ABSTRACT
The arguments for repatriation were vigorously contested by those who argued that human remains are essential research material, and that such vital evidence should not be removed from museums, institutions dedicated to the pursuit of knowledge. Strong counter-claims advanced the case that repatriation would mean a great loss to science. With powerful rhetoric, those resisting repatriation questioned the ownership and affi liation of the communities to the human remains, arguing that the removal of human remains for research would be deleterious to future generations of researchers of all nationalities, that it promoted identity politics that racializes peoples, and that it would destroy humanity’s historical knowledge. As we shall see, the interaction between campaigners for repatriation, and those contesting it, contributed to creating a number of oppositions. One, between science and the needs of communities; two, between the future potential of research versus the present needs of communities; three, between ignoring and endorsing the wrongs of colonization versus the possibility of making amends; four, between changing the law or not, and overall sharpening the central question of this debate: who decides-scientists or disenfranchised communities?
