Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology

2014 Edition
| Editors: Claire Smith

Tamaki Makau-Rau Accord on the Display of Human Remains and Sacred Objects (2005)

Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_22

Introduction

The Tamaki Makau-Rau Accord on the Display of Human Remains and Sacred Objects was adopted by the World Archaeological Congress (WAC) in 2006. Drafted by indigenous and non-indigenous people with expertise including cultural heritage, museums, and archaeology, the Accord provides six key principles for decision making around the display of human remains and sacred objects. Developed and proposed in November 2005 at a WAC Inter-Congress held in Auckland on the “Uses and Abuses of Archaeology for Indigenous People,” and adopted in January 2006 by the WAC Council, the Accord supplements two other WAC ethical codes that are also relevant to archaeology, museums, and the study of indigenous human remains and cultural heritage: The Vermillion Accord (1989) and The Code of Ethicsof Members Obligations toIndigenous Peoples(1990). It should therefore be seen as an additional example of development, by indigenous people and archaeologists, of guidelines to ensure consultative and...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alberti, S.J.M.M., P. Bienkowski, M.J. Chapman & R. Drew. 2009. Should we display the dead? Museum and Society 7: 133-49.Google Scholar
  2. Clarke, P. & C. Anderson. 1998. A brief history of Aboriginal men’s secret sacred objects in Australian museums, in Unlocking museums: the proceedings of the 4 th National Conference of Museums Australia: 172-76. Darwin: Museums Australia.Google Scholar
  3. Department of Culture, Media & Sport. 2005. Guidance for the care of human remains in museums. London: Department of Culture, Media & Sport.Google Scholar
  4. Fforde, C. & J. Hubert. 2006. Indigenous human remains and changing museum ideology, in R. Layton, S. Shennan & P. Stone (ed.) A future for archaeology: 83-96. London: UCL Press.Google Scholar
  5. Fforde, C., J. Hubert & P. Turnbull. (ed.) 2002. The dead and their possessions: repatriation in principle, policy and practice. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Hammil, J. & R. Cruz. 1989. Statement of American Indians against desecration before the world archaeological congress, in R. Layton (ed.) Conflict in the archaeology of living traditions: 195-201. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  7. Hubert, J. 1989. A proper place for the dead: a critical review of the ‘reburial’ issue, in R. Layton (ed.) Conflict in the archaeology of living traditions: 131-166. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Maddra, S. 1996. The Wounded Knee ghost dance shirt. Journal of Museum Ethnography 8: 41-58.Google Scholar
  9. Museums Australia. 2005. Continuing cultures, ongoing responsibilities: principles and guidelines for Australian museums working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural heritage. Museums Australia Inc.Google Scholar
  10. Museum Ethnographers Group. 1994. Guidelines on management of human remains. Available at: www.museumethnographersgroup.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=6 (accessed 4 June 2012).
  11. Pickering, M. 2011. Dance through the minefield: the development of practical ethics for repatriation, in J. Marstine (ed.) The Routledge companion to museum ethics. Redefining ethics for the twenty-first century museum: 256–74. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  12. Phillips, C. & H. Allen. 2010. Bridging the divide: indigenous communities and archaeology into the 21 st century. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  13. Sayer, D. 2010. Ethics and burial archaeology. London: Duckworth.Google Scholar
  14. Simpson, M. 2002. The plundered past: Britain’s challenge for the future, in C. Fforde, J. Hubert & P. Turnbull (ed.) The dead and their possessions: repatriation in principle, policy and practice: 199-217. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  15. Swain, H. 2002. The ethics of displaying human remains from British archaeological sites. Public Archaeology 2: 95-100.Google Scholar
  16. Tapsell, P. 2000. Pukaki: a comet returns. Auckland: Reed Publishing.Google Scholar
  17. Turnbull, P. & M. Pickering. (ed.) 2010: The long way home: the meaning and values of repatriation. New York: Berghahn Books.Google Scholar
  18. Watkins, J. 2002: Artefactual awareness: Spiro Mounds, grave goods and politics, in C. Fforde, J. Hubert & P. Turnbull (ed.) The dead and their possessions: repatriation in principle, policy and practice: 149-59. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. - 2010. Wake up! Repatriation is not the only indigenous issue in archaeology! in C. Phillips & H. Allen (ed.) Bridging the divide: indigenous communities and archaeology into the 21 st century: 49-60. Walnut Creek (CA): Left Coast Press.Google Scholar
  20. Wellcome Trust (n.d.) Policy on the care of human remains in museums and galleries. Available at: www.wellcome.ac.uk/About-us/Policy/Policy-and-position-statements/WTX033469.htm (accessed 4 June 2012).
  21. Zimmerman, L., K.D. Vitelli & J. Hollowell-Zimmer. 2003. Ethical issues in archaeology. Plymouth: AltaMira Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.National Centre for Indigenous StudiesThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia