{"id":7904,"date":"2020-09-14T15:02:49","date_gmt":"2020-09-14T13:02:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/ditech.media\/?p=7904"},"modified":"2020-09-14T15:03:20","modified_gmt":"2020-09-14T13:03:20","slug":"they-are-still-human","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/ditech.media\/news\/they-are-still-human\/","title":{"rendered":"They Are Still Human:"},"content":{"rendered":"

The museum began as an archive of all that Europeans found different, savage and curious in the world. Museums were institutions of categorization and exclusion that placed Eurocentric ideals on a pedestal of civilized modernity and progress. Beginning not long before but expanding after the dismantling of the apartheid in South Africa indigenous groups from all around the globe began speaking out against the bias of museums and demanding the return of human remains spurred the evolution of what a museum was.\u00a0\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

After the apartheid in South Africa was abolished in 1994 the new democratic government deemed the reconstruction of South African history vital to the revival of the diverse cultural groups that had been suppressed during the apartheid.<\/span>\u00a0 The process of rewriting the exclusionary history cultivated by the bias views of the apartheid supporters also meant that the reconstruction of anthropological education was a necessity. This task meant new curriculums for the education of South Africans; the dismantling of the biased history already in place, including the \u201cBushman\u201d diorama and finally correcting the vile maltreatment of South African remains in academic institutions and museums both nationally and internationally.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

For South Africa to be able to show the world what it meant to be South African from a historical and anthropological sense, the newly democratic country had to be able to meet the international academic community on equal footing. This was a monumental task, especially when much of what the world saw as South African cultural history was tinted by the bias representations provided by colonialism, Eurocentric criticism and scientific racism. These interpretations had stripped South African remains of their humanity and depicted them as sub-human or animalistic savages. To combat this incorrect representation the South African government rewrote history, removing the false information with new curriculums that contained information about the rich and varied cultural histories of the peoples of South Africa. The goal was to instill \u201cpride in African history and identity\u201d.<\/span> The target audience for the new programs and curriculums was \u201cprimary and secondary school students, strengthening the image of these initiatives as re-writing history from the bottom up\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"
Figure 1 The \u201cBushman\u201d Diorama Resin Castes and mixed Media 1960-2001<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The \u201cBushman\u201d diorama (figure 1) displayed in the Iziko South African Museum made by Margaret Shaw in 1959-1960 out of resin casts (created by James Drury) depicted the Khoisan of South Africa as savage hunter gathers, similar to depictions of prehistoric early humans.<\/span> They were shown as being part of an obsolete world that had no chance at surviving in the \u201ccivilized\u201d modern world.<\/span> This view of the Khoisan peoples contributed to the colonial view that the peoples of South Africa were of a lesser <\/span>status that those of European decent and reinforced the apartheid opinion that South African groups needed to be controlled by the Caucasian minority while being kept separate from other racial populations. To remedy this damning representation the South African government took the diorama, which had been on display \u201cfor over 40 years\u201d and closed it in 2001. <\/span> The Iziko Council debated what to do with the offensive diorama. In 2011 the council deemed the resin casts as \u201cunethically collected human remains\u201d the casts were removed from the diorama and replaced with wire figures.<\/span> The diorama was reopened to the public in 2013 having been altered to show a more respectful and accurate representation of the Khoisan people.<\/span><\/p>\n

The greatest change made to South African museum practices was their view and treatment of South African human remains. Instead of allowing the remains to continue on as nameless specimens that represented blanket interpretations of cultural groups the South African government strove to give the remains their humanity back. Allowing them to be see as individuals deserving of respect and their basic human rights. As individuals the remains deserved to be treated with dignity and their cultural traditions acknowledged and respected, including funeral practices. Quoting Jacob Zuma, Ciraj Rassool in\u00a0 <\/span>Re-storing the Skeletons of Empire: Return, Reburial and Rehumanisation in Southern Africa <\/span><\/i>stated that when the remains\u2019 human status was acknowledged it<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u201cturned them not only into humans, but also into subjects of history. Their dead bodies, transformed from objects of race to those of subjects of history through cultural ceremony and political ritual, becoming significant to the nation\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Rassool also quoted <\/span>Zuma saying that<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u201cno museum \u2018must have a collection or material that depicts any section of the South African population as colonial objects\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

The desire to see South African remains housed in museums and educational institutions did not end at the borders of South Africa. The country joined an international effort to see all remains treated with the respect that their cultural groups demanded.<\/span><\/p>\n

