them also shows signs of an old migration Native South Americans, this was shown by DNA samples. The reason that P2 and P3 means that it is an old migration is because of the fragmented bones and lack of information in documentation. Scientific view, these DNA samples are very interesting but they priorities the opinion of the people (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). P2 and P3 argues that a lot of the political issues between Rapa Nui and Chile originates in the slave raids that occurred during the 1800. One of the theories is that these slave raids made the DNA among the Rapanui people influenced by Native South Americans, DNA from Peru. P2 and P3 argues that to continue and start new research on the island, it is necessary to show new perspectives and then the Rapanui might be interested, for example P2 and P3 says that a Rapanui historian is currently presenting and discusses the Rapa Nui past and spreading his ideas, which have been accepted by the locals (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). P2 and P3 informs that the museum on Rapa Nui do not have specific policies in what way the human skeletal remains should be treated regarding ethical thinking, but they have opinions. P2 and P3 are not agreeing fully. P3 knows that the right thing to do is reburial but argue that everyone needs to think about doing research, starting by putting together a local

28 team and therefore let the local people do the research. P2 means that everyone needs to see the human skeletal remains as people and treat them like that as well, for example, the manager of the storage always says ‘hello’ to them when he enters the storage. P2 also mentions the value of having a separate room for the human skeletal remains so the Rapanui can handle them with the best care, perhaps divide and wash them properly. Because many of the human skeletal remains are in the same condition that they were found. But both P3 and P2 agrees that these human skeletal remains are people and should be treated as people (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). P2 argues that, the only way of getting a permission to do research is probably to compare DNA with modern people and that we can through them identify which person belongs to what tribe. Further arguments could be that they need something to compare the incoming human skeletal remains with, in purpose to identify their background. The ongoing repatriation from Santiago regarding 109 human skeletal remains, cannot be reburied according to the law, they need to be held in the storage of the museum (Participant 2 oral: 2019-11-18). P2 and P3 do not know where these 109 human bones were collected from on the island because they have no proper documentations regarding them (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11- 18). The relationship between Rapanui and archaeologists is a power relation, but it has begun to ease up because now, several Rapanui are archaeologists. The tension comes from foreign archaeologists that have arrived at the island, made their research, and then left the island and leaving no information to the community (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). P2 argues that the heritage belongs to the local people, the Indigenous people on Rapa Nui. If people from other countries comes to the island and do research and then go home, publishing a book, they make money on someone else’s heritage and that is just wrong. If they want to do research on the island, they need to spend time there, work with the locals. The issue is almost always about money and excluding the local people (Participant 2 oral: 2019-11-18). If they have control, they have power, because control is power. Not all the archaeologist were bad people and not all archaeologist did wrong, but it is the feelings of the people that matter. In the 1990s the community lost all their control and the archaeologists did not give them information about what they were doing, which made them gain control and therefore power and money (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18).

6.1.3 Interview with Participant four (P4) P4 informs that the National Monuments got asked to support the repatriation programme and helped the arrangements of getting the human skeletal remains back. The request was on the local people’s initiative (Participant 4 oral: 2019-11-25). The policies/legislations are meant to be the same as the National Heritage Law in Chile but P4 argue that the policies/legislations are not. Because the archaeological artefacts and human skeletal remains were during 1935 protected and classified as a national monument, in fact the whole island was, which means that the island is classified as public. In 1935 Rapa Nui was supposed to be protected by this law and if someone or anyone wants to do something with the artefacts or human skeletal remains they need to send a request through the National Monuments (Consejo de Monumentos of the State of Chile is the same as the National Heritage Commission) (Participant 4 oral: 2019-11-25). P4 argues that the human skeletal remains are more important than the archaeological artefacts because the people are the ancestors (Participant 4 oral: 2019-11-25). There is a big cultural tension between Rapa Nui and Chile, because Chile has come up with ideas in politics to demand/control Rapa Nui and their heritage. They say that they understand and that they listen and that they will recognize Rapa Nui as a native group, but they do not. P4 argues that Rapanui have a lot to work with, The National Law of Monuments needs to be changed (Participant 4 oral: 2019-11-25). 29

P4 explains that the Rapanui want to rebury, and according to them, reburial is the right thing to do, but P4 also argues that we need to think of the possibilities of doing studies in the future and that around 10% have been studied until November 2019. If the community wishes for a reburial within 10 years, it must be discussed (Participant 4 oral: 2019-11-25). There are some issues when the ancestors return, they reconnect to the island and need to rest to be reconnected to their mana, and therefore they need to be reburied. But since the community does not know where the human skeletal remains were collected, they do not know where to rebury them. Because the island is divided in tribes, and a person from one tribe cannot get buried inside someone else´s area. So, the repatriation programme suggested a sacred place, so the local people can connect with their ancestors (Participant 4 oral: 2019-11- 25). P4 believes that Rapanui need to decide about a neutral place, P4 believes it is difficult for the museum staff to guarantee that possibility of creating a new place. P4 argues that they need to modify the National Law because this is something new for Chile, the same issue exists in the Maori culture as well (Participant 4 oral: 2019-11-25). P4 thinks it is more than right for the local people to ask about getting their ancestors back, and thinks that if we are going to succeed, we need to decrease the conflict between the Chilean state and the . For this to happen, P4 means that the state also needs to listen to what really matters for the Rapa Nui people (Participant 4 oral: 2019-11-25). P4 means that all the museums around the world needs to be willing to help the Rapanui people and give their ancestors back to their home. Since the artefacts and human skeletal remains are classified as a national heritage. P4 works together with the Local Council of Monuments, and every decision that is decided outside the island needs to be presented to them, otherwise they would not follow the local´s restrictions (Participant 4 oral: 2019-11- 25). When a researcher wants to do an excavation on the island, they go to the National Heritage Commission first, and then they go to CODEIPA Rapanui and after the local permissions they need to go to the National Monuments in Chile mainland. So, the researcher needs a permission both from The Local Council of Monuments on the island and then from the National Council of Monuments. On Rapa Nui there are a lot of places where bones suddenly turn up and people who find them can easily take the bones as a trophy (Participant 4 oral: 2019-11-25).

6.1.4 Interview with Participant five (P5) P5 says that in the repatriation programme´s current situation, they need to talk to the community and then make a voting to decide where the reburial should take place (Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). The voting will focus on whether a reburial will happen or not, but that answer is already decided that it will occur. It is also about where. If there is documentation regarding some of the human skeletal remains that have been repatriated it is easier to locate their tribe area, because then they know where they were collected, so the Rapanui can just rebury them at the same place (Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). The repatriation programme has very detailed protocols regarding consultation on reburials, but for the human remains that have an unknown providence, they need to discuss with the community about their opinion. P5 teaches about repatriation at the University Catholica has also been collaborating with/participating in international repatriation projects. Besides repatriation P5 used to work as a consultant, for the National Service and Cultural Heritage in Santiago (Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). P5 inform that the island has policies regarding managing human remains, from the beginning, the museum had general policies in how to treat human remains. Further on the repatriation programme and the museum signed a contract of collaboration, one of the main focuses in the contract was about human skeletal remains that are going to be treated as what they are, ancestors and not an archaeological finding. This change was big, since the museum 30 belongs to the Chilean state, the human skeletal remains also belongs to the Chilean state but mainly the Chilean heritage law. The change was big in terms of politics, because the person who were managing the human remains during that time was a Rapanui elder, which means that the human skeletal remains were already treated as ancestors. This man was Pelayo Tuki. P5 describes Pelayo Tuki as the key figure in the repatriation program, he collaborated alongside the other elders to create the protocols. At the same time, the repatriation program created clear policies together with the community not just with the Rapanui elders, the whole community. The Local Council of Monuments, the elders, had protocols for the researchers that came to the island that wanted to study their ancestors, but in 2011 they decided to stop all kind of authorization for doing research on human skeletal remains on Rapa Nui. Even though the elders/the Local Council of Monuments are the most respected on Rapa Nui, but when it comes to the relation between the Chilean state and Rapa Nui, they do not have that much rights towards the Chilean heritage law. Fortunately, the protocols regarding approving research on Rapa Nui have some affection even though the National heritage law in Santiago approves a research to happen, they will not get their permission on Rapa Nui. One of the issues are that the repatriation program gets a lot of questions from researchers, if the program can negotiate with the local council of Rapa Nui so they would give the researcher their permission. But the only thing the repatriation program possibly can do is to mediate the researchers’ wish, even though the answer is always no, people know that it is still the Chilean state that has the last word anyway. P5 informs that people can go around the regulations. If they get this far, and that they do not get their permission, they seek to other museum that have Indigenous human skeletal remains in their storages and get their permission from them instead of asking the Indigenous culture (Participant 5 oral: 2020-04- 17). At the other museums it is possible to do analyses in terms of taking samples, but the repatriation program disapproves any kind of taking sample or exhibition on human skeletal remains. When it comes to the community, the majority disapprove to the idea of taking samples of their ancestors. Exhibiting human skeletal remains, disapproves by everyone. P5 believes that exhibiting human remains is the most violating thing you can see at a museum. P5 also means as a researcher and no relationship with ancestors, P5 hopes that they must have the approval from the community to exhibit human remains. They need to be clear of how and where their ancestors are, the main key in this is consultation, collaboration, and partnership (Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). P5 argues that repatriation is an Indigenous right, both to the repatriation program and to the UN, therefore it should be acknowledged. It has been made for all countries to sign a collaboration of repatriation, the UN Declaration on the rights of Indigenous people, and since everybody have signed it, they should all agree, but they do not. The contract say that decisions should be made together with the Indigenous people, but they do not, for example the Chilean state, they do not include Rapa Nui people in decisions. The repatriation program’s main goal is to make the state talk about it, if they are discussing it, then they have created something that is going to grow, and P5 means that they cannot make policies without the Indigenous people on Rapa Nui (Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). Regarding the repatriations that have already occurred such as the one from New Zealand, P5 means that the program started with that repatriation since it was from the Maori culture, and they know what Rapa Nui are going through. That understanding made the process a lot faster because they already had their legislations. For example, a country with or without legislations, no matter if they are for their own heritage or someone else´s they have an understanding. Even if the Chilean state has legislations, they are only national, this is when their database comes in use. This database contains all human skeletal remains around the world and makes it much easier to repatriate back to their home. Right now, the repatriation program knows where approx. 90% of all the human skeletal remains are in the world, however, the issue is when people do not answer. Regarding private collection that is ‘a whole different world’ – P5. When it comes to the artefacts, they have found approx. 90% of the

31 ones who are located in the US, but P5 says that they will be done with the unknown in the end of 2020 with 90% of all artefacts in Europe (Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). Rapa Nui where supposed to get back 109 human skeletal remains from Santiago, but because of the ongoing pandemic and closed borders (Covid19, 2020), it has been postponed. The repatriation is something different, because the human skeletal remains are in a national museum and it is basically just being moved to another national museum, but they want the human skeletal remains to come back to the people, not to the museum. The issue is that these human skeletal remains belongs to the national heritage law and should be once again treated as archaeological findings, even though they are not. Thanks to all the different actors on Rapa Nui, the local council of monuments, the Honui, the CODEIPA and local authorities, the preparations are done to receive the ancestors. When the human skeletal remains leaves one museum and goes to another one it is more of a restitution, there is a difference between repatriation and restitution. The Santiago case is more of a restitution because they are under the same government (Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). When human skeletal remains get repatriated back to the island, the program has policies about that as well and they come in two stages. The first one is the mandatory ceremony that occurs where the remains are coming from. So, for example when the repatriation from New Zealand happened, people travelled to New Zealand to have this ceremony. After the ceremony at the place, they have a specific policy for how the remains should be transported to Rapa Nui, they have to collaborate with airlines because they cannot just put the remains in an airplane and go, so the program must collaborates with the government to make sure that someone will be at the airport and meet them when they arrive to Rapa Nui. Once they have landed, the people start a ceremony from the airport to the sacred room, Hare Tapu Tu’u Ivi, which works as the temporary deposit while waiting at the museum for the reburial. When the ancestors arrive to the Hare Tapu there is another ceremony when the handing over of the human skeletal remains for their Tapu Pera period. It is an old tradition where they prepared the deceased person for their journey to the other world. This time is around two weeks according to P5, but P5 is not completely sure, but during this time, no one can visit or even open the door. Now that rest is more as a way of getting the order back because the people in Rapa Nui do not know what happened to them during this time. After the Tapu Pera time, people can come visit, talk to them, welcome them back and so on (Participant 5 oral: 2020- 04-17). The entire society are represented on the archaeological sites all around Rapa Nui because the island is divided into different areas, each family have their own area. That development took place when Hotu Matua (First legendary settler on Rapa Nui and king) distributed the land to his sons. These areas are now the people´s ancestors land, everyone today knows where their tribe areas are even though they do not live there. This means that every territory has archaeological findings and human skeletal remains in them and represents the whole community (Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). Researchers that comes to Rapa Nui to do studies, claim that their research will make the understanding better for the community, since the Rapa Nui people will know more about their heritage. This sounds good and maybe it is the reason behind the studies because knowledge is power, but when P5 asked the community, they repeatedly say that they do not get any chance to be a part of the result. P5 means that the research has been for the researcher not for the community and based on the historical events, looting, abusive behavior, and exploitation. P5 understands the lack of trust in the community and therefore that their answers towards research is no (Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17).

6.2 Analytical themes The interviews have been transcribed (see Appendices) and analysed through five different themes; they are all based on the interviewed participants on the Rapa Nui. The first one is what they think about repatriation and the treatment of human skeletal remains that belong to 32

Rapanui. The second specifies the International, the National and the Rapanui guidelines and what perspective the participants think a management and repatriation should appear and if the Rapanui have any general guidelines that should be mandatory. The third theme is about their ethical perspective within repatriations and how the participants think they are followed now and should be in upcoming repatriations. The fourth is about the colonialism, because it is discussed and used as an argument from every participant. The last one is repetitive issues about repatriation and the management of human skeletal remains.

6.2.1 Opinions about repatriation and management of human skeletal remains The participants argue that the repatriation of both archaeological artefacts and human skeletal remains, are important for the Rapanui, they are considered as their ancestors and that they are alive through all things by a spiritual connection. They agree that everyone need to start treating human skeletal remains as human beings. One of the workers at the museum always greets the ancestors when entering the storage where the human skeletal remains are kept. They also agree that all archaeological findings that have their heritage on Rapa Nui belongs to the people on Rapa Nui and to show the ancestors respect, the museum does not exhibit any human skeletal remains (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18 & Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). When human skeletal remains return to the island it is meant for them to get reburied and for that they need to find a neutral place. The island was and still is divided in tribe areas which means that no place on Rapa Nui is neutral for an unknown tribe belonging. It is therefore the Local Council of Monuments responsibility to decide a neutral place for their ancestors to get reburied at (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18; Participant 4 oral: 2019- 11-25 & Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). The participants agree that the human skeletal remains within the storage at the museum are alive to the people and that they need to be close to their relatives to prevent feeling lonely. The ancestral remains are kept in a separate room because they are treated in another way, they follow other regulations. This room is called Hare Tapu and to this room, all repatriated ancestors arrive when they are coming back. The repatriation programme that Mama Piru created, is working together with the local people, where they can discuss, reflect, organize, and starting contacting museum all over the world to present repatriation issues to the authorities. The local people argue that the hardest thing for a non-Rapanui to understand is that the protocols and guidelines within a repatriation are not just papers and policies, they are more practices and an understanding that differ between every repatriation. It is spiritual, the Tupuna, cosmogony that exists in everything and if scientists want to study these things, the researchers need to include the local people and let them participate and let them guide the researchers in what they find interesting. They continue saying that it only brings more problems than understanding if the researcher does not include the local people (Participant 1 oral:2020-11-21). The participants claims that the human skeletal remains are a priority to the Indigenous people to get back, because they are their ancestors and they need to rest to be reconnected to their spiritual power, their mana which happens when the ancestor gets reburied. It is more than right for the local people to get their ancestors back and that it is also the decision of the local people if they want to rebury them, and the studies of the ancestors need to be considered because it is only 10% of the total amount is now analysed. Exhibiting human skeletal remains is disapproved by everyone, it is the most violating thing you can see at a museum. If the museum choses to do it anyway they should have permission from the community and the community decides how and where they should be presented. The main key in this is consultation, collaboration, and partnership. When it comes to taking samples, most of the people on Rapa Nui do not approve. Since repatriation is an Indigenous right, it should be acknowledged. The Rapanui were supposed to get back their 109 human remains from Santiago, but because of the ongoing political difficult situation in mainland Chile since the autumn 2019 and the pandemic situation (2020), it has been postponed. The repatriation is different, 33 because the human skeletal remains that are coming back to Rapa Nui are within the national museum and they are being moved to another national museum, but the local people want the human skeletal remains to come back to the people, not to the museum (Participant 1 oral: 2020-11-21 & Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17).

