The Red Sea, Coastal Landscapes, and Hominin Dispersals

This chapter provides a critical assessment of environment, landscape and resources in the Red Sea region over the past five million years in relation to archaeological evidence of hominin settlement, and of current hypotheses about the role of the region as a pathway or obstacle to population dispersals between Africa and Asia and the possible significance of coastal colonization. The discussion assesses the impact of factors such as topography and the distribution of resources on land and on the seacoast, taking account of geographical variation and changes in geology, sea levels and palaeoclimate. The merits of northern and southern routes of movement at either end of the Red Sea are compared. All the evidence indicates that there has been no land connection at the southern end since the beginning of the Pliocene period, but that short sea crossings would have been possible at lowest sea-level stands with little or no technical aids. More important than the possibilities of crossing the southern channel is the nature of the resources available in the adjacent coastal zones. There were many climatic episodes wetter than today, and during these periods water draining from the Arabian escarpment provided productive conditions for large mammals and human populations in coastal regions and eastwards into the desert. During drier episodes the coastal region would have provided important refugia both in upland areas and on the emerged shelves exposed by lowered sea level, especially in the southern sector and on both sides of the Red Sea. Marine resources may have offered an added advantage in coastal areas, but evidence for their exploitation is very limited, and their role has been over-exaggerated in hypotheses of coastal colonization

A Commonwealth repatriation odyssey

Over the past thirty years, the Commonwealth has had the Constitutional authority to introduce national legislation for the repatriation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestral remains and cultural property. Yet despite ratifying a number of international instruments which specifically address this matter, the Commonwealth is yet to formulate a national repatriation policy, let alone enact national legislation. This absence of a `blanket coverage' national policy effectively denies the right of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to have many of their ancestors' remains repatriated to their home lands. This has created tremendous discontent within the Aboriginal community, and is a reflection of the continuing neo-colonial attitudes of many institutions

Indigenous peoples' rights to their cultural heritage

This paper discusses indigenous peoples' rights to their cultural heritage, using the example of rights to indigenous human remains, held by institutions, universities, scientific centres and museums. It addresses international developments in indigenous cultural policy at the United Nations and the European Union, with specific reference to Australia and the United Kingdom. It also outlines issues relating to indigenous peoples' collective rights, free, prior and informed consent, ownership of indigenous human remains and the issue of benefit sharing and sustainable justice. There are now several international declarations, conventions and policies in place to assist indigenous people in gaining some form of control and protection over their heritage, however, these international instruments are often unco-ordinated and lacking in any enforcement mechanisms and they hold little sway with those who retain indigenous human remains against the wishes of descendant communities

Repatriation developments in the UK

Requests for the return of ancestral remains have been heard from indigenous communities across the globe. In the United States, the National Museum of the American Indian Act (1989) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990) have legislated for repatriation for over a decade. In Australia, indigenous communities and individuals have campaigned for the return of ancestral remains for over 30 years, although objection to the collecting of remains is evident throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and various examples exist of early requests for the return of remains. In the UK, some museums and holding institutions have repatriated remains to Australia, some have narrow criteria for allowing the return of remains, some have policies which oppose repatriation, and others have no written policies at all. Recent developments in the UK have seen repatriation move into the political sphere, a progression which mirrors that which occurred in Australia and the United States 10-15 years ago and which, it could be argued, is what forced the scientific and museum community in those countries to accept that they no longer had sole rights to decide what should happen to the indigenous human remains in their collections