The case with Sarah Baartman was a perfect example. She was a Khoi Khoi woman who was on display at the Musee de L\u2019homme after her death in 1816 until her return and internment in South Africa August 9<\/span>th<\/span>, 2002.<\/span> During her life she suffered inexcusable hardships and abuse. She was taken in an attack during her wedding ceremony and she ended up working as a slave for the farmer Peter Cezar.<\/span> She was then contracted by his brother Hendric Cezar to go to Europe and preform as the Hottentot Venus.<\/span> Once in England she was subjected to grueling workloads and treated as an object of curiosity and sick fascination. Due to her large buttocks, she differed from the European ideal and this made her less than human in their eyes. Naturalists were fascinated by her genitalia and disregarded any sense of decorum or respect when regarding her. After she was moved to France and sold to Reaux, an animal trainer, she died at the age of twenty-six.<\/span> Her body was further abused when it was given to the <\/span>Museum of Natural History; a cast was made of her corpse, her reproductive organs were removed along with her brain, preserved in jars and finally her skeleton was de-fleshed and prepared for display.<\/span> After close to 200 years after her death the South African government successful in gaining the return of Sarah Baartman\u2019s remains. The French government passed a case-specific decision to release her remains for internment. <\/span> She was shipped back it South African to be buried with the respect she was deprived of during her short life. The Hottentot Venus finally put to rest, not as a curiosity, not as a slave, but as a woman.<\/span><\/p>\n

The changes to policy regarding the ownership of human remains created the opportunity for countries, like South Africa, to reclaim its people and give them back their dignity. This opportunity also created new problems for the museums and academic institutions which housed human remains, both ancient and modern. The reclaiming of remains created the worry that in returning the remains information could be lost regarding the evolution and structure of their specific lives and cultural groups. Once the remains were returned, they were expected to be subsequently interned, whether through simply burial or cremation. Requirements needed to be put in place to determine which individuals\u2019 countries could reclaim and how countries and cultural groups could go about reclaiming their remains without hindering the research of archaeological and anthropological groups.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

\u00b9Rachel King, “Teaching Archaeological Pasts in South Africa: Historical and Contemporary Considerations of Archaeological Education,” Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 8, no. 2 (September 12, 2012): p. 85, accessed December 21, 2016, doi:10.1007\/s11759-012-9202-3.
\n\u00b2Rachel King, “Teaching Archaeological Pasts in South Africa,\u201d p. 11.
\n\u00b3Rachel King, “Teaching Archaeological Pasts in South Africa,\u201d p. 3.
\n4.Elizabeth Rankin, “Creating\/Curating Cultural Capital: Monuments and Museums for Post-Apartheid South Africa,” Humanities 2<\/em>, no. 1 (March 21, 2013): p. 80, doi:10.3390\/h2010072.
\n5.Ciraj Rassool, “Re-storing the Skeletons of Empire: Return, Reburial and Rehumanisation in Southern Africa,” Journal of Southern African Studies 41<\/em>, no. 3 (May 27, 2015): p. 12- 13, doi:10.1080\/03057070.2015.1028002.
\n6.Ciraj Rassool, “Re-storing the Skeletons of Empire,\u201d p. 12-17.
\n7.Ciraj Rassool, “Re-storing the Skeletons of Empire,\u201d p. 12-17.
\n8.Ciraj Rassool, “Re-storing the Skeletons of Empire,\u201d p. 17.
\n9.Ciraj Rassool, “Re-storing the Skeletons of Empire,\u201d p. 29.
\n10.Ciraj Rassool, “Re-storing the Skeletons of Empire,\u201d p. 28.
\n11.Chris Denton, “Sara Baartman and the Ethics of Representation,” Research in African Literatures 46<\/em>, no. 2 (2015): p. 43, doi:10.2979\/reseafrilite.46.2.32.
\n12.The Life and Times of Sarah Baartman The Hottentot Venus<\/em>, dir. Zola Maseko (United States of America : First Run \/ Icarus Films, 1998), DVD, 5 minutes 16 seconds.
\n13.The Life and Times of Sarah Baartman The Hottentot Venus<\/em>, dir. Zola Maseko, 10 minutes 16 seconds.
\n14.The Life and Times of Sarah Baartman The Hottentot Venus<\/em>, dir. Zola Maseko, 29 minutes 41 seconds.
\n15.Chris Dunton, “Sara Baartman and the Ethics of Representation,” p. 2.
\n16.Chris Dunton, “Sara Baartman and the Ethics of Representation,” p. 2.
\n17.Chris Dunton, “Sara Baartman and the Ethics of Representation,” p. 1-2.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