6.2.2 General guidelines regarding management of human skeletal remains and repatriation The museum on Rapa Nui does not have regulations that are specifically presenting the managing of human skeletal remains (Participants 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). The museum stands between the Local Council of Monuments and the Chilean heritage law, which means that all artefacts and human skeletal remains are national heritage and therefore belong to the state. The museum mainly makes their decisions based on what the Local council of Monuments says, and it also support the Council to make decisions whether researchers can do studies on artefacts or human skeletal remains. The participants argue that the Rapa Nui collection of human skeletal remains are the most studied collection. The most efficient way of making a policy for the Rapanui people is to let the Local Council of Monuments make decisions for every researcher. The participants informs that the museum therefore supports the Local Council of Monuments in every decision because a repatriation and management of the remains will occur, according to the museum in the most ethical way for the Indigenous people and for the ancestors following the Councils policies. The museum argues that the cultural heritage law needs to adapt more towards what is relevant today for example regarding repatriation, and it is problematic because even though the Rapanui ancestors return to the island, they still belong to the Chilean state as a national heritage (Participants 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). The Local Council of Monuments decides how the artefacts and the human skeletal remains should be treated and that the Chilean state understands that the Rapanui have their own protocols, but they do not like it because it is something new (Participant 1 oral:2019-11- 21). The policies and the legislations are meant to be the same on Rapa Nui as it is in the Chilean state, because in 1935 all human skeletal remains and artefacts on the island got protected by the national law, which means that whatever happens on the island, they need to go through the national heritage law. The Chilean state claims to understand, listen and are going to recognize Rapa Nui as a native group, but they do not. Therefore, the Rapanui needs to work extra hard and that the national heritage law need to change. Rapanui believes that the they need to figure out a neutral place for them to rebury their ancestors but that it might be hard for the museum to get it approved, because participant four argues that this is a new thing for the Chilean state, the same issue exists in the Maori as well. To develop a cooperation between the Chilean state and Rapanui, the state needs to start listening to the Rapanui so their conflict can decrease. When researchers wants to study anything from Rapa Nui they first go to the Local Heritage Commission and then they need to apply within the CODEIPA, after that, they go to National Council Monuments in the Chilean state and all the answers that they receive needs to be presented to the Local Council of Monuments otherwise they break the local restrictions. The researcher therefore need permission from both Local Council of Monuments and the National Council of Monuments (Participant 4 oral: 209-11- 25). The repatriation programme has very detailed protocols regarding consultation on reburials but further discussions among the Indigenous people needs to be done in terms of where they are going to rebury their ancestors. The island has policies regarding the management of human skeletal remains, from the beginning, the museum had general policies in how to treat them. Further on the repatriation programme and the museum signed a contract of collaboration, one of the focuses in the contract was about human skeletal remains that the human skeletal remains are going to be treated as what they are, ancestors and not an

34 archaeological finding. The elders on Rapa Nui created general protocols in managing human skeletal remains. At the same time, the repatriation programme created clear policies together with the community not just with the Rapa Nui elders, the whole community. The Local Council of Monuments, the elders, had protocols for the researchers that came to the island that wanted study their ancestors. In 2011 they decided to stop all kind of authorization for doing research on human remains on Rapa Nui. Even though the elders/the Local Council of Monuments are the most respected on Rapa Nui, but when it comes to the relation between the Chilean state and Rapa Nui, they do not have that much rights towards the Chilean heritage law. Fortunately, the protocols regarding, because even if the National Heritage Law in Santiago approves a research to happen, they will not get their permission on Rapa Nui. The repatriation program’s main goal is to make the state talk about it, if they are discussing it, then they have created something that is going to grow, and participant five means that the Chilean state cannot make policies without the Indigenous people on Rapa Nui. The latest repatriation on Rapa Nui was from New Zealand, the repatriation program started with that repatriation since it was from the Maori culture, and they know what Rapa Nui are going through (Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). The understanding made the process a lot faster because the Maori already had their legislations. For example, a country with or without legislations, no matter if they are for their own heritage or someone else´s they have an understanding. Even if the Chilean state has legislations, they are only nationally recognized, this is when the database comes in use, which the repatriation program is working on. Thanks to a database containing 90 % of the Rapanui ancestral human skeletal remains around the world, it will be easier to repatriate back to their home (Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). The issue is that these human skeletal remains belong to the national heritage law and could be once again treated as archaeological findings, even though they are not. When a human skeletal remain leaves one museum and goes to another one it is more of a restitution, there is a difference between repatriation and restitution in the case with Santiago is more of a restitution because they are under the same government (Participant 1 oral: 2019-11-21).

6.2.3 Ethical perspectives in repatriation According to the museum on Rapa Nui, the most ethical way of repatriate and in the future rebury, is to locate the ancestor’s tribe and after that rebury them at their tribe area. The museum has decided to support the local council of monuments and the people of Rapa Nui. Mama Piru, as mentioned above, created the repatriation program, and travelled around the world to locate every archaeological finding and ancestor. The museum aims to lecture the researchers that arrive to the island in purpose of doing studies, they want to lecture them in how to include the society and how the researchers can interact and spread the knowledge that they achieve. The museum thinks the state should develop how the human skeletal remains are treated and change how the collections are kept (Participants 2 & 3oral: 2019-11-18). The Ministry of culture has been creating meetings with actors from all over the world to discuss ethical perspectives regarding managing human skeletal remain collections. Within this group where the museum is a part of, they have interest of creating some sort of policies whenever human skeletal remains appear on the island of Rapa Nui. Within this group it has appeared that most of the ones involved are primarily interested in repatriating all human skeletal remains back to their origin (Participant 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). Participant five is a part of the repatriation programme and describes their connection to occur to the community with passion and feelings by letting them participate and lead every decision and learn from the elders in the society. According to the participants, the museum on Rapa Nui has plans on building a bigger storage and they want to design it in a traditional way, then according to participant three it will be possible to keep all repatriated artefacts and ancestors. Participant three argues that if there is a discussion about repatriation, things will happen, the more they work with it, the faster the human skeletal remains will come back to 35 its origin. Participant three is both Indigenous and an archaeologist and it is possible to both include researchers and respect, since the Indigenous part can make decisions based on what it is most ethical for the people. As an archaeologist it is not possible to say no when a researcher wants to do studies in the storage but if they want to take the human skeletal remains away from the storage the participant three can make a decision based on what the local council of monuments say. Suggestions about a sacred place where the local people can interact with their ancestors that are brought back. Every museum around the world needs to be willing to help Rapa Nui by bringing back their ancestors (Participant 3 oral: 2019-11-18). To make a repatriation in the most ethical way possible, the repatriation programme created policies together with the local people and it comes in two stages: The first policy is the mandatory ceremony that occurs where the remains are coming from. When the repatriation will occur, a Rapanui travels to the museum where the human skeletal remains are located and there, they have a ceremony. After the ceremony, the Rapanui follows the chosen policies for this specific repatriation. Collaborations with airlines and the government to make sure that someone meets them when they land. After landing, the ceremony of transportation starts from the airport and goes to the Hare Tapu Tu’u Ivi, at the museum and rest until the reburial. At the Hare Tapu, they have another ceremony to prepare the deceased one for the journey to the other world. The first two weeks after they have returned no one can visit or even open the door. Now that rest is more a way of getting the order back because the people in Rapa Nui do not know what happened to them during this time. After the Tapu Pera time (the rest), people can come visit, talk to them, welcome them back and so on (Participant 1 oral: 2019-11-21 & Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17).

6.2.4 Connections to post-colonialism For several centuries, archaeologists and travellers came to the island and brought archaeological artefacts and human skeletal remains back to their homes, their countries. Then a big tension started between foreign archaeologists and the local people and the participants says that the Rapanui feel like they are guinea pigs. Mainly because the local people did not get a chance of participating in the information that the researchers achieved, but also that the foreign researchers are making money on someone else’s cultural heritage without sharing any results to the community (Participants 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). The Indigenous people, based on the past, the colonialization, they just want their ancestors to be left alone (Participant 1 oral: 2019-11-21). Research has only been created for the researcher not for the community, based on the historical events, looting, abusive behavior and exploitation, the lack of trust in the community comes from these historical events and therefore their answers towards research are no (Participants 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18 & Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). Current issues is the researchers that ignores what the local people decide, if the local people decide to say no to someone’s research request, then the researcher goes to another storage perhaps in another country where they also keep Indigenous ancestors. In this other country and other storage, they will probably be allowed doing research, including taking samples and the Indigenous culture where these human skeletal remains belong, are totally unaware.

6.2.5 Issues in legislations and collaborations There are many issues regarding the whole repatriation and reburial systems, for example, ongoing repatriation project from the state of Chile with 109 human skeletal remains cannot be reburied when arriving back to their home, both because the remains cannot be buried in wrong territory but also because the human skeletal remains still belong to the Chilean state. This encourages the political issues which began with the slave raids during 18th and 19th century and very often, the issues are involving money and excluding the local people as 36 mentioned earlier. Money takes control and control makes power (Participants 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18 & Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). Issues when repatriating, the Indigenous people need a neutral place for them to rebury their ancestors, because the island is divided into tribe areas and several of the soon to be repatriated human skeletal remains do not have a specific area. Further issues are also when repatriating, the National law of Chile says that every archaeological artefacts and human skeletal remain belongs to the society and depending on the position at work, for participant three, it is impossible to say no to researchers that wants to study and at the same time it goes against the policies within the local council of monuments on the island (Participant 3 oral: 2019-11-18). The participants always decide based on what the Local Council of Monuments say, and the answer is most likely no. When the interest of repatriation occurred, people complained, because they did not know what was public and what was not and the protocols that was created is not made for all repatriations. The Western societies want written protocols but in case of repatriation it is more useful for the opposite country to use the people instead, because they know how the repatriation should occur. Because they are different between every case and depends on the matter, for example, how many the human skeletal remains are and where they are. Rapa Nui has had great help from the Maori people, because they are almost like cousins, and therefore Rapa Nui can use their protocols of rights. The first repatriation that occurred to Rapa Nui was from Aotearoa and this repatriation happened through the representatives of the repatriation program, which means by the Rapanui people. They decided what was going to happen with the human skeletal remains. At this moment the repatriation went against Chilean law of monuments and became a big issue and Rapanui had to fight for two years because the Chilean system never agrees to the conditions because they are unconstitutional and it claims that the human remains are a property of the state. If the Chilean state would have a representative from Rapa Nui, they would get all the knowledge they need about the ancestral importance of the Rapanui. As mentioned above, the policies and legislations are meant to be the same on Rapa Nui and in Chile, but the Chilean state does not listen. There is a big tension between the Chilean state and Rapa Nui because the Chilean state has come up with ideas in politics to control Rapa Nui and their heritage. The lack of neutral places for the ancestors to get reburied also goes against the national heritage law and loses the possibilities to do further studies on the human skeletal remains. Since the museum on Rapa Nui belongs to the Chilean state, the human skeletal remains also belongs to the Chilean state but mainly the Chilean heritage law. One of the issues is that the repatriation programme gets a lot of questions from researchers, if the programme can negotiate with the local council of Rapa Nui so they would give the researcher their permission. But the only thing the repatriation programme possible can do is to mediate the researchers wish, even though the answer is always no, people know that it is still the Chilean state that has the last word anyway. People can go around the regulations. If they get this far, and that they do not get their permission, they seek to other museum that have Indigenous human remains in their storages and get their permission from them instead. At the other museums it is possible to do analyzes in terms of taking samples, even though the repatriation program and most of the Rapanui disapproves (Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). Further issues are that it has been made for all countries to sign a collaboration of repatriation, the UN Declaration on the rights of Indigenous people, because everybody signed it, they should all agree, but they do not. The declaration say that decisions should be made together with the Indigenous people, but they do not, for example the Chilean state, they do not include Rapa Nui people in decisions. The last issue is researchers that comes to Rapa Nui to do studies, claim that their research will make the understanding better for the community, the Rapa Nui people will know more about their heritage. This sounds good and maybe it is the reason behind the study because knowledge is power, but when participant

37 five asked the community, they repeatedly say that they do not get any chance to be a part of the result (Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17).

6.3 Participant observation While living on Rapa Nui for a month, we went to almost every site within the National Park and we went on cultural nights with dances, we met many different actors, both private and companies. I got invited to Barbeque together with Mattarena Tuki Haoa and her family. I ate their food and drank their drinks, I danced, and I watched the Rapanui live their culture for example the Kari Kari show (see figure 12). By doing all of this, their culture got presented as something that has been taking a break for a while but are now coming back at least what I understood from what the local people told me. Isaias Hey showed me around the island by bike and we visited caves (see figure 13) and all kinds of hidden places where I as a tourist never would have found. Every Moai that we passed; he knew the name of. The team got invited to Sonia Haoa and her husband for dinner, an archaeologist that told stories about the island and what she had done as an archaeologist. I got to know her opinions that might not match every other Rapanui, but she gave me another perspective on repatriation and reburials. By taking a part of their life for a month really helped the understanding of how important their culture is and how important most of the people I met thinks of their ancestors and traditions. I also got to know that the Chilean people on Rapa Nui that I met, are supporting the Indigenous people with their repatriations and their right. The spiritual value of every artefact and/or human skeletal remain that are in the textbooks were true. The textbooks say that if you turn a rock you will find archaeological findings, that is also true. I saw handcrafted tools while our host showed us around the house and associated areas, while climbing a cave. I found a human femur, which also supports the textbooks of the ancestors burying their relatives in the caves.

38

Figure 12 Kari Kari show, two horses out in the wild, and local dinner with blue sweet potato and ceviche. Photos taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

39

7. Discussion of the five analysed themes

Within the following chapter, the themes from the analysis are presented with a broader perspective. All five themes are interconnected, the Rapanui view of repatriation and human skeletal remains are the main views that are going to underlie the establishment of ethical guidelines that covers international, national and Rapanui legislations. The guidelines are bearing in mind the previous events of colonialization and issues about legislations. Rapa Nui is not the only Indigenous culture in the world that has been exploited and colonized more than once. I choose to use the Sámi culture because it strengthens the arguments towards an abusive past for several Indigenous people in the world. I choose the Sámi because they have experienced numerous of exploitation and are struggling with gaining their cultural rights.

7.1 Opinions about repatriation and management of human skeletal remains Since the human skeletal remains are the ancestors of the people on Rapa Nui, in the same way that our great grandparents are our ancestors, Rapanui wants them to return to the island and the Sámi wants their ancestors to return to them. To personalize more, imagine if your ancestors, your closest ancestors for example, where located somewhere else, it would be totally normal for your family to get them back. How people see their ancestors differs in every culture. The Sámi argues that, the importance is that the human skeletal remains comes home, not how they are stored and that they get reburied in the ground where they belong, they do not belong in a university (Svestad 2013:198-199; Svestad 2019). Within different cultures, people value different objects, Sámi values among many other artefacts, their drums, since they have a spiritual value, just as the human skeletal remains and archaeological artefacts have within Rapanui. Sámi are trying to repatriate what is left of the drums at different museums (Ojala 2009:90; Svestad 2019). One big repatriation that occurred 2019 was with 25 individuals in Lycksele, where the Sámi ancestors got excavated during 1950 (Aurelius 2019:7). In writing moment, Sametinget announced that the 21st of October Sámi will rebury a skull from a man that has been within the collections of Uppsala University. He will be reburied in Lycksele, but because of the ongoing pandemic the ceremony will be private (Sametinget 2020). Rapanui ancestors are connected to the island in a spiritual way and live within every archaeological artefact and human skeletal remains (Participants 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18; Participant 1 oral: 2019-11-21 & Participant 5 oral: 2020-04-17). I argue that it means that the Rapanui value their artefacts just as much as their ancestral remains. When the ancestors come back to the island, they get their spiritual power back in the Hare Tapu, which prevents from feeling lonely (Participant 1 oral: 2019-11-21). According to their belief, the human skeletal remains should be treated as humans, by the whole world. I argue that it should be obvious for everyone to respect each other’s cultural heritages and treat them in such ways. All the participants in the interview, mean that all human skeletal remains should come back to the island, where they belong. Based on the guidelines I argue that repatriation is an Indigenous right, and everyone should be aware of the rights and act by them. All participants argue that when the human skeletal remains are coming back to the island, the Rapanui people are discussing where the human skeletal remains should be reburied. So they can get their mana back, which also works in a spiritual way. While talking to the Rapanui people and the participants about what they think of their ancestors they all mentioned the word ‘Tupuna’. 40

Also, by take all participant observation in consideration, Tupuna is something cosmogony and connects with their spirits. I believe that the meaning of the word ‘Tupuna’ is different for every individual in the society but that it is spiritual for Rapanui. Therefore, all human skeletal remains of any culture should have the opportunity to get a proper funeral and ceremony within their culture (Hubert and Fforde 2002). By not exhibiting human skeletal remains points out the importance of how alive the Rapanui ancestors are. One of the participants argues that the most violating thing you can do is to exhibit human skeletal remains. I argue that the degree of violence depends on how and what the museums use to present the human skeletal remains. If the exhibition is made by the Indigenous people themselves, I think it would be in the correct way, if there is any. If the Indigenous people would not be included in the exhibition, it would most likely harm the culture. For me, as an archaeologist but mainly with the alignment as an osteologist, I do not meet the exhibited human skeletal remains in a judgmental way, when it is presented as what it is, not as a story-telling situation that are made up mainly for the visitors. I am also trained to see the importance, the ethical perspectives, and the human within the human skeletal remains. Others might not, and therefore, the most important thing to do, is to let the appropriate culture of the current human skeletal remains decide. The human skeletal remains should be presented as living human beings for the local people and not as a touristic site. On the other hand, why should they even be shown and placed for the people to see them, maybe they want to be remembered the way they were before they died and that is not something anyone can decide, only the Indigenous people. Further possible violent actions are when taking samples of human skeletal remains, the participants say that some of the Indigenous people are against taking any sample, while some approves. The Indigenous people that approves says that if they can sacrifice a tooth from their ancestors to know more about them, they want to do it. As an archaeologist I also see the value of doing researchers of human skeletal remains, but by doing researchers on ancestors of another culture the Indigenous people’s wish gets ignored again. When the ancestors return to the island, they meet issues about not having a known tribe and by taking samples, which means that the one who approves samples, still do not know if they are within their tribe. The Rapanui need a correct comparable DNA sample to get a result. It is easier with the ancestors that the local people can trace back to a specific tribe, then the Rapanui would also know where to rebury them. On the other hand, this study would also mean that you need to take DNA samples from living people today, which clearly is something the Rapanui needs to decide. From the perspective of an archaeologist from the west it is common to do studies on human skeletal remains, but when it comes to Indigenous people you need a special permission and can only do the study in the storage where they are kept. By looking at it, from an archaeologist’s perspective as some of the participants are, they care for the continuing of research and develop further understanding of the past. The issue is if a reburial occurs information might get wasted since only 10% have been analysed before, a research of the would gain a lot of information before a reburial. The mindset of reburying might be an interference of the ancestor’s rest. On the other hand, I argue that the scientific studies do not need to be done by anyone but the Rapanui themselves, they have educated people and they live by the culture and therefore have the most ethical perspective. Why would the scientists not be satisfied by the oral traditions, they are also seen as an archaeological resource, that would mean that the world does not need to study the human skeletal remains (Lajos 2015:43- 48). I argue that the human skeletal remains, the Rapanui ancestors would be left in peace without any further research and the Rapanui get to decide what they want to do with the human skeletal remains and have a chance to rebury them as they appear to. In managing and repatriating human skeletal remains I totally agree on the value of collaboration, consultation, and partnership. The Indigenous people would get the chance of telling their story and their needs and the country or state that are currently managing the Rapa Nui ancestors would have to accept and follow their requests.

41

It is necessary to include the local people, they should guide the researcher into what they want to know more about. On one hand, it is the ultimate way of starting collaboration, consultation, and partnership and to develop actual issues and interests on Rapa Nui. On the other hand, it might be difficult for the researcher to reach the local people’s expectations and be able to do what the researcher finds interesting. If the researcher’s interest is the most important aspect, then the goal of reaching collaboration, consultation and partnership will most likely fail and the development of collaboration goes back to the start again. During a repatriation, most of the participants argue that there is no special policy or legislation to follow, they are more like a practice who differ from every case. Conclusively about what the Rapanui thinks about repatriation and the treatment of human skeletal remains. The Rapanui wants repatriation to occur because they want their ancestors back and that everyone should start treating their ancestors as human beings. If the governments are talking about repatriation, human skeletal remains and archaeological artefacts will start to return to the island.

