Title

Repatriation of human remains and burialmaterials of Indigenous peoples in Japan : Whoowns their cultural heritages and dignity?

Author(s)Ikeda, Mitsuho

Citation

Co＊Design. 7 P.1-P.16

Issue Date 2020-02-29
Text Version publisher
URL

https://doi.org/10.18910/75574

DOI

10.18910/75574

rights
Note

Osaka University Knowledge Archive : OUKA
https://ir.library.osaka-u.ac.jp/repo/ouka/all/

Osaka UniversityRepatriation of human remains and burial materials of
Indigenous peoples in Japan:
Who owns their cultural heritages and dignity? 1)

Mitsuho Ikeda (Center for the Study of Co* Design, Osaka University)

In this paper, the author examines the ethical aspects of the debates on the repatria-

tion of both Ainu and Ryukyuan-Okinawan human remains. The debates are framed

as two sides of a controversy or lawsuit, with the “plaintiff ” as Indigenous peoples andthe “defendant” as the universities that possess their remains and burial materials for“scientific specimens.” The author poses four questions on repatriation in the politicalcontext of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007.
Finally, some proposals for pragmatic solutions are presented from a Japanese cultural
anthropologist’s point of view.

KeywordRepatriation, human remains, burial material, Indigenous peoples, anthropology of ethics, ELSI

01

Repatriation of human remains and burial materials of Indigenous peoples in Japan: Who owns their cultural heritages and dignity?

1. Introduction
Following the Japanese government’s ratification of the United Nations Declaration on
the Rights of Indigenous Peoples2) (UNDRIP) in 2007, the Ainu, an ethnic minority in Japan, began
to advocate for the repatriation of human remains and burial materials that once belonged to them.
These had been collected, or “pillaged” according to Ainu activists, from tombs and archaeologicalsites in Hokkaido and maintained in Japanese universities, chiefly national ex-imperial universities
for “academic purposes.”
Meanwhile, the debate about the translocation of the US military base3) in southern Japan’s
Okinawa prefecture has inflamed rising local Ryukyuan nationalism, which began in 2008 when theJapanese government adopted a resolution recognizing the Ainu population. In a plenary session at
a U.N. forum (19 April, 2008), a representative of the Japanese mission stated that the government“respects Okinawa’s culture and traditions” but also that “there is no widespread understanding inJapan that the people of Okinawa are Indigenous people” (S. Mgaee, online 4)). As the government
fails to recognize their Indigenous rights, Ryukyuan activists have adopted the Ainu strategy ofdemanding the repatriation of human remains. The concept of the repatriation of Indigenous people’s
remains is challenging the government to rethink their modernist perceptions of collective property
and ownership without amending their legislative systems.
In this paper, I will examine the socio-cultural concepts of property rights5) and disposable
rights, and advocate for the repatriation rights of Indigenous people from an anthropological pointof view. I will discuss the ethical, legal, and social implications (ELSI6)) of the debates surrounding
the repatriation of both Ainu and Ryukyuan-Okinawan human remains. The debates take place with
Indigenous peoples, their lawyers and civil activists (i.e., those who request repatriation) on the socalled “plaintiff” side, and the national universities that collected and stored the human remains on
the “defendant” side. These debates have remained in a deadlock for over 10 years7). The plaintiffs
have sought to establish the collective entitlement of Indigenous rights to the repatriation of remains
and objects, that have not been enacted. The defendant has rejected repatriation claims by asserting
legal conformity with the principle that “the person who custom dictates shall preside over rituals forancestors,” in accordance with article 897 of the current Japanese Civil Code8).
As part of these debates, we cultural anthropologists should ask the following questions.
Firstly, what concept of property is involved in the repatriation of human remains and burial02先住民の遺骨と副葬品の返還について：誰が文化遺産と尊厳を所有（保有）するのか？

materials? Secondly, what are the collective human rights of Indigenous people? Thirdly, why do
Indigenous people ask to have both collective human rights and to repatriate their “ancestral” heritage
from universities? And finally, how are Indigenous people’s property rights different from those of
non-Indigenous people?
My conclusion will explain that Indigenous people’s desire and/or request for therepatriation of human remains refers to their need to reclaim objects to recover from violent colonialtrauma, and to the need for a homecoming to their time and place of origin. This ideology isrepresented in their ceremony of returning9), a ceremony that they originally invented.