The process of handling, analyzing and displaying human remains within museums and academic institutions became exponentially more complex after the dismantling of the South African apartheid in 1994. As governments and cultural groups <\/span>from all over the globe petitioned for the remains of individuals housed within these institutions to be returned to their countries or peoples of origin for enactment of their cultural death rights, the process of analyzing said remains was challenged as disregarding their human rights. What was considered scientifically ethical and what was considered culturally ethical was not the same thing and certain methods used in analyzing human remains was seen by cultural groups as being in direct contradiction with the cultural practices of the individual being examined.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

For example \u201cbones estimated to be 9,300 years old were uncovered in the state of Washington. Since the bones make up one of the oldest and most complete skeletons ever found in the Pacific Northwest, they had the potential to yield important information about the lives and ethnic backgrounds of the first people to colonize America, however current U.S. law required they be handed back to the indigenous people of the area, the Umatillas. The likely outcome was reburial of the bones according to their customs and beliefs. Many anthropologists involved in the case believed that since the skeleton\u2019s features do not suggest any close relationship to the Umatillas, it was inappropriate for the skeleton\u2019s fate to rest solely with the Umatillas\u201d.<\/span> The surrender of such remains would of meant a loss of opportunity to analyze an ancient North American culture.<\/span><\/p>\n

To help cull the mass numbers of petitions for the return of remains new policies were enacting, placing restrictions on which remains qualified for return, which petitions would be seen as valid and what the loss of remains would cost the academic community. In 1991, the World Archaeological Congress released its goals regarding indigenous peoples desire for artifact and human remains returns from museums and academic <\/span>institutions.<\/span><\/p>\n

They stated that it was necessary;<\/span><\/p>\n

To acknowledge the importance of indigenous cultural heritage, including sites, places, objects, artifacts, human remains, to the survival of indigenous cultures.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

To acknowledge the importance of protecting cultural heritage to the well being of indigenous <\/span> peoples; To acknowledge that the important relationship between indigenous peoples and their cultural heritage exists irrespective of legal ownership;\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

To acknowledge that indigenous cultural heritage rightfully belongs to the indigenous descendants of that heritage;\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

To seek, whenever possible, representation of indigenous peoples in agencies funding or authorizing research to be certain their view is considered as critically important in setting research standards, questions, priorities and goals. \u201c<\/span><\/p>\n

The academic community was willing to listen to the claims for human remains returns from cultural groups however they were not willing to sacrifice progress and research to do so. As stated by Professor Phillip Tobias in <\/span>The Life and Time of Sara Baartman The Hottentot Venus<\/span><\/i> \u201cnot all people who have been dug up should be put back into the ground. Science would come to a stand still.\u201d<\/span> Instead a balance needed to be found.<\/span><\/p>\n

In South Africa efforts were made to establish a community run museum on the site of excavations from which local people could grant scientists permission to study skeletal remains.<\/span> Not all countries, however, were pushing for the return of their dead being held in museums and academic institutions. For example when \u201c<\/span>Egyptian citizens\u2026 called on their government to seek the repatriation of mummies.\u201d<\/span> Their petition did not gain the support of Egypt\u2019s Supreme Council of Antiquities, which has stated that it considered the remains well cared for in the particular institution concerned.<\/span><\/p>\n

In situations when remains had been taken in unethical ways (methods outside the restrictions of anthropological and archeological practices<\/a> such as grave robbing) museums and academic institutions strove to correct the injustice inflicted upon the remains, as was the case of the corpses of Klaas and Trooi Pienaar, originally from Gamopedi, in the Kuruman district.<\/span>\u00a0 <\/span>\u201cTheir \u2018well-preserved\u2019 corpses had been disinterred illegally from their graves on the farm Pienaarsputs on 4 October 1909\u2026 a few months after the Pienaars\u2019 deaths from malarial fever. The corpses\u201d were \u201csent out of South Africa after being \u2018wound [with] white linen\u2019 and forced into a barrel filled with two sacks of salt, after their knee joints had been cut. They\u201d were \u201ctaken by sea to Europe, where they entered the world of racial science as museum artifacts of a primitive type. The collecting processes and classificatory systems of the museum of empire had denied them any biography or personhood other than what was granted through typology.\u201d<\/span> Upon the discovery of their identities and the manner in which they came <\/span>into the possession of the Austrian Museum, the colleagues of the museum and Maria Teschler-Nicola began efforts to ensure the return of the remains of Klaas and Trooi Pienaar to South Africa. They received multiple ceremonies from both Austrian and South African officials to pay their respects. South Africa also reinstated the couple\u2019s South African citizenship and they were then officially reburied on their former property on 12 August 2012.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Museums have evolved from their colonizing and racist beginnings and are becoming solely places of education, archiving the history of the world. To continue this evolution they need to adapt to an ever changing world, much like post-apartheid South Africa\u2019s needed to rebuild itself after 1994. This transformation also means a new sensitivity to the remains housed in museums and academic institutions around the world, we need to remember a simple unifying fact. All human remains are and have always been human and as such they all deserve respect and to have their individual rights and cultural traditions recognized.<\/span><\/p>\n