7.2 General guidelines regarding management of human skeletal remains and repatriation The Rapanui have their own way of welcoming their ancestors but also during funerals. They celebrate with a feast, they sing, dance, with flowers and white clothes and in the past, the Rapanui reburied their ancestors in their garden which is a traditional way in Polynesia. By reading article 11 and 12 (see chapter 5.1 Global guidelines) the United Nation of Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, I claim that it appears clear that Rapanui should be allowed to rebury their ancestors in the same way as their tradition says (Participants 2 & 3 oral: 2019-11-18). The issue of making guidelines of how to manage artefacts and human skeletal remains in countries with big collections are that the focus and expenses are put on stopping the trading and export of the findings. This means that the focus on protecting and managing the different sites and findings gets less prioritised (Gibbon 2005:291). To protect and actually take care of the sites, countries that are extremely developed with preventing export, automatically encourages to make inventories of their storages and rely on importation parts, that they do their job (Gibbon 2005:292). Bunker argues that while identifying evidence within an exportation, there are several issues, in terms of lack of documentation, for example regarding a loan, often the loans are anonymous in case of security but that is also an illegal action because the artefacts are then classified as hidden (Bunker 2005:313). Based on the interviews and by observing and talking to people on Rapa Nui, the issues do not seem to lay primarily within the lack of policies and legacies. It is more about whether researchers or other people outside of Rapa Nui understands the practices within repatriations and reburials for the Rapanui. My theory is specifically based on the National Heritage Law in Chile. As mentioned earlier the National Heritage Law does not approve reburials when the repatriation has occurred. My assumption is also based on the lack of understanding towards how the Rapanui wants their repatriation to occur even though the Rapanui clearly shows and argues about their cultural wishes for their ancestors. In the first quote in chapter 5, ICOM says that the museum is responsible to ensure and support the cultural heritages and scientific studies, it sounds good, but I argue that the museum collide with the wish of the culture. If a researcher wants to do studies, but the members of the local community do not want them to. What does the museum choose to support when they cannot be combined? ICOM says that the collection within every museum have a responsibility for documentation and how the collections are managed, and that the public should trust them. First, ICOM does not mention who the public are, and second, they want to manage them in a correct way, who decides what is correct and for whom? The second quote means that if the museum are the ones who decides regulations about the

42 collections, and the museum are a part of the National legislations. I argue that it means that the policies can therefore not be custom for the Indigenous people´s policies because they, yet again go against each other. If the collections are supposed to be passed on to the upcoming generations, they should be treated in the way that the local community says they should be, otherwise, whose culture truly passes on through the Rapanui human skeletal remains? In that term the museums should use quote one in chapter 5, to promote and preserve the cultural heritages. Meanwhile, ICOM also says that the researchers need to treat the collections based on what the Indigenous people say, but they do not have that in mind, in this case, the Rapanui wants to repatriate and rebury. Still, do researchers have the possibility of taking samples and analyse the Rapanui ancestors in any other location than on the island, because the legislation says that their ancestors are ‘public’. The international legislations and the legislations in the Chilean state do not match since within the international sector the preservation of Indigenous cultures (WAC, see chapter 5.1) have more worth. Unlike the Chilean legislations (see chapter 5.2), they do not adjust to preserve the Indigenous culture on Rapa Nui. To reach the guidelines from WAC, I claim that the Chilean archaeologists within WAC need to start adapting to the wishes from Rapa Nui and the Chilean state need to adapt to the UN Declaration of cultural heritage rights. When ICOM developed their code of Ethics for Natural History Museum, they most occurred as a respect towards remaining Indigenous cultures to include everyone in research and a way of adapting towards the Indigenous wishes, but only towards the ones that are within ICOM. Museums have particular responsibilities to all for the care, accessibility and interpretation of primary evidence collected and held in their collections. – ICOM 2018:18. The quote actually speaks for itself but the museum, or rather, the one responsible for the storages where the human skeletal remains are kept, have a responsibility to manage the ancestors of someone else’s heritage until the Indigenous culture they belong to, are able to do it themselves. The quote or the legislation do not say how they should be managed only that they should. According to me, this quote is contradictory to the first quote above, where they mention that the museum are the ones who decides about the management. Museums have an important duty to develop their educational role and attract wider audiences from the community, locality, or group they serve. Interaction with the constituent community and promotion of their heritage is an integral part of the educational role of the museum. – ICOM 2018:24. The museums are responsible for spreading the knowledge, yet again it does not say how or what information and nor do they have any guidelines. Museums must conform fully to international, regional, national, and local legislation and treaty obligations. In addition, the governing body should comply with any legally binding trusts or conditions relating to any aspect of the museum, its collections, and operations. – ICOM 2018:36. The museums that are a part of ICOM must conform to the international legislation that have decided that all human skeletal remains are classified as archaeological findings and therefore belongs to the state. The museum also need to conform to the National Law that refuses to identify Rapanui as an Indigenous culture and also agrees with the International Law, and meanwhile they also conform to the Local legislations, in this case the Local Council of Monuments. The Local Council wants to repatriate every ancestor and then rebury them, but they are not allowed to do that since, yet again, the human skeletal remains are protected by the Law.

43

7.3 Ethical perspectives in repatriation According to all participants the most ethical way of a repatriation to occur is to do it the way Rapanui wants to, let them lead and make every decision. Through the repatriation programme, the local people made their own policies on how a repatriation will occur in the most ethical way, it comes in two steps as mentioned above: When the repatriation from New Zealand happened, local people travelled to New Zealand to have this ceremony. After the ceremony, they have a specific policy for how the remains should be transported to Rapa Nui. They must collaborate with different actors to ease their way back. After they have landed, the people start a ceremony from the airport to the sacred room, Hare Tapu Tu’u Ivi, which works as the temporary deposit, while waiting at the museum for the reburial. When the ancestors arrive to the Hare Tapu there is another ceremony when the deposit the human remains for their Tapu Pera period, where they prepared the deceased person for their journey to the other world. Around two weeks and no one can visit or even open the door. The resting-time is more like a way of getting the order back within the society and for the ancestors, especially since they have been away for so long. After the Tapu Pera time, people can come and visit, talk to them, welcome them back and so on. I would like to commend these guidelines towards the Indigenous culture and every non-Indigenous culture, not for them to apply to their cultures but to understand and develop their own. Just as the Rapanui got guidance from Maori during the repatriation and the Sámi got help by the Australian ambassador during the repatriation in Lycksele (Aurelius 2019:35). Further most ethical repatriation would be for the Indigenous people to rebury their ancestors in their tribe areas. For this to happen, everyone needs to support the Local Council of Monuments and the people of Rapa Nui. Participant one, two, and three aims to lecture every scientist that comes to the island with a researching purpose in how they would be able to include the society and how to spread their results. All the participants argues that the state needs to develop their way of keeping the human skeletal remains and some of them are currently fighting for a new storage where they can keep their repatriated ancestors and archaeological artefacts in the most ethical way for them. By ‘for them’ I mean that it is up to the society to decide what should happen to their ancestors. I would like to emphasize that the closest relative in the western society decides how and where their relative should be buried, why would it differ within another culture? As an archaeologist, again we see the value of developing further understanding of other cultures and societies. An archaeologist should be aware of the different perspectives on the management of human skeletal remains. I cannot speak for all of them, but I can argue that the archaeological education gives the researcher enough knowledge of how to respect and think in ethical perspectives towards their own culture and other´s. Therefore, the most ethical way cannot be set in stone, since it differs in every society, on the other hand it really does not differ, it is all about respect and the only thing that differ is how they want to be respected. Based on the interviews the most ethical way of achieving repatriation is through consultation, collaboration, communication and partnership between Indigenous people and the government that has the human skeletal remains from the minorities. The initiative should be on the government of bringing the human skeletal remains back to their homes and I suggest that Indigenous cultures make use of other Indigenous cultures policies while creating their own.

7.4 Connections to post-colonialism The participants argue that the Rapanui are sick of letting other people study their ancestors since they in no way can take a part of the results. The local people repeatable feel like guinea pigs and that foreign scientists earn money on their heritage. They agree on how tired they all are of foreign researchers and colonizers from the past to constantly disturb their ancestral rest. Based on the looting and violence from the past, when travellers and archaeologists came

44 to the island with their abusive behaviour and took away their ancestors in terms of studies and black market. The researchers claimed that their research is made for the society, but it is not and therefor the Local Council of Monuments always say no when people want to do studies on their ancestors. I argue that, when the researchers say that the research is made for the society, they go back to increasing the big gap between the Indigenous people and the western culture (Atalay 2006:281) (see chapter 3). Then the researcher will risk an unaware aim where the research reflects the western societies (Atalay 2006:280). As I mentioned above, Rapa Nui is not the only culture in the world that has been through exploitation and violence. The Sámi have been and are still going through struggles of getting the world to accept their Indigenous culture. For them, the Christian mission came and changed their religion during the 17th and 18th century. The Christian missionaries claimed the Sámi religions specialist (noaidi), to be evil and possessed, which encouraged of witchcraft and destruction of their tools (Ojala 2009:90). Both Sámi and Rapanui got exposed through trading and the black market and at the end, the closest societies saw a huge opportunity to explore and abuse a culture. The Sámi ended up identified as Finnish, Swedish, Norwegian, and Danish just like the Rapanui became Chilean by law. Sámi and Rapanui are two of all cultures in the world exploited towards Western society and they both were and are still today seen as something Ojala explains as exotic and interesting to study (Ojala 2009:91). Today´s studies about Sámi, researchers discuss from a post-colonial perspective and argues that the colonialization was a mutual exchange between the colonizers and the colonized people. According to me and other scientists, these people have a lack of understanding and lives in a denial state of mind, where they again oppress the once colonized Indigenous people. Duncan Sayer (2010) argues that: The post-colonial situation means there is arguably a global responsibility to help rebuild the identities and cultures of people around the world, and the repatriation of human remains seems to have become recognised means to facilitate the reconstruction of Indigenous identities.- (Sayer 2010:115). I argue that by rebuilding and treat the Indigenous people with respect, the whole world could witness different cultures flourish which would also bring new understandings. I also argue that when Rapa Nui got colonised for the first time, when they were forced to leave their tribe areas and follow the Western beliefs, the Indigenous culture of Rapa Nui slowly developed towards something that is not Rapa Nui. For example, as I mentioned I chapter 2.1, the last Birdman was in 1860, which was during the same time as the ongoing slave raids on Rapa Nui. I assume that the Rapanui tradition most likely got affected and stopped because of the exploiters. The world owes them all respect that they can possibly need to get all their Rapa Nui culture back. Maybe will that respect someday make a mutual exchange of cultures where the Western societies do not lead or decides anything.

7.5 Issues in legislations and collaborations Based on the thoughts of Charles L. Redman (1999) I argue that there is a difference in approaching new environment with other perspectives and religious backgrounds. The western society is based on the Bible that basically says that human beings are put on earth to reproduce and use whatever in the environment that they can put their hands on, like if the environment is put there to please every human. Meanwhile in other cultures, Redman argues that they cherish the nature where they live together in a harmony (Redman 1999:17-23). As you can notice in the interviews and by reading about the Rapa Nui society and as I noticed in my participant observation when I was there. For example, Rapanui cherishes its nature, the animals and each other and their culture, not trying to change someone else’s culture, Sámi cherishes their reindeers their forests and their cultural legacies, among others. The most important thing I think is that they have the right of choosing the nature and/or their animals

45 for example, they have the right of deciding for themselves and not what another culture wants. The urge to start collecting archaeological artefacts and human remains began hundreds of years ago. For example, the excavators of the Roman empire took artefacts and human skeletal remains from Egypt and traded them for different favours and other objects. The artefacts spread through the world and ended up at different museums and probably in private collections (Kozloff 2005:183). Further examples of collecting behaviours was the art from the altar of Pergamon, which also spread around the world (Coggins 2005:233-234). Coggins mentions that South America had its most chaotic times regarding collections of artefacts during the 16th century based on a quote from the Art Journal: “Not since the sixteenth century has Latin America been so ruthlessly plundered”. This quote is from when the policies regarding the treatment of artefacts took place, UNESCO, and several museums. Coggins argues about what drives the Black markets forward and puts the focus on if it must do anything with the economics (Coggins 2005:233-234). Within the Human right, I think this is a suitable perspective; the law says that you as an owner have the right to move your property, which includes your things, anywhere you want. Therefore, if someone would steal your art, for example, it develops an issue, because if the art is older than 50 years, it belongs to the state as an archaeological artefact and automatically belongs to the people. On one hand it is still classified as stealing, but on the other hand, is it illegal to steel art that practically belongs also to the thief? (Merryman 2005:282). Merryman mentions a very arguable issue, of course it is still theft, but what I aim for by using this argument is that there are loopholes in every law, that makes it possible for researchers to find a way in even though they are not allowed in theory. I argue that the issues regarding both Rapa Nui and Sámi is the lack of recognition about their colonial past. Chile does not recognize the Rapanui culture as Indigenous people of their country, and some Scandinavian people cannot accept the Sámi as Indigenous people. In fact, I argue they are not Indigenous people of these two countries they are two Indigenous cultures that happens to exist in today´s Sweden and Chile (Ojala 2009:92). The Rapanui culture and Sámi culture are also similar with the variation of wishes among the people. Within the Rapanui culture a part of the local people wants to do research on their ancestors, so they can learn more from them. While others within the same culture are strictly against any sort of research, and the same variation exists in the Sámi culture. I can imagine that this variation makes it difficult for a legislation to develop about further DNA studies or not but if that is the case, maybe the Rapanui can decide for their own ancestors. Maybe the Chilean state should let the Rapanui archaeologists do the research on the ancestors of those who want, especially now when the combination of Indigenous and being an archaeologist have increased on the island. A recognition of a culture is a hot topic because it is always met as a threat, or people at least act like another culture is a threat. The latest news about the Sámi in the ‘Girjasdom’ after they won exclusive right of their hunting and fishing in their areas, as a response from dissatisfied people outside Sámi, they immediately got exposed towards violent acts, people murdered their reindeers (SVT). All participants argue that when the human skeletal remains comes back to the island, they do not have a certain place for them to get reburied, as mentioned earlier, most of them have unknown tribes and therefore need a neutral place to rest. But it is not just the issue regarding a neutral location, because the Local people would probably be able to decide that, within a short amount of time. Their biggest issue is that a reburial is against the Chilean National Law. The law goes back to the importance of develop the National law in Chile, it needs to be updated to the relevancy of today. As participant three argued about, is the law in Chile and Rapa Nui are supposed to be the same, but it is not, because Chile does not listen. The perfect example of a good communication and collaboration is the repatriation from Aotearoa, when Rapanui had the possibility to get advices from the Maori and Sámi, as mentioned above, got their advices from the Australian ambassador, since they understood the

46 value of the human skeletal remains for Rapanui and the Sámi. As the participants mentions several times is the lack of communication and collaboration from the state of Chile, which I argue also means a lack of respect for the Indigenous needs. It would be useful for the Chilean state to hire an Indigenous Rapanui that can take care of the repatriations and ethical issues for them instead of developing policies, as the participant four mentions that the Chilean state are doing to be able to control Rapa Nui and their heritage. Discussion and lack of the collaboration as P5 argues about can be seen within the possibility for a researcher to go around the Local Council of Monuments on Rapa Nui. Since the researchers either already knows that they are going to get a no as the answer towards their request for analysis, or they ask the repatriation program for help to get a yes. The repatriation program cannot do anything but to mediate the request, the problem is that every researcher knows that the National Law have the last words anyway, so they either fights or they seek other places where the law follows the International and National Law and the human skeletal remains belongs to everyone. I argue that the researchers seek other museums to approve their request of analysing human skeletal remains of Rapa Nui without the Rapanui´s knowledge. Within the UN, many countries have signed the collaboration to encourage repatriation, and you may think that they would act towards what they signed, but they do not, for example, the Chilean state does not include the Rapanui people in any decision. The ethical guidelines that exists globally, nationally and on Rapa Nui means the same thing, but they do not comprehend that Indigenous people have right to decide what should happen with their heritage including human skeletal remains. The issue is also the constant ignorance of government and that some national legislations and guidelines are more like guidelines. The guidelines make room for several loopholes where researchers can take advantage of a minority even though the institution this researcher comes from, have signed collaboration papers to support Indigenous cultures. Therefore, I argue that the most important resolution to the guidelines is that the guidelines need to get updated and adjusted to what the Indigenous people wants and changed into real laws. In political perspectives Rapanui and Sámi are very similar, since they are still fighting to repair what the western society did to their ancestors. As seen today, on Rapa Nui, with the majority of inhabitants are Chilean, and that the Sámi need to belong to Sweden, Norway and Finland, neither of them get to choose for themselves, despite of the awareness of the countries of their past.

7.6 Concluding remarks

During several years, Rapa Nui was exploited by explorers and archaeologists who brought the Rapanui culture with them when they left the island. Rapanui is not the only Indigenous culture that has been through this exploitation. The Rapanui culture got exposed towards the exploiters that visited Rapa Nui, through violence, slave raids, and collecting of human skeletal remains and artefacts and during 1888 Rapa Nui got colonised by the Chilean state. Sámi on the other hand had other exploiters such as scientists and the Swedish churches, seen from the Swedish point of view. They experienced racial studies and got exposed to devaluations and violence. The difference between these cultures are of course the culture. The difference is by whom they got exploited and how, but what is similar is their outcome. They both demand their ancestors back to their homes, they have educated Indigenous people within the archaeology sector thanks to Indigenous Archaeology, and they are still exposed to condescending behaviour towards their cultural traditions. Rapanui that does not get acknowledged as Indigenous people by the Chilean state and their decisions about the island

47 and Sámi by the ignorant people that refuses to leave them and their culture in peace. They both are currently fighting for the right to their own culture. For the Rapanui it started as a wish of wanting the ancestors back to Rapa Nui and a woman called Mama Piru worked hard to travel around the world to locate these human skeletal remains and start repatriation. My interest is to clarify what the Rapanui people think of repatriation and managing human skeletal remains. By doing that I made interviews with five different persons on Rapa Nui together with participant observation in November 2019. While doing the interviews, issues appeared that the western societies and the Indigenous people have different perspectives on ethics and how the world sees and manage these human skeletal remains. I focused on interviewing the five participants regarding: -What view, do the Rapanui have on the repatriation and treatment of the Indigenous Rapanui human remains? - What guidelines can we establish to cover international, national and Rapa Nui perspectives in managing human remains? - How can repatriation occur in the best way based on ethical perspectives? (For answers see chapter 7). The Indigenous people from Rapa Nui do not have any policies regarding the management of human skeletal remains other than the Chilean heritage law. This law means that the human skeletal remains belong to the state of Chile and cannot get re-buried as the Rapanui wants to. No previous studies have been made about repatriation with an ethical perspective on this island before, which makes it important to acknowledge this culture and their ownership to their own heritage as a living Indigenous group. If people would know all cultural heritage as theirs, no one would have the need to continue looting, stealing and sell artefacts on the black market. On the other hand, if a culture would belong to everyone, then it might lose the purpose and value as a different culture. To wrap this thesis up I would like to quote my parents, “Do you really need to know everything?”, which can also come to use for greedy researchers that comes to Rapa Nui to take advantage of their culture for their own profit. Do you really need to know everything? As I mentioned above, it is enough with their oral traditions unless the Rapanui people wants to do research on their ancestors. It should be, from now on, only their decision to make.