2. A Brief History of Claims for the Repatriation of Ainu Remains
The first systematic collection of Ainu human skulls began in 1888, led by Dr. Yoshikiyo
Koganei (1859–1944) from the Tokyo Imperial University. Dr. Koganei collected 166 skulls andburial accessories during his field trips. Dr. Sakuzaemon Kodama (1895–1970) of Hokkaido Imperial
University was the most famous anthropologist for collecting Ainu skulls. He collected over a
thousand skulls and burial accessories (Ikeda online-a, online-b). Due to the historical dominanceof scientific racism and eugenics theory, the Ainu were labeled “inferior” or a “disappearing race”
by many anthropological scientists of Imperial universities from the 1890s to 1940s (Emori 2007,
440). At the same time, scientists were rushing to research the Ainu by conducting biometrics andexcavation work10).
The Ainu witnessed many research studies being conducted without their informed consent,
and, through their oral histories, they have preserved their memories of “robbing our ancestral bodies,
especially skulls by Imperial university professors” (Koganei 2016:198–239)11). However, they did
not taken any action against these practices, no doubt because, in many cases, they were afraid oflosing the small income they received from employment as guides and information workers (Batchelor
1901:564–566; Ueki 2017:55–58).
Following Kodama’s death in 1970, the first Indigenous movement, driven by the Ainu
Liberation Alliance, emerged in 1972. In 1980, one eloquent Ainu activist, Mr. Hiroshi Kaibazawa,
requested a regent of Hokkaido University return the Ainu human remains. However, the University
did not respond directly but insisted on the importance of retaining the remains for academic
reasons. Mr. Kaibazawa remonstrated with the University about their lack of evidence that the03

Repatriation of human remains and burial materials of Indigenous peoples in Japan: Who owns their cultural heritages and dignity?

Ainu people had given informed consent to this research. The Utrari12) (today, Ainu) Association of
Hokkaido intervened and said that the association would act as a representative of all Ainu people,
including Mr. Kaibazawa. Subsequently, the University decided to construct a charnel house tostore the Ainu remains in their possession. According to national university rules, however, thebudget for constructing the charnel house was prohibited because it connoted a religious facility.
Instead, the central government approved a budget for constructing a “storage facility for specimen
collections,” which the chief university administrators have labeled “the Ainu Charnel House” since
its construction in 1984 until today. The University permits “authorized” Ainu people to conduct their
Indigenous ceremony, Icharupa, in front of the charnel house. As a result, the Ainu deferred theirrequest for the repatriation of remains (Ueki 2017).
Following the ratification of the UNDRIP by the Japanese government, the Ainu reopened
the discussion. Mr. Ryukichi Ogawa, who participated in the repatriation movement at the beginningof the 1980s, requested that Hokkaido University to open the inventory of the Kodama collectionin accordance with the Act on the Protection of Personal Information held by Administrative
Organs13). However, the government was already planning to construct the National Ainu Museum,accompanied by memorial service facilities, as a symbol of reconciliation between the Ainu andthe central government. The government instructed all national universities holding the remains of
Indigenous people to suspend any communication with the Ainu until the national announcementof the unified policy of repatriation had been made, and not to answer individual requests to return
remains. This led to Ainu complaints about a delayed repatriation process and activists initiateda lawsuit. Some cases were reconciled as local repatriation by the court of justice, and the Ainu
generally accepted their ancestral remains with their traditional ceremony, Icharupa. However, theyclaimed that it cost money to hold ceremonies and that the government never compensated them fortheir ceremonial costs. The most radical activists were now suspicious about a possible conspiracy
between the government and some physical anthropologists, e.g., genome specialists, who wished tocontinue objectifying Ainu remains as scientific specimens, without the Ainu’s informed consent.