By<\/em>, Alexis Cameron Ironside<\/strong><\/em><\/span><\/h4>\n
\n

18.D. Gareth Jones and Robyn J. Harris, “Archeological Human Remains: Scientific, Cultural, and Ethical Consideration,” Current Anthropology 39, no. 2 (April 1998): p. 254, doi:10.1086\/204723.
\n19.D. Gareth Jones and Robyn J. Harris, “Archeological Human Remains,\u201d p. 254.
\n20.D. Gareth Jones and Robyn J. Harris, “Archeological Human Remains,\u201d p. 254.
\n21.The Life and Times of Sarah Baartman The Hottentot Venus, dir. Zola Maseko, 49 minutes 34 seconds.
\n22.D. Gareth Jones and Robyn J. Harris, “Archeological Human Remains,\u201d p. 255.
\n23.Steven Gallagher, “Museums and the Return of Human Remains: An Equitable Solution?,” International Journal of Cultural Property 17<\/em>, no. 01 (2010): p.78 , doi:10.1017\/s0940739110000019.
\n24.Ciraj Rassool, “Re-storing the Skeletons of Empire,\u201d p. 19.
\n25.Ciraj Rassool, “Re-storing the Skeletons of Empire,\u201d p. 19.
\n26.Ciraj Rassool, “Re-storing the Skeletons of Empire,\u201d p. 28.
\n27.Elizabeth Rankin, “Creating\/Curating Cultural Capital,\u201d p. 80.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Bibliography:<\/h3>\n

Dunton, Chris. “Sara Baartman and the Ethics of Representation.” Research in African Literatures 46<\/em>, no. 2 (2015): 32. doi:10.2979\/reseafrilite.46.2.32.<\/p>\n

Gallagher, Steven. “Museums and the Return of Human Remains: An Equitable Solution?” International Journal of Cultural Property 17<\/em>, no. 01 (2010): 65. doi:10.1017\/s0940739110000019.<\/p>\n

Jones, D. Gareth, and Robyn\u00a0 J. Harris. “Archeological Human Remains: Scientific, Cultural, and Ethical Consideration.” Current Anthropology 39<\/em>, no. 2 (April 1998): 253-64. doi:10.1086\/204723.<\/p>\n

King, Rachel. “Teaching Archaeological Pasts in South Africa: Historical and Contemporary Considerations of Archaeological Education.” Archaeologies: Journal of the World Archaeological Congress 8<\/em>, no. 2 (September 12, 2012): 85- 115. Accessed December 21, 2016. doi:10.1007\/s11759-012-9202-3.<\/p>\n

Rankin, Elizabeth. “Creating\/Curating Cultural Capital: Monuments and Museums for Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Humanities 2<\/em>, no. 1 (March 21, 2013): 72-98. doi:10.3390\/h2010072.<\/p>\n

Rassool, Ciraj. “Re-storing the Skeletons of Empire: Return, Reburial and Rehumanisation in Southern Africa.” Journal of Southern African Studies 41<\/em>, no. 3 (May 27, 2015): 653-70. doi:10.1080\/03057070.2015.1028002.<\/p>\n

The Life and Times of Sarah Baartman The Hottentot Venus<\/em>. Directed by Zola Maseko. United States of America: First Run \/ Icarus Films, 1998. DVD.<\/p>\n

Bernick, Alex. “Burying an Injustice: Indigenous Human Remains in Museums and the Evolving Obligations to Return Remains to Indigenous Groups.” The Indonesian Journal of International & Comparative Law 1<\/em>, no. 3 (2014): 661-88.<\/p>\n

Munnion, Christopher. “Finally at rest in her homeland: Tribes People Gather to Bury Woman Displayed as ‘Freak’ in Britain in 1800s: The Hottentot Venus.” Edmonton Journal<\/em>, August 10, 2002. Accessed December 21, 2016.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The museum began as an archive of all that Europeans found different, savage and curious in the world. Museums were institutions of categorization and exclusion that placed Eurocentric ideals on a pedestal of civilized modernity and progress. Beginning not long before but expanding after the dismantling of the apartheid in South Africa indigenous groups from …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":490,"featured_media":7919,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[202,1,205,199],"tags":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditech.media\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7904"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditech.media\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditech.media\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditech.media\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/490"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditech.media\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7904"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/ditech.media\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7904\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditech.media\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7919"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/ditech.media\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7904"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditech.media\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7904"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/ditech.media\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7904"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}