48

8. Summary

I developed an interest about repatriation and ethical perspectives while visiting Rapa Nui and by taking part of different local activities that made me see the importance of keeping the Indigenous Rapanui traditions alive. My focus was put on interviews with five individuals within the sector of repatriation or management of human skeletal remains together with participant observation on barbeques, dance shows, dinner invitations together with both local people and Chilean inhabitants on Rapa Nui. I focused on interviewing the five participants regarding: -What view, do the Rapanui have on the repatriation and treatment of the Indigenous Rapanui human remains? - What guidelines can we establish to cover international, national and Rapa Nui perspectives in managing human remains? - How can repatriation occur in the best way based on ethical perspectives? The main results that the interviews and participant observation resulted in starts with previous events that have happened with the Rapanui and the exploitation that they have been through. All participants want the Rapanui ancestors to be left alone and get treated as human beings. The participants argue that repatriation and reburial are every Indigenous people´s right and that all Rapanui ancestors should be sent back. Rapa Nui have no specific regulations, more like guidelines in conjunction with a repatriation and that every repatriation is different. Through consultation, collaboration, and communication it is possible to establish guidelines for Rapanui, but the world (international) and Chile (national) need to start listening to the Rapanui. The best way of doing a repatriation is to communicate and collaborate with the Indigenous people and let them decide how they want the repatriation to happen. Not until then, the repatriation will occur in the most ethical way. For other Indigenous cultures there are information within this thesis that suggests for them to take help from other Indigenous cultures because it has helped both Rapanui and Sámi while determining for policies of their own.

49

Figure 13 Bike Tour with Isaias Hey in one of the caves we visited. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

50

9. References

Arthur, J. 2015. Reclaiming Mana. Repatriation in Rapa Nui. PhD Thesis. . Los Angeles. Atalay, S. 2006. Indigenous archaeology as decolonizing practice. American Indian Quarterly 30: 280–310. Aurelius, A. 2019. Máhtsatiebmie likttemijne - Återbördande i försoning. En processbeskrivning över repatriering i Lycksele 2019. Lycksele. Sverige. Bunker, C. E. 2005. The Acquisition and Ownership of Antiquities in Today´s Age of Transition. in: Gibbon, K. F. (ed.) Who owns the past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: 311–319. Coggins, C. C. 2005. Observations of a Combatant. in: Gibbon, K. F. (ed.) Who owns the past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: 231–239. Duthie, E. 2011. The British Museum: an imperial museum in a post-imperial world. Public History Review 18: 12–25. Fehren-Schmitz, L., Jarman, C. L., Harkins, K. M., Kayser, M., Popp, B. N. & Skoglund, P. 2017. Genetic Ancestry of Rapanui before and after European Contact. Current Biology 27: 3209– 3215 Fforde, C., Hubert, J. & Turnbull, P. (eds.) 2004. The dead and their possessions: repatriation in principle, policy, and practice. London: Routledge. Flenley, J. & Bahn, P. 2003. The Enigmas of Easter Island. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Gibbon, K. F. 2005a. Alternatives to Embargo. in: Gibbon, K. F. (ed.) Who owns the past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: 291–305. Gibbon, K. F. 2005b. Chronology of Cultural Property Legislation. in: Gibbon, K. F. (ed.) Who owns the past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: 3–9. Gill, G. W. & Stefan, V. H. 2016. A descriptive skeletal biology analysis of the ancient Easter Island population. in: Stefan, V. H. & Gill, G. W (eds.) Skeletal Biology of the Ancient Rapanui (Easter Islanders), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 66–88. Gosden, C. 2012. Postcolonial archaeology. in: Hodder, I. (ed.) Archaeological theory today (2nd ed.), Cambridge: Polity: 251–266. Harrison, R. & Hughes, L. 2010. Heritage, colonialism and postcolonialism. in: Harrison, R. (ed.) Understanding the politics of heritage, Manchester University Press, Manchester and Milton Keynes: 234–269. Hedin, A. & Martin, C. 2012. En liten lathund om kvalitativ metod med tonvikt på intervju. in: Klerfelt, A. & Qvarsell, B. (eds.) Kultur, estetik och barns rätt i pedagogiken, Malmö: Gleerups: 3–15. Heyerdahl, T. 1957. Aku-aku: Påsköns hemlighet. Stockholm: Forum. Heyerdahl, T. 1989. Påskön: en gåta som fått svar. Höganäs: Bra bok. Hunt, T. L. & Lipo, C. P. 2009. Revisiting Rapa Nui (Easter Island) “Ecocide” 1. Pacific Science. 63 (4): 601-616. Ioannidis, A. G., Blanco-Portillo, J., Sandoval, K., Hagelberg, E., Miquel-Poblete, J. F., Moreno- Mayar, J. V. et al. 2020. Native American gene flow into Polynesia predating Easter Island settlement. Nature 583: 572–577. Iregren, E. & Schramm Hedelin, H. 2010. Vi behöver tydliga regler för bevaring-återbegravning av mänskliga lämningar, Fornvännen 105: 54–60.

51

Johnson, M. 2019. Archaeological theory: an introduction. John Wiley & Sons. Joy, C. L. 2016. The politics of heritage management in Mali: from UNESCO to Djenné. Routledge. Kozloff, A. 2005. The Antiquities Market: When, What, Where, Who, Why… in: Gibbon, K. F. (ed.) Who owns the past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: 183–191. Lajos, A. 2006. Muntlig historia: mer än vetenskap?. HumaNetten 18: 35–52. Lambert, P. M. 2012. Ethics and issues in the use of human skeletal remains in paleopathology. in: Grauer, A. L. (ed.) A companion to paleopathology. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley- Blackwell: 17–33. Lydon, J. & Rizvi, U. Z. (eds.) 2010. Handbook of postcolonial archaeology. Walnut Creek, Calif., Left Coast. Martinsson-Wallin, H. 1994. Ahu - the ceremonial stone structures of Easter Island: analyses of variation and interpretation meanings. AUN 19. Diss. Uppsala: Univ. Martinsson-Wallin, H. & Crockford, S. 2002. Early Settlement of Rapa Nui. Asian Perpectives. 40 (2): 244–278. Martinsson-Wallin, H. 2014. "Aku Aku from Afar"-Theory and Archaeology on Rapa Nui (Easter Island) in an East Pacific Context. McNiven, I. J. 2016. Theoretical challenges of indigenous archaeology: Setting an agenda. American Antiquity 81: 27–41. Merryman, J. H. 2005. A Licit International Trade in Cultural Objects, in: Gibbon, K. F. (ed.) Who owns the past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: 269–291. Meskell, L. 2009. Introduction: Cosmopolitan heritage ethics, in: Meskell, L. (ed.) Cosmopolitan archaeologies. Durham: Duke University Press: 1–27. Myers, C. W. 2000. A history of herpetology at the American Museum of Natural History. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural history 252: 1–232. Nicholas, G. 2011. Being and becoming indigenous archaeologists. Left Coast Press: 9–19. Nilsson Stutz, L. 2007. Archaeology, identity, and the right to culture. Current Swedish Archaeology 15: 1–16. Ojala, C. G. 2006. Saami archaeology in Sweden and Swedish archaeology in Sápmi: boundaries and networks in archaeological research, in: People, material culture and environment in the north: proceedings of the 22nd Nordic Archaeological Conference, University of Oulu, 18-23 August 2004: 33–41. Ojala, C. G. 2009. Sámi prehistories: the politics of archaeology and identity in Northernmost Europe. Occasional Papers in Archaeology 47. Diss. Uppsala: Uppsala Univ. Ojala, C. G. 2016. Svenska kyrkan och samiska mänskliga kvarlevor, in: Lindmark, D. & Sundström, O. (eds.) De historiska relationerna mellan Svenska kyrkan och samerna: En vetenskaplig antologi Skellefteå: Artos & Norma: 993–1029. Pearlstein, W. G. 2005. Cultural Property, Congress, the Courts, and customs: The Decline and Fall of Antiquities Market? in: Gibbon, K. F. (ed.) Who owns the past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: 9–33. Redman, R. L. 1999. Human impact on Ancient Environments. The press. Tucson. Routledge, K. 1919. The Mystery of Easter Island: The Story of an Expedition, London and Aylesbury, Hazell, Watson and Viney, LD. Sayer, D. 2010. Ethics and Burial Archaeology. London: Duckworth. Skjølsvold, A., Martinsson-Wallin, H. & Wallin, P. 1994. Archaeological investigations at Anakena, Easter Island. Kon-Tiki Museum. Svestad, A. 2013. What happened in Neiden? On the question of reburial ethics. Norwegian archaeological review 46 (2): 194–222. Svestad, A. 2019. Caring for the dead? An alternative perspective on Sámi reburial. Acta Borealia, 36(1): 23–52.

52

Turnbull, P. & Pickering, M. (eds.) 2010. The Long Way Home: The Meaning and Values of Repatriation. Berghahn Books. Vincent, S. 2005. Indian Givers, in: Gibbon, K. F. (ed.) Who owns the past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law. New Brunswick, New Jersey, and London: 33–45. Uppsala Universitet guidelines Dnr: UFV 2014/1374. Wallin, P., Martinsson Wallin, H. & Possnert, G. 2010. Re-dating Ahu Nau Nau and the Settlement at'Anakena, Rapa Nui. in: International Conference on Easter Island and the Pacific. 7. Gotland University: 37–46.

9.1 Internet sources

CNM, Consejo de Monumentos Nacionales de Chile. [Retrieved: 2020-09-09]. https://www.monumentos.gob.cl/acerca/que-hacemos. CONADI, CODEIPA. [Retrieved: 2020-09-09]. http://www.conadi.gob.cl/codeipa/codeipa.html ICOM. 2018. Code of Ethics, Standard guidelines. [Retrieved 2020-04-20] https://icom.museum/en/resources/standards-guidelines/code-of-ethics/ ICOM. 2018. Code of Ethics, for museums. [Retrieved 2020-04-20] https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/ICOM-code-En-web.pdf ICOM. 2018. Code of Ethics, Natural history code of ethics. [Retrieved 2020-04-20] https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/nathcode_ethics_en.pdf ICOM. 2018. Code of Ethics, Checklist. [Retrieved 2020-04-20] https://icom.museum/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/110825_Checklist_print.pdf Stadsmuseiförvaltningen. 2006. [Retrieved: 2020-06-02]. http://stadsmuseet.stockholm.seVC/globalassets/dokument/riktlinjermanskligakvarlevor.pdf/ UN´s declaration, 2015. [Retrieved: 2020-06-02]. https://fian.se/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/DRIPS.pdf Sametinget. 2020. Repatriations. [Retrieved: 2020-03-25]. https://www.sametinget.se/99423 Sametinget. 2020. Current repatriations 2020. [Retrieved: 2020-10-16]. www.sametinget.se WAC. 1990. [Retrieved: 2020-09-23]. https://worldarch.org/code-of-ethics/

9.2 Illustration list Figure 1. The Moai in Tongariki. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson. Figure 2. Map of Rapa Nui. Picture collected from Wikimedia. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bc/Easter_Island_map-en.svg Figure 3. Orongo settlements. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson. Figure 4. Anakena. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson. Figure 5. Anakena. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson. Figure 6. The island Motu Nui where the birdmen collected the egg. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson. Figure 7. ‘Te Ara o te Ao’ to Orongo. View over Hanga Roa Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson. Figure 8. Ovahe beach, view over the volcano Poike. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson. Figure 9. A full graveyard on Rapa Nui. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson. Figure 10. Tribal distribution on Rapa Nui where the different families lived in their own areas. Picture from Arthur, J. 2015. Figure 11. Moai at Rano Raraku. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson. Figure 12. Kari Kari show, two horses out in the wild, and local dinner with blue sweet potato and ceviche. Pictures taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

53

Figure 13. Bike tour with Isaias Hey in one of the caves we visited. Picture taken by Olivia Gustafsson.

54

Appendix 1: Interviews

The appendix has all transcriptions from the interviews with the five participants. They were used in the analysis and the discussion as summaries based on these transcriptions. The first is with participant 1 (2019-11-21), the second is with participant 2 and 3 (2019-11-18), the third is with participant four (2019-11-25) and the last one is with participant five (2020-04-17). Following abbreviations stand for: O – Olivia Gustafsson, H – Helene Martinsson-Wallin, U – Ulrica Persson-Fischier.

Interview with Participant 1 on the 2019-11-21 P1: Show more boxes and this small room was part of this storage room but when the repatriation program started to work with the museum which is from the very beginning and before the repatriation out there or from New Zealand we asked for this small place under the administration of the repatriation program O: Okay so you keep all your stuff here? P1: Yes, because is near ignore believe is good to be near right it's like not to be because we considered the human remains as living so for us it is good that they are close to their relatives not feeling alone but in political terms we prefer to keep them separate because we have a different protocol for them and supposedly locked in legal terms everything that comes in this search room should be marked with an inventory in numbering according to The Chilean Law property of the state so this is kind of the difference of it and even the the personal of the museum don't use this place the the way I'm in charge of both the missing power but also the community part O: But how is it how is it for you as a Rapa Nui and also working here and how is that worked out with the ethics is a different ethics regarding human remains or is it basically the same here? P1: I wouldn't say that there's a written ethic for the treatment of the human remains in what way what's the difference in seem simple words when a professional comes wants to work with them with the human remains inside this big room I can't say no coz I work for the museum right so this person is really having a relation with the museum but from that door inside if they want to take tables out in my presence I always ask for permission always talk to them I always do this part of my believe as a Rapanui changes if is Francisco coming or another person because it is not part of the culture you know that's a simple difference but in case of this Tupuna and of this remains every time when when they arrived to Rapa Nui we do a ceremony probably inviting the local people we declare we have more protocols there we declare a Tapu, secret momentum, like 7 days from their arrival should not be seen that should not visit it is something very traditional after that it should be visited for one or two

55 months so do you love them then we can agree we talk and agree but only visit by locals not open to tourism or researcher and after that they rest here just rest. O: Until they have a decision? P1: By this time we only have these two skulls from Aotearoa, a known providence in Rapa Nui independent and we have 1/3, which is a contemporary finding in a Anakena so we have the place and but it was find with the museum soon send it to Chile they analyse it there and it came back without number so we need to hear because it's not far off the England study but in that case we know where it come from. O: But is it is it possible for locals to come here to the to the magazine and visit there? P1: Yes, yes oh what is a magazine? O: It's a storage P1: Ah yes, storage is open visits researchers it's not I wouldn't call after turistical visit but the community can come many schools come but the Hare Tapu Is only for locals, problem trying to install certain concepts, old concepts into bring back, so this is the Hare Tapu, of the main entrances outside actually this is a back door that I used to use because I work here but can come inside I don't know how is it, I have it here many times, but you can have a look if you want. O: Thank you so much. P1: It is something very simple, you see? It is a place where sometimes when the committees comes, I can clean it cloths have some (inaudible) sometimes they spend hours here. Maybe we can go to the other side and show you, we have a fireplace. O: Thank you so much for showing me this. P1: No problem, you are working on this how are you going to understand our ethics if you don't take part of it. I don´t know if you have any increase about this place, O: I have a question about this also about Hare Tapu, yeah you had a I'm working a process like manual so, policy? P1: Yeah kind of it, one big issue on the island is, what is official and what is not, Rapa Nui is not I don't know it happens your home but the everyone here criticise, have a strong opinion I am meaning that the term. So we're doing what we did with the repatriation program we have a structure a human structure it is composed we problem is composing two groups one is the Coro Orongo the elder council and the elders on Rapa Nui and they have the last word on this because they carry on the practice you know on the cultural issues and cultural practices on the Mortuary rites and the managing of these issues and the second group is the Motua us younger generation and in charge of the technical part executing papers and many actions so we started seeing one side from this elders and in other parts we are directors of the actions so it is us who compose the meeting but then they are like 20 elders all fighting for the name of our place then we are taking out of this and we are creating a database of this database I don´t know it starts with the Toponiña, name of the places, but then history should ask this place the tribe and the… leadership leadership who is the with trace who's in the traditional way supposed to be in charge of the tribe or the official representatives of that tribe today

56 according to the family and reliance a shooting shooting of the places there's so much information about this and I I am not carry on that part I I am always here with the people like with the elders with the community you know I work better in that aspect by my colleague Jacinta she saw she is a actually the researcher working with the program and she has all these databases I think if it's interesting for you I can put you in contact she speak very.. O: Yeah, I talked to her actually I was supposed to meet her in Santiago, when I leave the island but that changed so I'm just gonna I'm gonna talk to her on online yeah P1: Yeah yeah but she I think she can help a lot, because she's she understanding a different way, as I mentioned I´m always here dealing with the people with my people, it’s my work. And, that’s the work we do and now I would say in the program that we are in the next step, we keep the research with spend like 6 year talking discussion reflecting organising information from these discussions in the local context or all these elders are all experts in the areas you know they are not random elders, because the traditional knowledge on the island wasn't helded by everyone, they used to work as a separate groups so we did that then we took our contact all the museums and started to do all the research and then we did wanna work with repatriation put all these are repatriation issues on the table on the of the authorities before that it wasn't an issue no one discussed this, even if it wasn't something important discussion on a political level but after this many things happened, we are now waiting for the arrival of 109 human boxes of skulls from Santiago, so.. O: Which belongs here on Rapa Nui? P1: Yeah, but if all this has been moved from this action from this very simple action a today is a big issue about the protocols “give me the protocols, give me the protocols written protocols” you understand for this repatriation, for others even for the one we are managing with the Kon Tiki museum. But what I want to say is that the repatriation program created some documents some agreements discussed by the people from this time, but these agreements are not consensus by the whole community we just took this uh because all these elders are the person who really knows about this in the community if you take this and given it back with the community to have a consensus it's going to take more time because there's many people that even don't know how to manage with and are just learning now but is the document that exist today and after this historical repatriation the next one have somehow have a support their managing on this papers but they're not like a Bible you know like a protocol for repatriation. O: It all changes depending on what it is? P1: Yes exactly, to extend a document of what the program had worked for many years I say okay the first thing if you want to repatriate you have to involve the community. if you want you can involve program who had more expertise on this, but they used to include them from the very beginning in a moment they should come to your place and to see what you have and to decide which is best manner this way to carry them back, to leave the processing that way that's one of the most important things but not everyone understand many western organisation and institution just want the paper at least you know we did with the paper and okay, you understand? What we say we say no, you need the people because there are living people that are attached to the their heritage, but every protocol is made for the case for the amount of all the remains, from the context, if you go it is an Indigenous Indigenous context