3. Stories of Bones
To illustrate our argument, let us look at stories about the repatriation of bones in two
regions: Hokkaido, northern Japan and Okinawa, southern Japan.
In Hokkaido, the case of the remains of Penriuku Hirabayashi (1833–1903), the chief of04

先住民の遺骨と副葬品の返還について：誰が文化遺産と尊厳を所有（保有）するのか？

Biratori, was very tragic. Hirabayashi was a very famous member of the Biratori Ainu community,and even nineteenth-century British explorer, Isabella Lucy Bird (1831–1904), requested a meetingwith him in 1880 14). Later, Hirabayashi became an important informant to John Batchelor, anEnglish missionary ethnologist of the Church Mission Society 15) in Biratori. Thirty years after his
death, in 1933, Hirabayashi’s remains were excavated (or “robbed”) from the Ainu graveyard by Dr.
Haruo Yamazaki (1886–1961), Professor of Anatomy at the Hokkaido Imperial University, and hiscolleagues.
From 1980 to 1982, when the first request for the repatriation of Ainu remains occurred,
Hokkaido University was aware that Hirabayashi’s remains had been identified and stored at the
University. However, the university remained silent and never responded to the requests of the
bereaved family. Following the completion of “the Ainu Charnel House” in 1984, Hirabayashi’s
remains were relocated from the anatomy laboratory in the Faculty of Medicine to the charnel house.
One year after Japan’s ratification of the UNDRIP, and following Mr. Ogawa’s request the University
to open the inventory of the Kodama collection. In 2018, Mr. Ogawa and Ms. Yuri Jyonoguchiorganized a stakeholder group to claim the collective right to the local repatriation of Ainu remains.
After these action the repatriation movements has begun to revitalize again (Ikeda online-c).
Inspired by these repatriation movements, Ms. Yoshimi Dobashi, the great-grandchild ofHirabayashi’s younger brother, Imautokan, became interested in this movement. She claimed that
one day, in February 2016, she became possessed by the spirit of Hirabayashi and empowered by his
voice. According to Ms. Dobashi, Hirabayashi spoke in Japanese the following words to her,

Ikiteiru ningen-ni / “Jinken” toyaraga arunonara / Washira ikotsutote / Aete / Kotobanisurunara/ “Ikotsuken” toiumonoga / Mitomeraretemo iinodehanaika(If every human being has his/her own “human rights,” we, human remains, should be allowed
to have own “the rights of human remain itself.” Shouldn’t we?) (Dobashi 2017, 59–60)
Ms. Dobashi began to request that Hokkaido University return Hirabayashi’s remains.
Initially, the University agreed to the repatriation, but after reexamination of the bones by physicalanthropologists, the University denied the return because the “specimen” was deemed not to be
Hirabayashi’s remains. Ms. Dobashi could not understand and requested the University to examine
the remains again. However, the University did not change its decision. Ms. Dobashi understood that05

Repatriation of human remains and burial materials of Indigenous peoples in Japan: Who owns their cultural heritages and dignity?

the University’s final response indicated she had been deceived by the “reasonable collective right ofrepatriation,” which had not been officially recognized. She recovered from her psychological trauma
by narrating and writing her own epic entitled “Penriuku in Pain” (2017).
In the former independent kingdom of Ryukyu, the authentic name of the prefectureof Okinawa, the repatriation movement developed along a different path to the Ainu. Ryukyuan
intellectuals have argued that the Japanese central government has discriminated against theirpeople since the annexation and settlement of the Ryukyu Kingdom in 1872 and the founding of the
Okinawa Prefecture in 1879. From 1945, in what could be interpreted as the continuation of colonial
domination, the Japanese central government permitted the Allied forces, chiefly the United States
army, to exercise trusteeship domination of their territory16). The Ryukyu Trustee Government ended
in 1972 17). However, even today, almost 80 percent of U.S. military bases in Japan are located in
Okinawa prefecture.
In 1995, a 12-year-old Okinawan girl was raped by U.S. servicemen. This incident
triggered large protests and renewed interest in the Ryukyu independence movement. In 2010, oneof the leading intellectuals of the Ryukyu independent movement, Professor Yasukazu Matsushimaof Ryukoku University, proposed the Declaration of an Autonomous Federal Republic of Ryukyu.
He also organized the Association of the Indigenous People of Ryukyu and has published several
books on the colonial history of Ryukyu and the possibility of her 18) independence. Through his
research, Professor Matsushima learned that a famous Japanese anatomist 19), Dr. Takeo Kanaseki(1897–1983), former professor of Taipei Imperial University, had “grave-robbed” over 50 bodies
from the royal tombs of Momojyana, Nakijin between 1928 and 1929. These bodies have remainedin storage at both Taiwan National University and Kyoto University, even as the remains of another63 individuals were repatriated from the Taiwan National University to the Okinawa Prefectural
Center for Buried Cultural Properties20) in March 2019. Professor Matsushima had requested Kyoto
University to disclose historical information about the “grave-robbing” process and to repatriate thebodies in August 2017. And he also has requested the university to “use of scientific observation,”but university rejected his “investigation” in May 2018. Finally he and the descendants of the former
Ryukyu royal family (Momojyana) brought the case before the Kyoto District Court at the end of
2018 (Ikeda online-d, online-e)21).
Using the metaphor of a lawsuit, Professor Matsushima embodies the plaintiff, and Kyoto
University, whose president is Dr. Jyu-ichi Yamagiwa, a world-famous primatologist, represents the06

