Summary Of The Ethos Of Return

The repatriation of indigenous remains in Australia is the process by which human remains are returned to their ancestral communities from museums or private collections. The aim of this essay is to critically assess the arguments within the article written by Dr Denis Byrne titled The Ethos of Return: Erasure and Reinstatement of Aboriginal Visibility in the Australian Historical Landscape. Repatriation and visibility are two serious topics debated between archaeologists, historians, and Indigenous people. The importance of scientific research and understanding is weighed heavily against the desire of Indigenous people to return their ancestors remains to their source communities. This essay critically assesses both the arguments within the

Dr Byrnes disciplinary background is in archaeology and the cultural politics of heritage in Australia. He has written three books and over forty journal articles surrounding the issue present both in Australia and Asia. Within this, the main focus of research is on the ‘the emotional and effective dimensions of our response to old things and places’ (Western Sydney University 2017). Byrnes work focuses on the migration within Australia and the material traces which connect history and heritage and the practices which transcend this nation-state frame (Western Sydney University 2017). This is apparent when analysing this paper as it focuses on the repatriation and reburial of Indigenous Australians and the apparent segregation between the archaeologists need for historical construction and, as the paper is titled, the ethos of return for the Indigenous Australians ancestral

This correlates to the ideology of heritage and identity within Australia. Australia was known as terra nullius (land unoccupied) when European settlers colonised due to their belief that indigenous Australians were a different race similar to fauna (Byrne 2003). Jones and Harris (1998) expand on this notion with the idea that European settlers deemed themselves the first occupiers of Australian land due to their discourse surrounding the permanency and entitlement of land ownership. This Euro-centric construct of land ownership is discussed within the article with specific importance placed colonials concept of being an inheritor of the land rather than an invader and also the historical European concept of racial identities and their link to ‘the nation’ (Byrne 2003, p. 78). It was seen that because the indigenous Australians didn’t comply to the settler’s social construct of home, then the land wasn’t owned and therefore any remains were also free for the taking. This reason was simply that identity was impossible without land (Byrne 2003). This idea is presented as one of the more poignant within the text and great importance is placed on the need for outsiders or Europeans to implement a more cultivated view on heritage. Miller (2009) analyses the assumptions of European