57 also it becomes a cultural exchange you know, it's it's it's not that a square the repatriation in Aotearoa it was great because the Mauri people is our cousins, the culture are so similar so we get a lot of our cultural protocols rights and there were just two of them, so we carry them with our hands they travel with us in our sides in the plane, it was like with your body, but from Santiago in this next repatriation, which is agreed with this museum and the open museum there are 109 it is not possible to bring with you on the plane but what I have told them you said no respect the past you include yeah for the first time and then we decide who is going to come to be when you are put everything in big boxes dispersal is in representation of the community he comes here too to observe the work then he join the car walk to the plane and when it goes into the plane and he comes up and travel with this, and this is kind of the protocol, but for that case 109 skulls it should be a “revisado”, reviewed case by case. It´s difficult to explain. O: Yeah, but I think I understand P1: I think that the hardest part is for the non-Rapa Nui people is that the protocols is not just a bunch of papers that you read and that´s it, it´s something it has more to give with the practises. One of the hard things to do is a, the program is a group of people, the hard thing to do, is to this group of people to get together. So this is the main entrance of the fireplace because part of the protocol you know it's part of the culture part of the right and this is where we receive always the remains, the rites, sometimes we just gather to eat together something like this, the fire open the gates eat here and invite them to eat with us something like that kind of relation. and it's not something so huge but this has been made in the our own hands. O: It's very beautiful. P1: We have many findings without a purpose, and we took it here because now it has a purpose. Protection purpose, for this Tupuna is part of the cosmogony, the fire the art and the archaeology near to them, something very humble but is very strong for us very important and that's what the protocols came from from the practice that's what I always say to my colleagues, people from Santiago and from overseas, the protocols are not a piece of paper, practices O: Yeah it depends on everything basically? P1: Actually if you're gonna move or touch your work over someone's heritage first of all you have to contact them let them know and invite them to leave to participate I don´t know how, but that's the first thing to do and if you are really willing to learn from it you have to observe what they're gonna do try to understand it and in certain cases try to get a consensus every place like a museum or an institution so you should have their own protocols right so you have to find a new collision with this balance but this looks see things at the same level you know and sometimes it makes some people annoyed you know because they're they're living on a certain type of hierarchy, which is not the same. O: Yeah but that's really nice cause, I mean so many places there is like always this, it is measurements among people and like yeah between each other between every P1: Yeah yeah yeah it always bring more more problems than understanding O: Yeah exactly

58

P1: That’s why we like to talk at the same level, because we know in here we have our hierarchy-way, with our elders, but if I'm talking or having relations with someone that is not part of this culture why Do I have to assume that She or he knows this and is going to act the same way as me so I starting spaces and then understand him or her and then you can learn from it but the relation from the political relation from the states institution and community at least in Chile is very at that way you know very hierarchy like this O: But does Chile understand you're like your progress your process about those 109 individuals? P1: They understand, but they don´t like it. O: Oh, okey, they want to do it their way or? P1: It is a colonizing process, something that cannot be separated the colonialization relation. Now these boundaries has been buried somehow, because there is Rapa Nui also now is in a good position to negotiate, there's professionals here, whatever but there's always tension about this, but the tension for me comes from the ignorance. O: Yeah but they don't they don't even try to understand P1: Yeah, so it's it's hard in that way but as I said before Paola, Francisco they are from the mainland they represents the institution somehow but they have a living here so they really felt this they know that is correct and every time they can they give space so document can ask for what is correct they know that all this remains should should go back to people but it's the people us now who have to discuss what we are gonna do with this, O: And also how it's gonna happen? P1: The repatriation program task to think about this to reflection to socialise with the community and is our work field by not by University degrees something that you inherit from your fathers all they see is feels on you or they see passion on you with these issues you say okay you have to stay here you have to stay here and pass it on yeah of course I really.

Part 2 P1: We are talking of making a common mausoleum, taking some design from the traditional ways but for that we get into another dimension find out place, a piece of land, and the land always have owners we have to decide for a land or ask for a piece of land in local authorities and we decided to sign up with place, the size of the place, because we know there's a lot of places like that without original provenance we have to find, finish, project complete project for finances for this who create the methodology of functioning, to decide how many people that is going to administrate, this place, how they are going to administrate all these protocols. So it is a big task but if the repatriation is on the table today, the Kon Tiki is going to repatriate and the --- is going to repatriate, I´m traveling to the British museum next European summer. We wanna keep doing that, something's going to come out from this now so now I think my personal personal view, yeah there's so much need to go out and seek cause now thing gonna come, but now you we need a the perceptual, organised the house and house we need a house not this small and we need to organise the house cause everything is going to come back the way things happen, if you throw something in a pool and it start to move and,

59 because without this things are going to come back to the island but not to its people, that’s a very very important thing, we call this repatriation from Aotearoa a historical one because it was purposed by the community shipped by the community is still the first repatriation had it with the people of Rapa Nui not to the museum. O: Okay so this using okay.. P1: This is become back to the Rapa Nui through the repatriation program representatives O: By Rapanui people? P1: Yes, it was us is, It was in the hands of the people in the people who decides what happened with them, it was such a big issue because so it´s against the Chilean law of monuments we have fought for two years just to do the repatriation but the Chilean systems always say no because they are an unconstitutional, it is out of the law if they come back they come as property of the state according to the law, whatever. P1: We, so that´s why the repatriation program now have another focus of that because there's a lot of agreements after this many sign, Kon Tiki museum with Rapa Nui museum it´s a --- museum with a local museum, of the Chilean museum, the historia natural with the Rapa Nui museum. But if you ask me that is just changing the storage room, from the mainland to Rapa Nui but it is the same institution. In the hands of the states, so it doesn´t change much, because the people can just gather wake up, decide and act, they have the see the discuss a lot with the state, the museum is the state, and they have to see the decisions, and the process has never been very fluent assuming all Chile is self in under big crisis, because the same people are not represented in the state. So for me the task now is always trying to achieve there institution of this remains it´s relatives to the people, it's my personal opinion i wouldn't spend so much resources to go out and seek some other Tupunas, some other ancestors, because I know they can start to come back there already started come back, but I would build a house organize this house and fight to come back their homes, not to the island but to their homes. To their people to their relatives, and they can say what is going to happen, I think we are in that moment. It's very complicated so many aspects to many discussions to many thing to understand, we have this repatriation agreement with the Kon Tiki museum but the I think but that they don´t understand that they really need to go advance, not only the museum but the Rapa Nui community, in that case, my position is kind of strategic because if I go with Francisco an example the museum is, the professionals is coming for the museum but I can also use my, I can also be a representative of the repatriation program and also the community so somehow it is a strategic way because you don't have to bring 10 people, something like that, but I don't think they still understand they yet understand it's very important into thinking from the very beginning from the moment, that will happen anyway.

60

Interview with Participant 2 & 3 on the 2019-11-18 O: Can you please explain what you are doing at the museum P2: This moment I’m a conservator at the museum, but now I’m being the director of the museum, so I work with administration and public relations and a lot of bureaucracy. I’m directing and trying to negotiate as much as I can to push the project of a new museum for the island. That’s more a political issue but I need to working in the “bariard” of the project. P3: Well I’m an archaeologist but I spend most of my time here being a director of the museum P2 was more working with the administration and still do some support for me, but also now I’m more focused managing the collection. P3: Yes, we a big collection of human remains, most of them were collected after the restoration on Ahu Nau Nau(?) from Anakena and later in the beginning of the 80s by George Gill, an American bio anthropologist. He runs a project of collecting human remains all over the island so mostly representative from the whole island. And after that from Tonga Riki and other sites, less bones but still some came into the collection. O: So, it´s basically just bones from the island?

P3: Yes, only bones from the island, no we don´t have any bones from outside the island.

P2: We don´t think so.

P3: unless someone ancient visitor died here. But there is no modern human remains.

P2: all of them were collected in the 80s.

O: Do you have any policies regarding human remains? P3: Not really, no policies, according to the Chilean heritage law, all human remains included are all national heritage, so archaeological heritage so in the same category as the pottery. P2: Our monument law is in very general, that everything that has an archaeological origin are protected by the law and belongs to the state and that includes the human remains. Aboriginal people, no white people just the aboriginal. For us, that issue should change, and we are pushing that law should be more modern. It not now but that is our main stop hold, in treat this kind of collection in a more human and ethic way, but we don’t have a policy now, but we support if you want to talk about it.

P3:The human remain collection is the most studied collection in all of the museum, but in the recent years we adopt sort of policy to ask the local council of monuments about any interest working with the human remains so we don´t allow anyone to come and study the collection without consult with the local council of monuments.

O: And then they go by?

P3: It’s just in terms of administration, we are allowed to the national heritage law for anybody to work outside any archaeological sites without permit, but collections are different,

61 so if someone asks me to study them that’s the way we works before want to study the human remains I am titled to say yes to them,

P2: but they need a special permission,

P3: unless you need to take samples outside the island or outside the museum. But now even before in advance we ask them to get a permission from the local council of monuments.

P2: Because the bones are the ancestors of the local people and they think it is not ethical to to work with them as a object. So that’s a reason, cause from now and five or six years ago we asked the local council of monuments “what do they want about any about any request” and usually the answer is no. H: What about Mau Henua, do they have anything to say about, or is it just the local council of monuments? P2 and P3: According to the national law it can let anybody do research on any archaeological site without a permit except on collections for example, human remains. But both P3 and P2 are allowed to accept any question by law, but they always ask the local council of monuments on Rapa Nui for a permission and the answer is almost always no. This counts even when researchers wants to analyse human remains somewhere else or take samples, they need to ask for permission at the local council of monuments, but the answer is always no. P3: It is just the local council of monuments. P2: In fact, we don’t have almost any relation to the Mau Henua, because Mau Henua also brought relations with the state the same as us. In fact, any institutions that is from the state, that includes us. H: Is that something that happened now? P2: Recently, in May/June they got to together with the state. H: Because they got the administration from the state P3: Yes, it´s hard to understand. P2: It is an internal issue political conflict between the Rapanui, but it is also involved the government, but it is not our issue but we are a part of the state also. H: That’s a very good information, I didn’t know. P3: Yeah anyway the we began to support the repatriation program of hmm.. which start P2: A initiative which I lead and pushed by the local Rapa Nui people and an anthropologists from mainland of Chile masterly, P3: he organized everything, the organised the Rapanui people and the committee, and push forward the initiative so now its running locally. P2: Mario is a part of this group. The other day you met Mario? Did you meet Mario?. H: Me and Ulrica met Mario, not Olivia.

62

P2: Mario works in our museum and is a part of that organisation, H: What is it organisation called? P2: It´s, como se llama? We call it in Rapa Nui, I always… P3: We just call it repatriations program cause it is… Rapanui name. P2: Maybe Tupuna…but it have a very long name, we can maybe send it by email, cause it is a long name in rapa nui, and it is a program I´m not sure if they already have a “lega” or status but it is recognized by the local people. P3: Yes, the family became kind of they have a recognized as a legal institution, H: Is that Jacinta Arthur, P3: Yes, kind of only in geo and I didn’t know that, P2: Finally, they got it. Mama Piru was also a part of it, “colonizo”, H: Mattarena because she is a part of the group P2: A lot of Rapa Nui people and the only thing they want about it is that they don’t want to the initiative is a political issue, not the Rapanui political issue but less a governmental political issue, we gave them support and gave them a space to work and to cure P3: the remains and they able to to go back to the island so we gave them some space to give them a ceremony and a time that they can clean the human remains of contaminations and P2: Here we have the first main issue when they finally bring back from overseas human remains. Possible to put in the special place called Hare Tapu, but when we get our human remains back from national museum and other parts of. O: For example, from New Zealand? P2: That’s possible to bring it declare as a Chilean monument, P3: But it took a long time to because that fight between the national council of monuments and this organisation cause they do all the work for the organisation, paper work and all the contacts from them and national council of monuments say that they are no those bones are national heritage so we should manage everything, so they came back to the museum and they we don’t want to receive them and make them a part of the collection. But just keep it there for the future and wait for the decision what this program took about the what to do with them. So, it took like three years, P2: two years I January. We have the same situation from the mainland from chile usually they are already a national monument and a national heritage and that’s makes it a little bit difficult to give it back to the community so we must have it in our storage area as a national heritage but we are trying to find a way.. como se dice … to reverse this declaration. What they want, they want to rebury if they know where they come from. It bone or pieces of bone, if not they are trying to figure a neutral decision they are divided in matas you can’t bury somebody from mata in hanga nui for example, it is in another territory. So, they are thinking of something like common place and as a duilaga tumba de sultado, something like that. And maybe to put it all together, maybe in the center of the island maybe I don’t know in some

63 special place in the park, I don’t know. But doesn’t happen all this situation don’t have a solution. O: is that the local group? the ones that was Jacinta and, they are the ones who decides? P3: P: Yes O: Okej P2: We want to, the important things that the local community supports them. That’s very important. And whatever the solution that they are deciding, will decide we are going to support. Instead meanwhile we are trying to if it´s possible to take some samples we are trying because also we think it´s positive to have some information about those remains. That’s I think it´s being the most difficult issue in this process. H: Who collected them? Because they come from New Zealand. P2: I don’t know, it´s from te papa, both both yes, P3: One was from te papa the other one was from tunderweim. So I guess they were collected at some point and they were as the museum a antiquity. H: But they are already here? P3: Yes, they are. O: They have been here for two years now? P2: Yes. And there is no alternative yet, a solution to rebury or to put it in another place I don’t know it´s easy to explain, probably they are a little bit weak in this two years, because of the situation of Mama Piru also. And that’s affects a lot of the ongoing of this group. P3: They used to have a lots of meetings and processed of bringing back the bones from New Zealand and were very active, but now they are waiting, they are not very proactive on that. H: So, they have a leader since she passed away? P3: The thing is I guess Jacinta is the leader of this and usually when this when we tried to solve something, they just took all to Jacinta anyway, so Jacinta is on the mainland and H: How many skulls? Or is it a whole body? P3: From the repatriation, it is just a skull, one complete and one skull. Two skulls. And later they last year they the institution send back three skulls from total of 109 skulls they have, and they are planning to send, P2: The national museum, the national history Claudio gomez, P3: So, there are more bones coming back but after last year, the ministry of land. Began a program tour between the H: So, they are also repatriation program from chile? From the national museum to come here? P2: Yes, it´s just the ..

64

H: But do you have place for them? P2: That’s the reason cause, did you see the three containers. H: Yea P2: We are going to move to that containers the excavation materials, earth, stone, not artefacts not bones to make place to make room for the things that comes in H: that’s always the problem for the museum, P2: Yes that is a problem. H: In Sweden we have a storage just for bones, its huge. P2: But that’s the idea for us for the new museum that we hope we are going to have in the end on 2025-2026. The idea of the government, is to have a special area for bones and special one for the artefacts and a special one for the big remains, stones, hare paenga, pieces of moai etc and another one for, a fourth one, maybe for what the archaeologists maybe can get from the fields that are not artefacts, sample of earth, soil sample. O: Is there scientists like interested in working with human remains here? P3: There are some scientists 2014 there were some groups coming every year and they lead the team and some of them studied the human remains collection P2: But I think we should be clear on that, in general the answer of the local council is usually no because they are a little bit bored, because people come overseas and usually Americans and Europeans, and they feel like they are as gunny pigs, the researchers groups usually don’t heard back, the information and then the next year they come again and they say “YOU HAVE ALREADY Did THIS”. So usually they say no. O: Have they kind of, before when they did research on the human remains, did the island participate in the results or did they just..? P3: No, I´ve been on the island for 23 years. And since then we are trying to every time they come to the island we try to do a lecture about what they did and so people can see the results and at least there is some feedback of what they did.. anyway people usually don’t read the paper or so it´s still the they are not hired on the project to there is more interaction between the research and the community so people knows about it, but now, with the human remains that it is a very contagious this bones are sacred, giving if you see the bones outside island around, P2: Everything is very important artefacts but bones is a very issue, they don’t want they are our ancestor “do you want me to come to your county and make a hole in your cemetery and take off your grandfather or grand grandfather, no? yes? Well, we also don’t like it. So, it’s a that kind of reaction it is very emotional P3: So when the last five years we only received some requested for DNA studies and they were rejected, and that is the same person but try as, because we are here but nobody official asks us permit to do more DNA studies, we are not sure what will happen in the future, when they request first permit to the local council the opinions were divided, some people were saying they cause their DNA would be taken from the teeth so they were saying if I can lose

65 one tooth from my ancestor to know more about them and the other people say no so they were kind of given. And they don’t want to take the decision, so they say no so they must ask for permission from other institutions cornily, so we did a long term and eventually asked the local council of families which was created (Honoi) four years ago and people changed a lot and now there are two Honois, one is Mau Henua Honoi and the other one is a part of the issue from the beginning, P3: it is very complicated. Talks between about university of Norway and Kon tiki museum. O: So, you are responsible to take care of the artifacts basically? P3: Yes O: Are you alone with that? P3: No, mario is working with me, we both work together with them, but of course Paula helps. P2: I don´t have time now, P3: But at least in the conservation design and issues basically the two of us. P2: You are invited to visit us, storage area P3: This moment we also think you should talk to Mario because he is part of the repatriation program, but also when it comes to human remains we let Mario take all the decisions well he every time he enter and say hello and do some practises like he never done before, he has to show some respect to the persons and.. So, it would be interesting to do, that’s the kind of policy we eventually want to have for the collection. That’s the idea at least, now every time people want to send back some bones or they request which procedures we have and we refer them to the program but they don’t have, P2: we have the standard procedures like in conservations way of packing etc, but also we are including Mario’s group, his repatriation group into the cultural protocols, that’s more or like to.. P3: usually what they do is receive the bones at the airport and then walk with them to all the way up to the museum, P2: A funerary procession, walking holding the people in white, singing, O: Like a celebration? P2: Like a funeral, here the funerals are more festive. People sing, everybody wears white and flowers O: Do they do that every time? P2: Yes, every time that somebody dies. Last year people are also buried in their gardens, P3: it is not common here but in Polynesia,

66

P2: it is not supposed to be illegal for the national law but here it is a traditional way in Polynesia, and people starting doing that cause the cemeteries are starting to get full and they don’t want to use the new cemetery that is on the other side of the island. P3: It is only one, P2: No, no hay cuatro. O: Do you exhibit human remains? P2 and P3: No, no, O: That’s not allowed? P2: No, at some point maybe 20-30 years ago but now no. P3: When I arrived to the museum we had some on displays in 97, but the director went to study in US and when he came back, he said, no more bones, and we keep that policy. P2: Francisco has been on the island for 23 years and me for 13years so since I came no bones is visual, more or less on the mainland to, it is more os less like a policy. P3: We belong to the ministry of culture now and the last two years and the research unit in mainland is organising some debates and dicussions of what to do with the human remain collection, P2: They invite people fromall the country and also foreigners to discuss what is ethically to do with the remains O: At the storages at the museum? P3: Yes, and the idea is to look for a general policy and decisions, because this is a Linvatec law and every time some human remains are detected, they need to be collected, because they are considered archaeological remains. So there is a consensus between the museums because of the space they took and museums here were ehm were our native communities, we are more aware of the importance of the bones, we don’t want to receive more human remains in that category so look for some other arrangement that maybe we can have this storeroom could be that this place where all the human remains could be store and people can visit them and have different relationships with them, and I don’t know that is something we need to figure out in the future. But most of the museum wants to give back the human remain collections back to the native communities. O: And how if you are doing in excavation by law and you need to collect the human remains if you find any P3: Yes. O: Has that somehow changed the amount of excavations or is it kind of the same anyway or… P2: What was the last excavation. P3: Well while the German team is the only one now working on the island doing excavation site.