先住民の遺骨と副葬品の返還について：誰が文化遺産と尊厳を所有（保有）するのか？

defendant. At several lecture meetings for both academics and civil activists, Professor Matsushima
has repeatedly asserted, “Stealing human remains is criminal in our common sense, not only for
Ryukyuan but for all the Japanese.”
From the year 2010, members of the Anthropological Society of Nippon, a specialist
group for physical anthropology in Japan, have organized open sessions for Japanese general/laymen audiences to discuss the “importance of their studies” (including objects of both the Ainu
and the ancient Jomon people of 16,000–3,000 BP) and the importance of studying human remains,
including both Ainu and Ryukyuan people22). However, on July 2019, the group’s president, Dr. Kenichi Shinoda, wrote a letter to Dr. Yamagiwa making it clear that the group did not want to hear the“plaintiff’s voices and requests.” Dr. Shinoda wrote that,
For the sake of the maintenance and inheritance of old human remains, the AnthropologicalSociety of Nippon thinks following three principles mentioned below; (1) Old human remains
are cultural properties and national heritages that have value for scientific studies, (2) In caseof necessity, the organizations which maintain old human remains should discuss the methods
for proper maintenance by holding counsels with local government organizations that are only
representatives of specimens of origin, (3) In case of transferring human remains, the applicableorganizations should inherit specimens for scientific purposes and mention in any kind ofconsensus documents to offering for continuous opportunities for academic studies.23)
Dr. Shinoda’s statement seems to be very nervous about repatriating the human remains of
the Kiyono collection24), which Dr. Kanaseki had collaborated in collecting from both the Amami and
the Ryukyu islands.
The Ryukyuan case was obviously inspired by the Ainu movement. Indeed, Professor
Matsushima had traveled to Hokkaido to meet the Ainu repatriation activists prior to his own
claim activities 25). In March 2019, Professor Matsushima and the descendants of the Momojyanaroyal family officially requested that the Okinawa prefectural government perform a reburial and
Ryukyuan traditional funeral. To date, the prefectural government has refused their request. Instead,the Okinawa prefectural government have announced that these human remains would be transferredfrom cardboard to wooden boxes and kept in an airconditioned store room, which they claim isbecause the remains have “just returned from abroad in Taiwan.”26) However, Professor Matsushima
is deeply concerned that the prefectural government could use the remains for DNA tests without
07

Repatriation of human remains and burial materials of Indigenous peoples in Japan: Who owns their cultural heritages and dignity?

informed consent from descendants of the royal family.

4. Quest for Harmony Between Plaintiffs and Defendants
In both the Ainu and Ryukyuan repatriation cases, Indigenous people can be seen as
the plaintiff, while the defendant is the local and central governments and national universities.
The reason why the government is potentially at fault is the lack of legislation governing acts ofrepatriation in Japan. Without legislation stipulating the collective rights of Indigenous people, theJapanese government can always excuse themselves with the legal argument that they are conforming
to the principle that “the person who custom dictates shall preside over rituals for ancestors,” asstated in the Civil Code of Japan.
The Ainu and Ryukyu have sought a positive solution to repatriation issues by referring to
the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) 27), enacted in 1990 in the
United States. Indigenous repatriation movements have expressed their support for NAGPRA as aprogressive solution to the disputes between Indigenous people and their former oppressors. Japan’s
Indigenous communities want repatriation legislation in Japan to resemble NAGPRA in the U.S. The
reality is that the Japanese government would not like to legislate enactment like NAGPRA becauseof lack of any consciousness of the rights of Japan’s Indigenous people. Until today, beginning of
2020, the government has not had any dialog with Indigenous people. Another real problem is the
deficit of imagination among Japanese social scientists28). Despite our academic tradition of cultural
anthropology, we have not taken the plaintiff’s side because almost all Japanese anthropologists
receive grants from government and quasi-governmental agencies. Until today, the majority havetaken the defendant’s side in repatriation cases, with the rare exception of those anthropologists who
have been trained by Indigenous leaders. Anthropology departments in Japanese universities do notteach Indigenous studies in their own right29).

5. Conclusion
This paper has highlighted the need for collective rights legislation for Indigenous people.
It seems that the quest for the repatriation of ancestral remains does not simply entail the return ofobjects that are the Indigenous people’s property; it requires proper cultural procedure, consistent
with the New Testament philosophy of “reddite igitur quae sunt Caesaris Caesari et quae sunt Dei
Deo,” (Render to Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and to God the things that are God’s) [Mark08先住民の遺骨と副葬品の返還について：誰が文化遺産と尊厳を所有（保有）するのか？

12:17]. Indigenous people insist on the importance of hearkening to ancestral voices, and theirremains deserve to be treated appropriately, not only spiritually but also with financial compensation
for the damage caused. I will conclude with my answers to the four inquiries presented earlier.

What concept of property is involved in the repatriation of human remains and burial materials?
Legislation to govern the repatriation process does not objectively protect Indigenous
people’s human remains. For government officials, human remains should be treated as objects thatmust be returned to the appropriate stakeholder. In contrast, Indigenous people insist that humanremains are not property but a part of a whole body, a painful body, and a “mindful and spiritualbody”30) that will never be recuperated.

What are the collective human rights of Indigenous peoples?
Even now, the Japanese government does not approve of the collective rights of Indigenous
people as recognized by the UNDRIP. Yet Indigenous people have always possessed a shared senseof collective rights, long before the UN began to discuss them.

Why do Indigenous people ask for collective human rights and for the repatriation of their “ancestral”
heritage from universities?
Because there is a significant relationship between collective human rights and repatriationof their “ancestral” bodies, Indigenous people have naturally accepted the newly emerging concept ofIndigenous collective rights.

How are Indigenous people’s property rights different from those of non-Indigenous people?
Non-Indigenous people cannot imagine how this has affected those people whom thegovernment and scientists harm unintentionally. Again, I will repeat two propositional phrases
and say my inclusive proposition: (i) Indigenous people (plaintiffs) insist that human remains
are not property but a part of a whole body, a painful body, and a mindful body that will never berecuperated; (ii) For government officials (defendants), human remains should be treated as objects
that must be returned to the appropriate stakeholder.
I have examined the ELSI of the debates on the repatriation of human remains of Indigenous
people. The remains of every deceased human and their burial materials has its own history, not for
academics but for themselves. We need to more carefully examine our understanding of the afterlifeof humans and their belongings. Now is a good time to remind us of Walter Benjamin’s critique of09

Repatriation of human remains and burial materials of Indigenous peoples in Japan: Who owns their cultural heritages and dignity?

both political and academic historicism,
Historicism contents itself with establishing a causal connection between various moments
in history. But no fact that is a cause is for that very reason historical. It became historicalposthumously, as it were, through events that may be separated from it by thousands of years.
A historian who takes this as his point of departure stops telling the sequence of events likethe beads of a rosary. Instead, he grasps the constellation which his own era has formed witha definite earlier one. Thus, he establishes a conception of the present as the “time of the now(Jetztzeit)” which is shot through with chips of Messianic time (Benjamin 1968: 265).
Having reviewed the ELSI 31) of the debates surrounding repatriation, perhaps the mostimportant thing is that progressive repatriation requests of Indigenous people involve not only
returning objects but also their recovery from violent colonial traumatic memories, which evokes
a sense of homecoming to the time and place of origin 32). We need to examine more carefully theafterlife of humans and their belongings in the context of our “not passing away” colonial memories.
The Ryukuan-Okinawan people and other Japanese citizens ought to reconcile and reach a consensus
that repatriation of human remains can be returned to a certain time and space. That is, there ought
to be reconciliation between plaintiffs and defendants. This leaves the question of how do cultural
anthropologists engage with dialogs between the plaintiff and the defendant in the “time of thenow”?33)

Notes:
1)

This paper is based on reading materials of the oral presentation at the Spring meeting of the
Korean Society of Cultural Anthropology, Seoul National University Asia Center, April 26,
2019. This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number 18KT0005 and 19H04363.