67

P2: Their permit is finished finished this year so… P3: Well they are applying for a new one I think. P2: They found some human remains down I think it was I think P3: But they leave it there so P2: Case and as we told you that there's not much permit to make archaeological research with excavation O: Ohh okay so not at all basically P3: Yes, but people are collecting doing more research to collecting information service information do an installation because it's very expensive complicated to get a permit P2: I heard also the people local people if they found human bones they bury the bones in general 15-20 years on one of them one of them came back recently because they thought could be a person that disappeared P3: well yeah mainland make the analysis and finally, I excavated those. P2: You did. P3: And also Tarita the other one which one I was she works in one of those. P3: But she she studied the bones at the museum. P2: Before they go like today one from above are we still having it so. P2: It's just a couple of persons that disappear on the end so every time someone even tourist phone found some bones which is usually happens because if you look into an ahu platform or maybe going to a cave now Mau Henua has more control about them visiting places, P2: But there are bodies P3: Like 5 or 6, 6 reports about bones found in caves another place or other places one in Anakena at this point P2: The interesting thing is that it was a full body, so they were almost complete P3: the one in Anakena yes, except for the school so was complete and the other one in Ovaje, the one I excavated discovered it was full but except only lower part of the leg so yes it's very strange there's no sign they appear because there was a storm and the sun on the beach and appeared but there's no sign that the waves were the one who took their bones they are still with the student place so it's very weird maybe took them I don't know P2: They want to keep them in that place. P3: Usually they send them back to chile because they are a police investigations search is that they said this legal matter so there's no way we can interfere with that even if I set up because I said they didn't under report they were ancient and no modern P2: But anyway, that was also a long time ago P3: Yes 98 or 99 yes yes.

68

P2: There was another one in 2010, but then there's no you know where to work if you want to work in a cave or in a platform probably will find bones so if you work in other places less probably be find that's way too many more coming from excavations you know sometimes you found bones in places you don't expect in this case for example in Anakena P2: Sometimes you go to the same place several time and one of those visiting the earth was moved and some bones appeared that happened in the Puna close to the La Peruz and after the next time to try find them and they are not there P3: People is very respectful of bones very afraid they P2: And also, because they think, they believe that the bones are linked to the spirit and kind of a real presence in the into place so that's a reason to think that we will have to move it P3: And that's why they believed if you belong to a family you cannot visit others areas on the island, so sometimes they ask you to not mention their names they are in a place they are not allowed to. O: Is it still like that? P2 and P3: Yes yes P3: We use that to keep the people out of the storage, this is very useful O: Do you know if there any other countries that you're aware of that have human remains from Rapa Nui? P3: Yes, well Norway states, France, Jacinta have a big catalogue. P2: Every scientific expedition that comes to the island at least at eighties they bring back to their places yes everything or more less but not everything because it's protected by the law but some samples of tokies and also humans P3: That one was the norweigian expedition of thor Heyerdahl, after that the founder of the University of Chile yeah I think to many, but in the past they were some reports of sailors coming and exchanging human remains, there was an interest on measuring the skulls and seeing evolution and so, O: We also have that in Sweden with the indigenous groups of samer, which were like, I don't remember the year 19th century we had these measurements to calculate intelligence this P3: According to the size of the O: Yeah, okay about your museum do you have any special, when you exhibit artefacts that you see in the museum, are those overall collected from the island to represent different kinds of parts of the society or is it P3: Yes, this exhibition is very small to big so that's why we tried to show mean P2: How many show cases do we have? P3: 8, and all of them are thematic, one is for fishing one for the stone for artifacts to the Moai we have another one for about cava cava, the wooden sculptures. We have 70 artifacts in exhibition does it 70 years on

69

P3: Regarding the exhibition of human remains I must say we don't exhibit their human remains because cause they probably fish hooks and other artifacts are made of human remains because there's no big number from the island so any big artifact made of bone probably fishhooks, or we have a harpoon probably made of human remains. we are not sure, we never do the analysis exploring human remains unless it´s a LED ONE, P2: Like whalebones or something P3: It's more easy and sometimes does the mana of the people something that's why they used the human bones, P2: That’s very important P3: So, it´s not just the, because they are available to have its also because the mana of the person. P2: Mana is the power. P3: The power is still there so the that way some of them are have scientists at the skulls. P3: There are stories of people stealing bones made artifact of our Talisman, we use the bones for mana instead tool O: So, do the museum have, do you have a specific time period or as well or is it more spread out? P3: We don´t go in too much detail about the different periods because they are not very clear mostly all of them it’s a huge periods of the ahu moai period or classic ones. P2: So, we don't have space tell the story the history sharing the history period of the island and the Rapa Nui today just pre contact P3: And we don't have too many collections of moderns times so we we keep it in that time P2: But coming soon, the new museum we're going to have the history period and the rapa nui today. O: Yeah that would be very interesting actually, to see how everything developed. I'm thinking about the previous analyses that had occurred on the island regarding human remains have that maybe increased the understanding better among the locals. P3: Do you mean the results of those who said? O: Yeah exactly had that in somehow made the.. P3: I think there is probably not not only probably not only from if I understand what you are asking, but I think that the the story the Rapanui people is telling now it's been changing along with the new results from or according to their results of the discussions they archaeologists have about the past so at some point archaeologists began to to neglect the idea of labs and of course of rapa nui people keep talking about that also their base in the information.. P2: Human remains if the analyses, cause I understood that your questions is…

70

O: It´s kind of like, if the analyses of their ancestors have helped the locals understand their own culture that knowledge have, if they have more knowledge about their culture after the analyses or not P3: Well I think yes all the analyses are in discussion, but not the bones, but the DNA studies on the bones, modern people also shows pictures interesting and probably it's very obvious to many people but sometimes it still with debate about the still debate about the origin of the Rapa Nui people and of course a lot of big merchandise are the population, so it's clearly came from Polynesia, but… P2: Extra information that probably they have unlimited and old information from America’s most of the people knows about it that's that's very important one of the conclusion their common they came from Polynesia Australia and true that way but also there's a old migration from America that's very new, P3: Yes, there was also very… that's not clear that's why they have this group Helene mentioned before, they wants to study there because in the modern samples they had some American American DNA P2: Old American DNA P3: And it is old because to fragmented so the documentations is from a very long time ago, it's a long time of grieving to bring it and so they want to take samples from all the bones or from archaeological context to date those check if there's some evidence for that. P2: It is very hard for us to save maybe because for us is very interesting, scientific but because we need the support of the community and for us the communities this local council monuments and usually, they say no. P3: So there are more political issues there as well because late 18th, 19th century there was a slave raid on the island, from Peru so for them they're there too been mixed with American population is always associated with there was also some Chinese they're very proud of the Polynesian as well so see them as their ancestors from America. Higher status and… P3: In the future and search here and South America but for a long time is signific just predictive contact and the number of the--- South America mainland and she compare so it´s complicated but then it would be a very good chance to show more information there being some DNA studies before we applied this new policy or something that they all of them went out that samples went out with the approval of the local community they changed their mind through the time that’s P2: And they can change again. P3: An important research in the island is showing new perspectives and people is willing to accept it and also there's a Rapa Nui historian who is also done a lot of talks time and doing research more properly so publishing some way and using the social media to know, and spread the ideas that since we have a local voice, talking about Rapa Nui past, O: Do you have any opinions of, what is the most ethical way of treating human remains as a museum?

71

P2: We don´t have protocols but I think we have opinions, probably his opinion is a little bit different than my opinion because I have to understand this problem of the community I understand that probably just right way maybe, for me, is to bury everything but I understand that maybe we should have a kind of gap or maybe one team or something to do some research, Francisco I know is a little bit more supportive. P3: In terms of handling the collection, the human collection, I think we must try at least to see them as people that's why it's um since Mario is saying hello every time he enters the place that's greater than an ambiance little different yes that place full of things it's just that there are some people and will be great to have a separate space for them and maybe a place where people can they if they are not reburied a but at least the place where people can we we need to treat them with respect in the way we have been with better conservation practices and we tried to do that with some of them there some still in the same condition they were bringing in to the museum we need some specialist and I think we need to understand this part of the the respect we show to him too have them properly and to identify with part of the bones are, clean them P2: For example, that we have them again scientific and also always you want to have more information P3: I think for the firm will be interesting to have information, but it depends on them P2: Their human remains, they are humans so for me it´s a little bit I don't know P3: I mean I do it with with my parents so It depends on the people what they want to do with them, they want to know I think I have been discussing this with Jacinta that one way to get permit to to do some research is because we DNA study because we need a base to compare the human remains that are coming from if you are objective to bury all the human remains again you must use what you have here to have a place to compare those remains with the ones that are coming or at least with the family if you have a modern DNA probably can match him and see because probably most of them aren't sure either so they are from probably because of previous works they are usually from around 1750 so it's not the dating century so it's not too old so it's still possible make a connection between Modern Families and these bones, so I think that's something people don't see it if we just hurry up and Bury everything they will lose possibility they will not have the chance to discuss with arguments and analyse them and picked up better decisions. O: Do you know if there is any repatriation going on right now except for the 1 from New Zealand. the island has P2: I'm not sure we can call it repatriation but from we're governmental museum and in Santiago there is a museum and they are going to bring back 109 skulls and some of short and long bones, from Rapa Nui, they were collected in 90th century, but because they already dated as national heritage we can leave it but for the moment for the reburial so we are going to bring it back to the island but we have to keep it in our storage area but do not want to treat them as a collection collection like objects, I mean they are human. But they are coming soon probably the first semester of 2020. P2: The Rapa Nui people asked to the government to bring it back O: Do you know where they belong on the island?

72

P3: No it depends on their records many bones were collected in past times without any proper reference just a big in a general one like who O: I have two more questions, P2: Difficult? O: No, but the first one is how is the relationship between Rapa Nui and archaeologists? P2: That's a very hard? Until 2005 they start to fight and now it's kind of power relations And I think they're starting to see that maybe they could be good friends but I think always they seen as a kind of maybe source of work but in general they think they archaeologist because more or less 100% were forigners, I'm I don't see this very hard strong what I'm saying an they think they the take off I don't know information excavations, objects and they go back mainland go to their countries their own country there's no more relationship they are just informants or workers or they are not in the same level so now they changed their relationship power change because now they decide if they give the permission to excavate they put some request that you have to hire Rapa Nui people the young archaeologist from Rapa Nui et cetera so probably best relation is changing and at some point it´s going to be a good relationship maybe not yet P3: No yes it´s changing all the time depending as well in the local interest what happened in the past and must say there are some people locally that has some interest as well so they relate with some archaeologists and trying to fight why would the other another team so there's more just than archaeology on the island many archaeologists as well bringing or lead some tool to activities tourists so so an economic, issue, power issues but yes I think I also now with the local council of monuments and the second Secretario patrimonio, coming from the connected directly with the National Council of monuments that helps a lot in the last six years on organised everything and making things clear for their research before you before they never know you they arrived here go on request permit and you never know go over it's going to go for them on their meeting they're, sometimes they say yes and sometimes they say no and they are here, P2: They make the process long P3: Take longer but more clear now for researchers and it's clear there but there are less problems than before P2: But what do you think is a good or bad or relationship? P3: Relationship is still in is, finally trying to find the right word in English but it's just the opposite so I mean look at communities in archaeologists they're not they don't want them to have control over their heritage or their studies sometimes some people sees them coming here collecting information as publishing a book and getting rich on their heritage, so but also at the same time the archaeologists are also doing more lectures and explaining what they're doing spending more time and longer you stay here coming the better is your relation with the community an us and also as long as you do some work for the island in terms of hiring people or inviting people or sharing time with people and people it's much better for you so had to build up some kind of you need to build up the relationship it happens to us I mean other one when I arrived here I was an outsider after 23 years at least they have some relationship with people people recognise me knows me and it's different so just because

73 they're archaeologist but as well because they are most of them came from outside so so there foreigners. O: Yeah I really understand like how, I mean, I don't trust anyone just by your face and if it's history behind it of stealing and kind of stealing in what they did and claiming human remains. P3: People have a good relationship with archaeologists say into 80s an lots of things change in the 90s with the project because there's so much money involving that everybody was fighting each other and I think that's when and also the movie people realised that the island the island began to receive a lot of tourists because if this is where are they with the movie look people get rich almost literally and they they trust industry take a take-off at that time because of that morning cars burned so in the 90s the island change the relationship with the archaeologists changes as well, until the 80th people participate in their research and the survey people little people were involved in the survey people were hired for the restoration. P2: Yeah but they never lived P3: Well not but they never but they never question I mean after P2: We can have some power, control is power. P3: I don´t say that all of the archaeologists were nice people is just they, the relationship they were involved in building this information and participate in their greater local council as well people P2: Yeah they don't have much education they were naive people because they don't know about the world i'm not saying that maybe the work that their archaeologists did is wrong it's just that feeling of the local people they always. P3: But it wasn´t the feeling at the time they were involved more than now they were more involved than now in there. P2: But that was interest, but they don't even they don't know what they're doing that's why is my guessing P3: You have a different guess of that, P2: Foreigners who they bring things, but I don't know what you making bones P3: Well I think that's different P: For example, with Thor Heyerdahl, that he's looking artifacts and they start carving things P3: Thinking on the 80s for example they they were participating and were involving in the -- - the relationship went bad when the same archaeologist that were involved but community where are a centralise all the project in so this money and they were took everything and they they don't do what they did before yeah that's why. P2: Yeah, we have different point of view. P3: Yeah, that´s why Thor Heyerdahl P2: So, you can build something in the middle

74

P3: Not just defending there I think their relationship changed or what happened in their share in the that time in the 90s the society change general P2: Yes, and the money is started to be the main, P3: And they associate archaeology with restoration and reconstruction money photograph P2: Project is equal money and I want to have your money P3: Before they take the money from there P2: But we know that usually projects in scientific project they give you money to prepare the to do everything maybe to leave something that anybody makes rich doing it was their research I'm agreeing with you with that O: OK my last question is little bit weird but… P2: I'm not going to answer that O: Behind it do you think that an ethical consciousness about human remains would contribute to a sustainable development and a greater understanding of human? P3: I will think in museum context yes because of course human remains museums are reflections of our colonial past usually also um um but time when some people it seems less important and some are above the other so I think there I a lot of, when we look at the history and curiosities, of yeah if we if we study what happened with human remains collection at museums we can change more view for the future about the humanity world but with how we see each other P2: Yes. O: Good answer. P2: I'm agreeing with you, O: Do you have anything you want to ask me? P2: I think the good thing if you can visit us and we can continue to stock in our museums you see Mario also because he has a one feet in the program and also the museum so I think that it needs to talk about it this issue.

75

Interview with Participant 4 on the 2019-11-25 H: Today is the 25th of November 2019 and we are in Hanga Roa, Easter Island. We are here together with ---. P4: I´m --- and I´m a sociologist I work and then national heritage Commission or I don't know how to say but, Rapa Nui Secretaría of Heritage. Which comes from the national monument’s council and also from the national service of heritage of Chile. H: How is the organisation with the patrimony or heritage in Chile? I mean you have a law on that, how does it work out in Chile and is it special here on the island is it following the same protocols and legislations here and in the island? P4: It's supposed to do so but it's very difficult because all the item was their first official protection in 1935 the whole island receives her protection as a national monuments even in the historical heritage category so apparently everything that is done any project any intervention any research which is a start to be done here on the island, needs to have an official permit of the national monuments council so that's very difficult for us because in 1935 obviously the official protection was faint or supposed to, I don't know how to say to protect the local community principally about researchers or international teams which were coming without permissions and taking things out from the island but that was the context and now everything everyone who needs to do any intervention is to have a permit and this that's obviously not in the social cultural context it's impossible so we did what we are trying to do nowadays is after finishing the master plan is to do our proposal too national monuments council in Santiago, to modify and we are trying to, I don't know, yes in order to establish which of the routinely us which are there real criteria’s of valuating the whole the whole island as a national moment and from that point of view we are trying to establish some rules and assigned them attributes which we can normally or protect us UNESCO criteria tries to work and H: So, it is the World Heritage? P4: It's the whole park national project and that still 14% of the island, but the whole island is protected by the national law so that have a double protection, totally possible for us and also another difficulty is how to do with archaeological monuments because obviously by the national law any archaeology or evidence archaeology evidence is protected also, but for us is different to establishing the difference between the monumental archaeology and how do you say? H: The things that is not so monumental for example underground? P4: Yes, from Santiago say just some legal remain it's an archaeology artifacts or not but it is and archaeological evidence, we have the whole island to protect everything and it is impossible, and also we have to consume it that is a considering which are the the main concerns about heritage from global community because for them as important as archaeology is important, persons are more important and without persons and without humanity material, use or acknowledgement or practices obviously the other is just.. H: So, you are now trying to modify this heritage? P4: Whole protection and suggesting to Santiago to take their official protection to all the town for example and protect just which from the local view our places with --- we're trying 76 to --- a positions because otherwise it's totally impossible to conciliate or to how do you say balance the local necessities with the the whole protection of the island. H: Who is counterpart that you discussed with is that the mayor's office is it the Honoi or Mau Henua? P4: In master plan we talk with, I think the whole island in about 5 years doing interviews, “encuestas”, also focus groups and we use a lot of methodologies just to different for the local community which are the main (?) for local heritage. And trying to balance which from a scientific perspective, what is demanded to be ehm recognized when the local thoughts. Because for them without any knowledge, without. As an example in the field if you have a lot of (inaudible), but if you can’t understand why that place is so called with that (inaudible) or if you cannot como connect the (inaudible) with the history, for them has not sense. So, we are trying to reconnect with which are-for the local people are important, because otherwise they will not help us in the protection. H: Because they won’t protect it and so on. P4: And they also demand to be, how do you say “protagonistas”, to be ehm. H: To be the protagonists? P4: Of-of how to work with heritage because they think they have to be the main (offers?) of these issues. So, we have to (?) technical concerns in the local eh 08:22 ,Spanish. With the local thoughts and demands and (?) about the heritage. It’s not easy, but it is very interesting. For me at least it has been “como” very, the way that I think heritage has to be protect nowadays, than the way that I thought to be it has been more if I trusted me. H: But I think we have the same problems, but we don’t have an indigenous population on our island. But there’s always renegotiation how you an preserve it or to use the heritage. Also cause we’re coming into the use of the heritage U: What do think that should change to reach that collaboration? With businesses to have a common mission or negotiate? Different…perspectives... P4: What we need today? U: Yes, how can you-if there’s no such collaboration or common (?) today, how can you reach that you think? What is needed? P4: Nowadays it’s difficult, because also in the national park we have a internal crisis, because the same difficulties. I think main concern about is not on who is the person who is managing the park. It’s without the incomes. It’s with the incomes. That is the main problem. But obviously in the local situation. The only way to work in a proper way with them I think is trying to-to reconnect them with some.. how do you say-it’s not. I don’t know if you really read our master plan? H: No, no, we have not. P4: But there-there is a chapter about anthropological “como” philosophical use. H: Is it possible to get this?