2)https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/
UNDRIP_E_web.pdf (retrieved in 25 October, 2019)3)

This issue has been said as the Relocation of Marine Corps Air Station Futenma to southern
Henoko Bay. In August 2015, the Japanese government had agreed to halt construction activities
temporarily while talks with Okinawa officials continued. Today “Okinawa Gov. Denny Tamaki
showed his resolve to counter Tokyo’s efforts to press ahead with a controversial U.S. militarybase relocation project in the prefecture. It was “intolerable” that the Japanese government
started dumping soil into the landfill off the Henoko coastal district in Nago, Okinawa
Prefecture, as part of the relocation project, Tamaki said at a protest rally held in Henoko.”10先住民の遺骨と副葬品の返還について：誰が文化遺産と尊厳を所有（保有）するのか？

cited from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relocation_of_Marine_Corps_Air_Station_Futenma(retrieved in 25 October, 2019).
4)(Magee, online) .

5)

The first version of the paper was presented in the summer meeting of the Korean Society of
Cultural Anthropology (See note #1), the main subject is “Land and Tenure,” that explores thebroad sense of property, entitlement, and ownership of an area, domain, space, and territory. I
deeply acknowledge to Dr. Park Dong Seong, Institute of Asian Studies of Soon Chun Hyang
University, and Dr. Park Jeehwan, Dep. of Archaeology and Cultural Anthropology of Chonbuk
National University, with their cordial panel organization and comments on my presentation.
And also I thank to Dr. Sookja Suh, Niigata College of Nursing, and Dr. Gerry Yokota, Graduate
School of Language and Culture, Osaka University, for both productive comments of my firstversion of this paper. The author also would like to thanks Enago, www.enago.jp, for English
language review for final version.

6)

Both, ELSI, Ethical, Legal and Social Implications (U.S.) and, ELSA, Ethical, Legal and Social
Aspects (EU) research have same implication of newly emerging sciences, especially genomewide association study and nano-sciences in which researchers might address and refer in theirown contexts before all kind of audiences and stakeholders. In Japan this terminology is now
adopted as ELSI, Ethical, Legal and Social Issues (Japan) treating words and issues separately
can be problematic by their traditional technocratic ideology (Kasuga and Ikeda 2018).

7)

The fist exercise of “Right to Request Disclosure” according to the Act on Access to Information
Held by Administrative Organs, 1999, was exercised by Mr. Ryukichi Ogawa who had wanted toknow the “official register documents of human remains collected by Prof. Sakuzaemon Kodamaof the Faculty of Medicine of both Hokkaido Imperial University and Hokkaido University,” in2008. And Mr. Ogawa and Ms. Yuri Jonoguchi, both of the Ainu, have presented a case of thecivil action of reparation to the Sapporo district court at September 14, 2012.

8)

In the “Civil code, Article 897, 1” says, “Despite the provision of the preceding Article, rights toownership of a genealogy, equipment used in rituals, and any grave, shall be succeeded by the
person who custom dictates shall preside over rituals for ancestors; provided that if the decedent
designates a person who shall preside over rituals for ancestors, this person shall succeed
rights to ownership.” (Italics by author, that is translated from “SAISHI-KEISHOU-SHA” inJapanese).
http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?id=2252&vm=&re= (retrieved in 25
October, 2019)

9)

In Ainu, Icharupa is explained as “celebration of ancestors” in the Ainu’s method (Ainupuri).
11

Repatriation of human remains and burial materials of Indigenous peoples in Japan: Who owns their cultural heritages and dignity?

The Kamuinomi means “to pray to Kami (spirits),” and also means the ceremony for “sending/returning Kami (spirits) to heaven where they originally live.”10) Ueki’s work with elaboration entitled “The Violence of Academy: Why the Ainu graves wereviolated?” in Japanese is very useful for researchers who are interested in this topic (Ueki 2017).
11) 10) From Diary of Dr. Yoshikiyo Koganei of the dates from July 8, to September 3, 1888
(Koganei 2006).
12) “Utari” in Ainu means people, our fellows, or companies. The Ainu Association of Hokkaido
was founded in 1930 and was once renamed as Utari Association of Hokkaido in 1961. Then the
Association has renamed again to its original name of Ainu Association of Hokkaido in 2009.
https://www.ainu-assn.or.jp/outline/overview.html (retrieved in 25 October, 2019).
13) http://www.japaneselawtranslation.go.jp/law/detail/?vm=04&re=01&id=131 (retrieved in 25
October, 2019)14) In “LETTER XXXVII-III” from “Unbeaten Tracks in Japan” (Bird 1880).
15) “The Church Mission Society (CMS), formerly known as the Church Missionary Society, is a
British mission society working with the Anglican Communion and Protestant Christians aroundthe world. Founded in 1799.” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Mission_Society (retrievedin 25 October, 2019)16) Before the Battle of Okinawa, April 1 to June 22, 1945, not only many mainland Japanesesoldiers but also Korean workers and “comfort” women were mobilized to main island of
Okinawa. After the end of war the KOSEI-SHO (Ministry of Health) had organized volunteer
brigades by bereaved families of soldiers for collecting bone. The Japanese war veterans dead or
alive at that time were generally compensated by government. But there were many exceptions
including ex-colonial workers, “comfort” women, veterans who were diagnosed as “wereneurosis” or other mental illnesses. Only dead ex-soldiers were objects for collecting humanremains in post-war Okinawa. Some brigades were sent to Okinawa. Some Ryukyu inhabitants
criticized that these brigades misunderstood the custom of washing of cremated bones before
placing them in a funerary urn as discourteous manner from the mainlanders’ point of view, The
Mainichi new paper said in June 8, 1965.
17) The Okinawa prefecture had “been returned (HENKAN SARETA)” as a one of forty-seven
prefectures of Japan in 1972.
18) The gender of pronoun of land, territory, community, or country is female. Many indigenous
independent leaders tend to express thanks for lands that fosters their hearts and minds.
19) We cannot say that Dr. Takeo Kanaseki is not only anatomist but also physical anthropologist,
ethologist, and folklorist. He started his academic life as an anatomist after his graduation of the12

先住民の遺骨と副葬品の返還について：誰が文化遺産と尊厳を所有（保有）するのか？

Faculty of Medicine, Kyoto Imperial University. His mentor Dr. Buntaro Adachi met him to Dr.
Kenji Kiyono, the professor of Pathology, in the middle of present scandal of the Dr. Kiyono’s
human remains collction (See note #23). Then Dr Kiyono met him also Dr. Kosaku Hamada,a famous archaeologist at that time, who evoked him to be interested in folklore sciences. In
Taiwan, Dr. Kanaseki had made broad achievements in physical anthropology, ethnology,
folklore, and ethnology. He was famous academics to participate in various debates on “NIHONJIN NO KIGEN-RON” (the Origin and Nature of the Japanese) until end of his life in 1983.
20) The “Okinawa-Kenritu Maizo-Bunkazai Senta” in Japanese can be also translated as the
Okinawa Prefectural Archaeological Center.
21) (Ikeda online-d); (Ikeda online-e).
22) In the period of the Empire of Great Japan, the colonized Rykyuan had been shocked to hear thatthe stone age Rykyuan are same as the ancient Ainu, that means both were “primitive races.”
Dr. Kanaseki’s sworn friend, Dr. Muneyoshi Miyake (1905–1944) once had mentioned as “thisold-fashioned and non-authentic theory suffered mentally southern islanders with pain that otherlocal people of the Empire could not imagine.” In 1950, Dr. Akiyoshi Suda had certified thatsouthern islanders were authentic Japanese who lived southern limit. But in 1954, Dr. Kanaseki
newly asserted that the Ryukyuan and Amamian had migrated from Paleo-Indonesian areas, thatevoked academic debate against Dr. Shiro Hattori, linguist of Japanese.
23) (Ikeda online-d)24) Dr. Kenji KIYONO (August 14, 1885 - December 27,1955) was pathologist and anthropologist,
who had collected huge amount, estimated over 1,500, of human remains before 1945. See also
note #19.
http://www.cscd.osaka-u.ac.jp/user/rosaldo/kenji_kiyono1885–1955.html (retrieved in 31 July,
2019)25) Matsushima, Y., RYUKYU UBAWARETA HONE (Rykyu, Stolen Bones: The colonialism that
inscribed in remains), p.vi, Tokyo: Iwanami-shoten, 2018.
26) After opening the case in Kyoto District Court, Between the recipient side, the Prefectural Boardof Education and the donner side of the Momojyana remain, the National Taiwan University
have secludedly agreed not to rebury remains in the place of origin. Reported by the RyukuShnipo, October 27, 2019.
27) National NAGPRA. https://www.nps.gov/nagpra/ (retrieved in 25 October, 2019)28) Is Japanese situation retarded from U.S. condition of “well-organized” NAGPRA as many
plaintiffs and liberal-minded intellectuals think? I really do not think so because of the difference
between Japanese “endo-colonialism” against the Ainu, the Ryukuan, and other people of ex13