77

P4: Yes. H: Cause that would be interesting. P4: And we also suggesting that the Rapa Nui community needs to reincorporate or recon figurate their own philosophical view. Connecting the (Tapa?, the Mana?, the Deo?) Their philosophical cultural frame. H: So, the reconnection to what it was? P4: Yes. H: But that, was it to look maybe for the future? U: What would sustainable tourism on Rapa Nui be like for you, in your vision? What would it look like? … (I'm a little deconcentrate with the music, I will put it.) -(18:51 Swedish) P4: For me, not from the local vision. But I think we need to find a balance of maintaining the language and cultural, how do you say it? It’s not philosophical remains, but of cultural “como” forms of relationship that are “como” more cultural reciprocity and some balance of things that they “como” maintain of the past. And that we are losing because of globalization and economic euh development. H: So, you mean in a way that the people should be proud and share their ancestry without selling out or without thinking out too much about the income. But or.. P4: But for example, some practices as (Somangha?). 20 years ago the (Humanga?) you-you really practiced Somangha as a kind of reciprocity. You do familiar como, how do you say, works. And you help each other, because you don’t have money. You-only just have como, eh how do you say. H: No, no money but the bartering system and so on. So that’s Hu manga? P4: As a cultural, como, principle. Yes, but nowadays everything it’s as in the whole world. Everything is with money. You can’t do anything if you don’t have money to pay each other. And before the movie I think, before the came and (?) Rapa Nui movie the island lives like that. H: Yes, I’ve seen it. So that's.. P4: So it was an kind of rural life with other binders or principles of reciprocity or other cultural, como eh, principio I don’t know how to say. And I think that nowadays the economic concerns are over all the other cultural principles. And that is affecting also the (commu..?). Because there are lot of families now that are como eh tensed one with each other. (inaudible) H: So, the families are also ripped apart in that sense.

78

P4: Uhuhm so, for me the island in a proper way have to balance obviously the tourism requirements or necessities and it have to, como se, have to perfectional, how do you say that? H: Perfection. P4: (22:05, Spanish.) It has to incorporate more services or more infrastructure to give some better services. Eh but, without eh how do you say? Without forgetting that they, the Rapa Nui people is very happy with little things. And they can survive as in 2000 years ago just with their knowledgements about how the weather it is, how the currents will let me more or less fishes if I go fishing. They have a traditional where-a way that they, los se, Rapa Nui people are multi-dimensional persons. H: Yeah, exactly. P4: And they really don’t need much money to be happy. But today alcoholism, also a lot of social struggles have come after money. H: Yeah, but what about the tension between Chile and Rapa Nui? Because I mean they’re Chilean institutions and so on, and the Rapa Nui, is that-how can you bridge over? P4: The intercultural tension will be for me as a-it’s a discursive practice that have, como (23:45, Spanish.) I don't know how to translate that. (Spanish, continues). Because its come up a political strategy to demand to.. And they have results. Rapa Nui for me are the favourite original group of Chile. But obviously in a multicultural vision, that says that 'I love you when you dance, I love you..como los se?' H: Yes. P4: But not in the understanding the whole thing. So obviously, we have to work a lot. We have to work in changing some things that are a (debate?). At least recognizing the Rapa Nui people as different, a native group. Because our constitution today doesn't recognize. H: No, it doesn't.. recognize it. P4: And there are a lot of things that I think that we're on progress and will not be solved in at least 30 years more. Also, the national law of monuments it has to be changed and incorporate indigenous heritage. We have (said it?) to our authorities, but on 25:08, Spanish). H: The past way to.. P4: In the past way there at least this team of professionals is working, trying to construct that bridge and confidence. And to reconnect person, because this-who is the state? Finally, here the state, we are, the group of persons that we are engaged with, in my personal case I'm married with a Rapa Nui. I love this culture, and also a lot of people of this (?) is from (?). H: Yes, of course. P4: So, they obviously cannot disconnect and now I'm state, and now I'm community. We have to attend their own visions. We have to incorporate it to the national policy. H: They have anyway, so do you have any questions Olivia? For, because of her thesis work about bones and so on.

79

O: Yeah, yeah, I have my main focus on repatriation and also ethics about human remains. And, so I'm wondering kind of, if you have connections to repatriations or.. P4: Yes, of course. All the..at least 2 process of repatriation have received the local commission of monuments, 30:54, Spanish, support. Because the repatriation program which takes place here in the museum incorporates (us/as?) elders, some local 31:14, Spanish) So where, our local commission of monuments have 2,3, or 4 (Coros?) that are from the other problem (too/tool?). But of course, they ask us the support of the certificate of this office that help them to do all the arrangements which the national government to come with the human remains back. Obviously, in the first case which where (tools?) called from New Zealand, the program was totally complete responsible of all the steps of the repatriation. It's just their initiative that was technically (acrupai-peered?) in the museum by Paula and Francisco, but it was just there. H: So, you had nothing? P4: No, 32:31, Spanish) H: So, it was their initiative and that you are also engaged within P4: And we make all the questions to Santiago and we try to do, to support only being as a 32:58, Spanish) their own initiative. And in a different way, after this first experience now the national museum of history or science at Santiago was asked by our minster of Chile to give back all the collection of the museum that is there to the island and 33:29, might be Spanish. commission officially asked our authorities and that's because we the new deposits there. Because they will take out all a lot of samples and other things that comes from excavations to 33:55, Spanish, from the storage. And they will receive all the collection from the national museum of history and science. H: So, just to follow-up that question. Is it already going to be implemented that all this material will come back? P4: Yes, it's officially communicated to the nation Codeipa and also, we have announced that to the local commission and also to the “programa repatriación” Rapa Nui. H: Because my colleagues in under a study (catolica) were very interesting in repatriation issues on so. So, that's. I don't know if they, I guess they know about this, but I don't know, yeah. P4: (34:47, Spanish?) P5 which is colleague of the or professor at the university “catolica” is helping the local program and P5 also work with us with the masterplan and the anthropological view. So.. H: We will talk to P5 about, Olivia and I. So, we have made contact. P4: The thing that we are wondering to work now is how to respect local protocols of the repatriation programs. When we bring back the human remains. H: Is there a date for this already or..? P4: Because of the situation on Santiago I think that it will be postponed. But originally it was to.. It was confirmed to come in the (inaudible). I think around December, late December. But I think that it will be for next year. 80

H: Next year. P4: P2 was on the national museum there because there-now they're doing all the 35:53, Spanish word) and preparing the materials. H: So, more than hundred? P4: Yes, 108 the “individos” That's confirmed. And in parallel I think that the program is working also in other repatriations projects, asking other museums if it's possible to (come with everyone?) or not. The only thing is that in our legal frame today, we are not giving the Rapa Nui community the whole reply of their claim. Because they want to reburial the remains. H: Aha, what's your opinion about that? P4: I think that because of our law today, I will, I think that it's very it's legítimo. How do you say, legitive? But obviously, you have again to balance that with some possibilities to science, to continue researching for the future. So, at least you will have. I don't know in the case of the collection of the national museum, but I think that less than, 10% of that bones have been studies until now. So, if the program or the local community decide in wanting 5 years more to reburial it have to be a.. I think we need a discussion about that situation and what to do. H: For example, in (Tonga) and (), especially in Tonga. They, when they find bones, they always have to put them in a (Tapa) and then bury them straight away actually. - Directly. P4: Yeah. If you have somebody that can study, they study. Cause I've been in excavations like that and so on. But that's the protocol that they have. P4: But the national law nowadays cannot allow that way. Because there giving internal “préstamo entre museos”. Between one museum to the other. So, P5 and the local program they are saying 'no.' Because the local community, what they thought is that they have to rest in peace. And to be in peace and to be reconnected to the mana of the ancestors they need to be reburied. So, that discussion begins a lot of reflections about how to do it in this cases, because I think that if the museum has good archives it could be a possibility that they can determine where they took some of the skulls. But in another situations as in the New Zealand skulls, they didn't knew. They knew they are from the island, but the don't know exactly from which territory of the island they are coming. And also here in local concerns, you cannot be buried. If you are of this clan, you cannot go to the other clan. So, you have to think in that situation too. That's why the program decide that when they can confirm of which land was the skull taken from, they will prefer to put it in this sacred place called.. They do a independent deposit. It's close, but it's with different taxes and they like to warranty (does she mean guarantee?) some ritual or different ways of connection, visiting their ancestors. It is interesting. It sends presidential how to see this relation. O: I heard they were looking for kind of a mutual place for them to get buried in. Like a new cemetery, but not like the one that is down here. Like a neutral place, not connected to one territory or something like that. P4: Which is that neutral place? Another island? (both laughing). 40:44, Spanish). I don't know. I haven't received that, but it's a possibility. I think that the whole Rapa Nui people

81 have to talk about that, have to reflect about that. The only thing is that in nowadays situations when they are giving “préstamos entre museo” it's very difficult that P2 can guarantee that possibility. So, we have to work in modifying the law, the national law. And to be more respectful about (us?) that concerns them. That is a very new matter I think for Chile. Chile is recently beginning with that. They're Maori people and also other communities have.. (Inaudible) H: But it would be interesting to have the masterplan. But you might have more. O: Yeah, but just thinking like what you think about repatriation? P4: For me it's totally legitive for the local people to us for the repatriation of their (elders?) or ancestors. So, I think that we have to.. If we want to diminish the intercultural confliction, conflict between Rapa Nui people and this national state, obviously we have to work in.. We have to look other forms of reconnecting and making confidence. And that's-understanding that problem, at least is one way. Also, with territory and also with language we have there's 3 principle matter that are very very (inaudible). O: (coughing) Ursakta. H: Important for (inaudible) P4: And the national state had to pay attention of that matters if they really think that the Rapa Nui people must be considering our respectful and proper appropriate way. Other thing with the (inaudible), with the ethnographic collections I think that I can change my point of view. Obviously, some ethnographic collections have also cultural or ritual uses and in that cases I will be in the same position as human remains. But I think in that case we have to discuss a little more. Because without the local museum or without some ethnographic collectors in Chile or in the island, I think we haven't protected anything obviously we lost.. H: I mean there are museums around the world who have artifacts from Rapa Nui. And, so what's-when it concerns the artifacts do you say it's a little different? P4: So! I will have to add more (44:11, Spanish). I think in case of human remains there is no doubt that the community has to be respected and we have to help them to bring their ancestors back. H: But what is your role in.. I mean you’re part of 44:33, Spanish name) P4: Yes, when the ancestors or the skeletons or human remains are from national museums, they are by national law protected. So, in that case we have to coordinate all the permissions. Internal permissions. In this case if a national museum’s collections come completely here, it's the national monuments council which have to sign or to 45:10, Spanish). An official degree to do that possible. When the collections are from outside of Chile or private collections there's a different discussion. We have to analyse case to case, because we have to.. Previously, we have to confirm that the pieces were taken before someone (year?) to establish if which legal, legislation applies. And also, if they were taken out of the island with permission or without, to determinate if they could be part of illegal trafficking and all that sort of things.

82

O: So, does that mean like that you're the, you're kind of the middle hand between the locals and the museums.. P4: National museums, which are part of the state. When the request of repatriation comes from a national museum, we have to be in the middle totally. And when they are coming from international collections or private collections, we will have to analyse which is the way in we have to work. H: Together the (local?) of them? P4: We also work with the local community because our local commission. We have a local Rapa Nui Commission of monuments. And any decision that is taken from mainland have to be presented and analysed before from this local commission. Otherwise I will have fired here every day. (laughs) H: Yes, I understand. Is there anywhere that there is like mind mapping of how decisions are made and who will have discussion with whom here? Is there any.. I mean in your masterplan for example, I mean there's so many would you have Codeipa, maybe at the top here? And then you're part of the state and the museum as well, and then you have (inaudible) or what it's called. And who are within that? And then you have.. P4: It depends on the type of permit, because when they are researcher that want to excavate the island. They always have to come here first. After here they go to 47:51, Spanish name) and after the local permissions or ambitions they 47:57, Spanish) to the national monuments. In another case if the solicitude comes from.. If you want to excavate, a new excavation and you apply to the form there and the national council of monuments. They will send all the documents here and they will say 48:23, Spanish). It depends on the (?) who is charge of that team of researchers. You have to analyse the technical purpose, you have to present it to the local commission, you have to obtain their (ambition?), you have to give me the technical (bition?) also, and after that the local “consentimiento” it goes to Santiago again. And they say yes or no. But.. H: But, as far as I understand it, their archaeology is, nobody has done archaeology for several years here because of the.. P4: No, the German team is working. They have finished just in... March? O: Yeah, I think they were here in 2018 last time. P4: Yes, they are now applying for a, to renovate a permit. But they have to present it to the local commission to obtain our renovation. The German team, I think German team is also applying this year too, because she finish in Rano Raraku 2 years ago, but last year she was finishing her book. And she talked and asked for the fund forms, so I think she's doing it. And (Inaudible) and the museum in London, I think that they will try to do the same this year. But now there are just even giving help for the archaeology area from Rapa Nui to establish the main emergencies over some sides around the island. So, (Suhammington) has come just to give specific...(inaudible) to some situations. And they have not re.. The last permit for them finished 3 years ago. H: Yes, okay. So, they have been talking to work with Mao Henua?

83

P4: Yes, Mao Henua and Medagi(?), because when 2 comes they work together. But I'm not pretty sure if they will apply also to excavate more or just to do some inspection works. H: Well, this time we will not do any application for this because this is very important, we think, to have this collaboration with patrimonial tourism and sustainability. P4: If would be wonderful if in your next visit we can program a meeting with the local commission of heritage, Rapa Nui commission. Because if I had no previews I will 51:32, Spanish) to the commission to the (Spanish continues). It was very amazing point of view of analysing the same difficulties you have there and here. There are a lot of common places in 2 cases, and I think they will appreciate a lot to give their own opinion. We have a lot of good persons in that commission. H: That would be really good. The monuments Rapa Nui (?). P4: We have meetings twice a month. So, we are finishing this year, but last meeting it was the, I don't know, 25 or 3 of the year. So, we are very very.. We are permanently meeting with them. H: But now you have a leave of absence, who will fill in your position? P4: It will be a contest, a public contest. So, I took out their mis(pose?). But we are trying that someone of Rapa Nui will..(?) H: Because it's good to have a continuation and discussion if you are away, that we can, you know when we come next time. P4: Yes, obviously. I will transmit to the new chief when he or she comes. That you are working here, and it would be very interesting to maintain the collaboration. H: Yes, because we have been thinking when we come back also, that we would like to think about how we can assist in some way with education. Especially with Ulrika's program with sustainable destination development, but also for archaeology. I mean, I have courses about cosmopolitan pasts, which have indigenous issues and colonial issues, and the difficulties how to move on from a situation that could be a little infected, you know. But how to move on into that. And that is about repatriation issues and so on. So maybe we could discuss how to do this within also looking at the masterplan that you have and other plans with that. So, we can put it in a frame that already is discussed here. U: It would be fantastic. P4: That I think would I, that is something that we have... H: If you remember me, Helene. I can send you the document of... Well at least the chapter of masterplan and anthropological... H: And of course, I need to learn more Spanish, I can speak, and I understand, but I need to know more because that's. I will do that. P4: We understand everything. The only thing is that you little ashamed when you talked?

84

H: No, no. When I'm here for a while then it's sorta getting into. But do you have any more questions? O: No, I don't think so, no.

85

Interview with Participant 5 on the 2020-04-17 P5: I would say I've been there I I first got there not as a researcher or as an academic, but because of connections with people, so my first approach to Rapa Nui was not as an anthropologist or, it was like a friend so I had that connection first. The family that I met here, and then I made my way in to Rapa Nui and the community, so I am personally I would say just to respond to your question, I am personally connected to Rapa Nui and also professionally and professionally I have been doing research in and on Rapa Nui for over a decade now. O: Okay P5: Yeah, I started working with repatriation, I am just going to refer to the repatriation, and human remains since it is your research focus. But I started working on repatriation specifically in 2009, I was doing a different research and then I started collaborating with someone that I wanted to have like a sort of mentor in Rapa Nui, so she invited me to a research project that she was leading and in the process of that research she started kind of dragging me into repatriation, and I was like “naah I am doing this other research..” and that is how I got into repatriation and that was eleven years ago. Now I am, after that I participated in the creation of the Rapa Nui repatriation programme which was in 2011, I would say that's my connection, but I am also a professor here at Universidad de Catolica, where I teach courses, but I teach courses on Rapa Nui as well, sometimes I work as consultants for government offices, more specifically the ministry of cultures and more specifically the national service of cultural heritage also in relation to things related to Rapa Nui and for repatriation. O: okay P5: Yeah, I think that response to your second question. O: Yes exactly. P5: Then, do you mean like repatriations projects that I have or? O: Yeah kind of, or like but have um like during time, but what have your project been and where are you now and these questions about repatriation. P5: I would answer this in two parts because my connection to repatriation is like duo, because on the one hand they participate in this repatriation programme so we can say that I am a repatriation-activist somehow. But then, I am also an academic and repatriation is a big part of my research so on the first part our projects on repatriation are completely new research project to develop a digital database of all Rapa Nui human remains and objects that are in museums, holding institutions in Chile and abroad. O: Okay so like the whole world basically. P5: Yeah. O: Okay is that from the project of Mama Piru? P5: Yes. O: Okay so you like continued?

86

P5: Yes. O: Ah, okay that's cool. P5: So, Mama Piru she was the person that I was saying before that dragged me into repatriation, she started showing me that project, showing me all the inventory on the archives and the photographs, and she said “someone have to continue this”. I said “No, this can´t be my research, I wasn´t running that repatriation program with that with a research project” it wasn´t just like changing your protocol, but, yes, so we are continuing that project so basically, Mama Piru, what she did was , she did the whole research and she went to the museums, and the museums that she couldn’t go she sent letters with, questing the full inventories or listings. But when she worked on and which resulted in her archive or inventory or database was only a selection, she focused specifically on wooden figures she also focused on some periods, so the idea of this of this research is starting from Mama Piru´s work, we want to first update her reference because now you know that museum took loans from institutions to institutions. There was some fire and they might have get rid of some others so, but what we do is to update that, so we're contacting all the museums that Mama Piru contacted and asking again to send their inventories, so well we find, which is pretty often when we find that collections are changed, we update those collections and also we complete the records with further information. O: Okay. P5: Further for instance including human remains first, also including some other objects that are, that were not included in Mama Piru´s work and doing documentation. O: Okay P5: We do documentation for each entry of the database so that's a first project of the Rapa Nui programme, this is my project, I am coordinating that research, --- is also in this research a coresearcher there too. The we also have project on actual repatriations and specifically one on standby, in the States. We have a big project with reburial because the whole thing this is about is bringing the ancestors back and to reunite them with the people but also with the lands. It does not really make sense to have them in a museum deposit even if these particular ancestors repatriated by the programme, special deposit but anyway. The idea is to have them reburied. The thing is that to have them reburied is that we first have to consult with the community which we've done but I would say like informally not informally but not exhaustively because we often organise these like community forums and say that we discuss these things but we would like to to do like a sort of votation, maybe have some boxes in town or whatever, and for younger people to vote online so we can more common the population, so that is one thing. That is what we are planning to do this year. O: So, the vote voting is about like reburial or not or? P5: It is about different things because we have that answer already and it's yes, we have not found so far anyone else that say no. When we have ancestors repatriated, with known provenance it is easy because we can assume, well we never assume anything and we consult with people but, we can fairly assume that people would like to rebury them in their original resting places. An in this case when we repatriated the two Tupuna from New Zealand, are

87 unprovinent and we have done a lot of research about where they were taken from, but there is no information about the collector, so yeah. O: So, they are gonna vote about like where to put these remains that don't have like a certain place where they came from? P5: Yeah, because this problem is repatriation programme has like a policy and they are all very detailed, what to do when their provenance is not known, who would lead that kind of conversation and ceremonies and protocols and so on. There is also this strong access over there now or when their provenance is not known, then you have to like consult, so we are in that process. O: Okay. P5: We have a very detailed protocols for reburials and provenance individuals, but we have to do consultation for those with not known provenance. So, I would say those are the three main projects within the programme. I am involved in all three projects, and I am also working another project about repatriation. Right now, I teach about repatriation at the University Catholica. I have been a part of a repatriation project with the Australian National University which is similar to the programme we are doing on Rapa Nui. Where the idea is to create a huge database of human remains from aboriginal Australia, New Zealand, and Native America, and I am a part of the research team for South American. I am also a consultant for the national service and cultural heritage. In that I have organized two congresses on repatriation in Chile. The government are planning on doing something about repatriation, but I don´t know what, I got asked if I would be available, but if they’re thinking of repatriation that is good. O: Do you know if the island have a protocol of dealing with human remains, have these changed over time? P5: Yes, they do and yes, they have changed, first they have the museum protocol, they are kind of standard dealing with human remains. When the repatriation programme were formed we signed a formal collaboration with the museum. O: Between the repatriation programme and the museum? P5: Yes, so the parties were the repatriation programme and the museum they signed this formal collaboration agreement or partnership. One of the parts of the agreement was about protocols of human remains, so the museum would agree to the protocols established by the repatriation programme, in which the ancestors would be considered as what they are, ancestors and not archaeological findings, even if they are according to the Chilean legislation. So there was like a first shift, but in any case I would say that was not a big shift because even though the museum had its own protocol based on national conservation, but at the same time the manager of the collections were a Rapa Nui elder, the one before Mario Tuki. This partnership was a big step for the local people to get their relationship formal, even though the person who took care of the remains did it in a certain way, he cared about the ancestors more than what the other legislations said. This man was Pelayo Tuki, he was everything basically, he created all the protocols. So that was an important moment in terms of protocol, and then when this repatriation happened, or before this repatriation happened, it was more when we formed the programme with these policy as I said before, we distributed

88 the consultation, we created the policy in collaboration with the people and participation with them and not only with the programs and the elders I mean with the people, the Rapa Nui community. So, we would do a very regularly meetings I was talking about before, presenting, this protocols about what people think and so on. Then the Local council of monuments, they used to have a protocol of approving research on human remains but I don´t remember if it created at the same time or before or if things happened at the same time. That was around 2011 if it happened at the same time. The council stopped all kind of authorization for research on human remains on further notice they said. O: Do they have the loudest voice in the community? P5: It is complicated, because it is not a very loud voice, because the complicated relationship between the community and the Chilean nation state, and this a local commission towards a governmental office and the national monuments council and they have been questioned by the community “Who decide, who appointed(?) them”. So I would say the loudest voice is the elders in this council, they are respected on Rapa Nui because they are elder and people know that they know, but the younger of this council, first of all they are not all Rapa Nui and they also have a representation of all the agencies of Rapa Nui, so it is a very institutionalized council and that makes them enough relevant in terms of voice for the community, but except the elders they are always have respect. Not just in terms of loudest voice but in terms of mobilization and now there is like a very strict protocol for all the researcher that will be working on whatever has been declared as a national monument, which includes human remains, so it was important in that sense, even though national council of monuments in Santiago would maybe authorize a research, then they would stop them in Rapa Nui because they will not give them the permission. The repatriation programme often gets requests from researchers, if they can make a negotiation with the local council of monuments to gets some authorization, and if the programme can do research for them and so on. But the only thing the repatriation programme can do is to mediate a request. Even if the answer is always no, people can go around, because they know that the big decisions are made in Santiago, but there is also a Indigenous legislation that means that you need the permission from the community anyway which comes from the ethics boards, they require that you have a permission from the community as well. It is hard for people to get the permission of doing research, but if they play it politically, they can get around the legislations, that is why we still have a lot of work to do within the programme. There are researchers around the world that comes to Rapa Nui and wants to do research. And since the researcher’s don´t get a permission on the island to study human remains, the go to other museums around the world where they keep human remains from Rapa Nui and get their permission there instead. P5: The repatriation program disapproves any kind of sample taking on human remains because they are all invading technical methods and the continuing of disturbing the human remains. P5:The community do not all have the same opinion, people think that research on human remains are important but that is not the opinion I hear at most, but I have interviewed people with that position as well. P5: I´ve been working in the masterplan of heritage management on Rapa Nui, and in that I have been analysing data like, tons of interview, surveys and so on.

89

O: What do you think of exhibition human remains, what are the policy of the museum? P5: The museum have a policy regarding exhibiting human remains, and that is to not do it, and they haven´t done that in a very long time. I think it is a pretty standard thing not to do, well there are still some museums that do, but I think it is the most violating thing you can see. P5: The different between indigenous and non-indigenous people is the knowledge about your heritage, many non-indigenous don´t have the affective connections to their ancestors. O: What do you think of other countries exhibiting artefacts and human remains from Rapa Nui? P5: I haven´t seen human remains, thank god. As a researcher and since it is not my heritage, and research ethics, as long as they have approval from the community to have them on display, and as far as they have agreed with the community about how and where they exhibit the artefacts, and what they say on the text labels, it should be fine. It is a matter on respecting and acknowledging rights, and in order to have rights and knowledge I think consultation, collaboration and partnership are central. O: What do you think of repatriation, how does it work, for you? P5: What I think, repatriation is an indigenous right and should be acknowledge. As such, there are several things to do, consulting, collaborating and partnership, they also involve drafting new policy and in collaboration with communities involved and interested. This is something that UON is talking about and it is an Indigenous right. All countries that sign the collaboration on Indigenous right we can assume they agree, because they are signing it, but they don´t, because one of the signs that the declaration says is that a state should guarantee mechanism or develop mechanism that guarantee access and control heritage by Indigenous cultures, they do not say collaboration, they say together with Indigenous people, and for example in Chile, they are not doing that. If repatriation is a war being spoken off in the office it is a good thing because it means that we are in that road, they are speaking about it and at some point they will be making policies about that and they can´t make those policies on their own, so they will get the Indigenous people involved, and that is a good thing. How it works, I can respond to my experience in the Rapa Nui repatriation program, just like you said, we are doing this database, and the purpose of this database if first for reunite this collections with their original cultural context and present these to the Rapa Nui people so they know what they have overseas, but also for repatriation work for a more systematic work, because so far what we are doing is like, well we started with the Mauri, because we knew that they know about the sensitivity because they have so much experience and also because of the cultural connection, Rapa Nui and the Mauri. Then we moved on to the States because they have a repatriation law, so it makes sense to make a request to them, since that this is something familiar. A country without legislations about repatriation is more difficult, for example European museum are also very difficult, because they have a history, they have repatriated, but it is not easy, they have this legislations that they will only repatriate historical remains, but they have made exceptions. We are going to countries that already have legislations. Even though the States have legislation they are only nationally, but they will try. So the idea of this database is to make it more systematic so the future we can have a search bar where we will have all human remains, the same with objects, so if I search for anything,

90 they will come up. Which will make the repatriation much easier in the future because you know where they are. P5: They know 90 % of all the human remains, where they are, but there are always one or two museums that don´t answer. The issue is when it comes to private collections because they are a whole different world. With the objects, we have worked on that the last 2 years so it is a very slow project, we have identified 90% also but only in the America and we are moving on to Europe soon, so hopefully in the end of this year we will 90% collections identified and documented. O: How did it go with the 109 human remains that were going to come back from Santiago? P5: Because of the ongoing crisis, we have not received them yet. It will probably not happen until all this is gone. Especially since they are locking down Rapa Nui. That is a different case though, different from the case on New Zealand. Because we, the repatriations fought a lot for that repatriation, was that the ancestors should be brought back to the Rapa Nui people, not to the museum, not to the nation state or the government, that took us four years of negotiation. The Maori said yes, right away. But if you look at the legislation in Chile, that is against the law, because by law indigenous human remains are national heritage, which means that they should be at a national Museum, like in the Rapa Nui museum. Well after a long negotiation, this repatriation was done in the turns of being in the Rapa Nui repatriation program, terms of conditions that also was endorse by all political organizations on Rapa Nui, the local council, the elders, Honoi, Codeipa, local authorities. The repatriation in Santiago is different because it is basically like moving one collection from one deposit to another. They will still be within a museum because the reburial is not on the table right now. María Luz Endere is an Argentinian anthropologist and she wrote about their work of making the very clear, one thing is when these returns are negotiations between government and government without the Indigenous communities concern, in those cases it is often that it is the nation state that demanding institutions or other nation states to return cultural heritage that was appropriated by that institution in context of for example war, when they were appropriated or acquired contravening international conventions for example the two UNESCO conventions, 54and the 70 about illegal trafficking, those are restitutions, government to government and basically based on illegal acquisition. And then the repatriation, (inaudible). Maybe not based on illegal acquisition but rather immoral, maybe they were not really contravening any international agreement because they were all collections most of the time and resulting from colonial processes so there were appealing not illegal but ethical agreements. There is a lot of difference in restitution and repatriation, and the most important difference of the two are the participation of agency, like control, so this Santiago case will be more of a restitution. Moving a collection from one museum to another is more about community activism of course, but it is only because the Rapa Nui people requested the whole collection, both human remains and objects. O: What happens when the human remains return to the island? P5: The repatriation program has a kind of protocol for that, there are two stages of the happening, so the first is the ceremony wherever the repatriation is coming from, it is there the ceremony will happen, so for instance if it will be in New Zealand, the handling ceremony will be in New Zealand, then there is also like a protocol for the whole journey home, things to do, talk to airlines, it is not just to take the human remains into the plane, there you

91 collaborate with the government because it is very important, for instance the return to or once landing and then someone needs to be opening the way on the airport so there someone there. And on Rapa Nui they come to this special deposit, which is the sacred room, Hare Tapu Tu’u Ivi, so they get to this temporary deposit, because it is only for the timeframe from the repatriation and the reburial, if the community agrees to a reburial site without a known provenance, so then there is a ceremony from the airport to the Hare Tapu, and then at the Hare Tapu there is another ceremony of the deposit of the ancestors and there they kind of enter the restriction period, Tapu Pera, which is something important by revitalizing a old tradition that is not being practiced anymore, there is this idea that in the past when someone died, about the treatment and preparation of the body, well all of that included also a Tapu Pera period which is meant that no one could be near the diseased accept for those in charge of the ceremony. The people responsible for this diseased person was called “Tuú Motuú Ivi”, they were also like markers of this Tapu Pera, like with a stick with feathers, so in the old times when you saw that, you knew that it was a Tapu Pera and that you couldn´t get in. For funerary purposes they were also like a role kind of, if you saw that stick that it was a dead person there. So the program does the same thing, after the repatriation and the ceremony there is this HOHO with feathers, with kind of marking their place, I think I two weeks in the program where no one can open the door, they need to be in peace, in the old times it was to help the diseased in his or her journey to the other world. It is important to have this Tapu Pera for her o him to reconnect with the land and maybe ease the path to the other world, because you don´t know what happened when he or she was taken away for so many years. So that is the thing about Tapu Pera, to make things come to an order again. When the Tapu Pera is like “done” then they can be visited by community members. People like to go there, not just to look at them but just to give offerings or welcome and acknowledge them. After that we have the reburial, that is in standby right now. The repatriation was in 2018, that is a long time ago and we were hoping to have them reburied by now, but because of the unknown providence it is hard. It was often sailors who sold the human remains and objects from Rapa Nui and therefore they are very hard to trace. But again, the most difficult thing is the Chilean legislation, because it prevents us to rebury. O: What part of the society is represented in archaeological sites? P5: All of it, not all of it in the main sites, but all of them have an area, and all areas have archaeological remains. Are you familiar to the land distribution? O: No, well I know there is a distribution, but I don´t know how I looks. ‘ P5: It basically connects, *she shows the different distribution areas/matas/tribes/clans from different maps*. This goes back to the first chief, Hotu Matua, he distributed the land among his sons. So, people lived in their areas and was more like a territory. These areas were abruptly broken with the missionaries, so around 1868. Only then this residence pattern were abrupted forever, because the missionaries moved the people to the two missions, one in Vai O’Hao and the other one in Hanga Roa, even though the people don´t live in their territory or area right now, they all know where their ancestral lands are. So, this means that the whole society is represented around the island. O: Better understanding about their heritage because of researchers?

92

P5: Even though researchers motivate that the research is for the community, communities doesn´t really get that benefit. They ask for help to get the authorization, and argues that it will be a benefit for the community, because they will know more about their ancestors, but the thing is if you ask the community, they will not agree, because they do not have access to the research or the result. The result is not available for the public to find. Knowledge is always power but, in the way, things are done now and have been done, it is for the researcher not for the community. Research is not always responding to local needs. Many of the archaeologists that have been making excavations for example, they exclude the community in terms of closing themselves in at the sites. The historical events were very abusive, included looting, exploitation and so on.

93

Appendix 2 - WAC, First Code of Ethics

https://worldarch.org/code-of-ethics/

Adopted by WAC Council in 1990 at WAC-2, Barquisimeto, Venezuela Principles to Abide By:

Members agree that they have obligations to indigenous peoples and that they shall abide by the following principles:

1. To acknowledge the importance of indigenous cultural heritage, including sites, places, objects, artefacts, human remains, to the survival of indigenous cultures.

2. To acknowledge the importance of protecting indigenous cultural heritage to the well-being of indigenous peoples.

3. To acknowledge the special importance of indigenous ancestral human remains, and sites containing and/or associated with such remains, to indigenous peoples.

4. To acknowledge that the important relationship between indigenous peoples and their cultural heritage exists irrespective of legal ownership.

5. To acknowledge that the indigenous cultural heritage rightfully belongs to the indigenous descendants of that heritage.

6. To acknowledge and recognise indigenous methodologies for interpreting, curating, managing, and protecting indigenous cultural heritage.

7. To establish equitable partnerships and relationships between Members and indigenous peoples whose cultural heritage is being investigated.

8. To seek, whenever possible, representation of indigenous peoples in agencies funding or authorising research to be certain their view is considered as critically important in setting research standards, questions, priorities, and goals.

Rules to Adhere to:

Members agree that they will adhere to the following rules prior to, during and after their investigations:

1. Prior to conducting any investigation and/or examination, Members shall with rigorous endeavour seek to define the indigenous peoples whose cultural heritage is the subject of investigation.

2. Members shall negotiate with and obtain the informed consent of representatives authorized by the indigenous peoples whose cultural heritage is the subject of investigation.

94

3. Members shall ensure that the authorised representatives of the indigenous peoples whose culture is being investigated are kept informed during all stages of the investigation. 4. Members shall ensure that the results of their work are presented with deference and respect to the identified indigenous peoples.

5. Members shall not interfere with and/or remove human remains of indigenous peoples without the express consent of those concerned.

6. Members shall not interfere with and/or remove artefacts or objects of special cultural significance, as defined by associated indigenous peoples, without their express consent.

7. Members shall recognise their obligation to employ and/or train indigenous peoples in proper techniques as part of their projects and utilise indigenous peoples to monitor the projects.

The new Code should not be taken in isolation; it was seen by Council as following on from WAC’s adoption of the Vermillion Accord passed in 1989 at the South Dakota Inter- Congress.

95