Repatriation of human remains and burial materials of Indigenous peoples in Japan: Who owns their cultural heritages and dignity?

colonial territory and North American “endo-colonialism” against Native Americans/ First
Nations.
29) Ikeda, M., An Indigenous Studies Curriculum in Post-graduate course, by the Indigenous
Studies Group (ISG) of Japan. http://www.cscd.osaka-u.ac.jp/user/rosaldo/Indigenous_studies_Japan.html (retrieved in 31 July, 2019).
30) The terminology of “mindful body” is borrowed from the pivotal paper in medical anthropology,
entitled as “The Mindful Body: A Prolegomenon to Future Work in Medical Anthropology”(Medical Anthropology Quarterly 1/1 (March): 6-41.) by Nancy Scheper-Hughes and Margaret
Lock. The central issue of this paper is the imaginative/symbolic position of “human remain”
from the different levels of individual/material, social/familial, and political/collective bodies.
31) I have examined the ethical, legal, and social aspects (ELSA) of the debates on the repatriationof human remains of indigenous people. (i) Ethical aspect of this case tells us that we are now
confronting with new social relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous Japanese thatrecalls various painful social memories of discrimination against indigenous people; (ii) Legal
aspects reflects that there is nothing more important than legalization of indigenous autonomy
rights; (iii) Social aspect also proposes Japanese social scientists to ought to write and to rewrite
the history of indigenous bones. Every human remains and their burial materials has own history
not for academics but for themselves.
32) I have pointed out the need for Indigenous people’s collective rights legislation. I will repeat two
propositional phrases and say my inclusive proposition. (1) Indigenous people (plaintiffs) insist
that human remains are not property but a part of a whole body, a painful body, and a mindful
body that will never be recuperated. (2) For government and universities officials(defendants),
human remains should be treated as objects that must be returned to the appropriate stakeholder.
33) Ikeda, M., Introduction to Research Ethics for Young Students (in Japanese), https://www.cscd.
osaka-u.ac.jp/user/rosaldo/101214R_Ethics.html (retrieved in 25 October, 2019)14先住民の遺骨と副葬品の返還について：誰が文化遺産と尊厳を所有（保有）するのか？

Bibliography- Batchelor, J. (1904) The Ainu and their Folk-lore. London: The Religious Tract Society.
- Benjamin, W. (1968) Illuminations. Glasgow: Williams Collins.
- Bird, I.L. (1880) Unbeaten tracks in Japan: an account of travels in the interior, including visits tothe aborigines of Yezo and the shrines of Nikkô and Isé. London: John Murray.
- Dobashi, Y. (2017) Itami no Penriuku: Toraware no Ainu jinkotsu. [Penriuku in Pain: Keeping An
Ainu Remain in captivity] Urayasu: Soufuu-kan.
- Emori, S. (2007) Ainu-Minzoku no Rekishi [The History of the Ainu] Urayasu: Sofukan.
- Kasuga, S. and M. Ikeda (2008) The recipe for the wisdom and mindful society: Over the Japanesemyth of technological innovation [in Japanese]. Co* Design 3:13-34. Doi: 10.18910/67891- Koganei, Y. (2016) Koganei Yoshikiyo Nikki, Meiji-hen 1883-1899 [Diary of Dr. Yoshikiyo
Koganei, from 1883 to 1899] Tokyo: Kuresu-Shuppan.
- Ueki, T. (2017) Gakumon no Boryoku: Ainu Bochi wa naze abakaretaka? [The Violence ofAcademy: Why the Ainu graves were violated?] Yokohama: Shumpusha.
Online resources (shown in bibliographic citation form)- Ikeda, M. (online-a) A History of Japanese Cultural Anthropology, from 1832 to Present (inJapanese)
http://www.cscd.osaka-u.ac.jp/user/rosaldo/040115janth.html - retrieved in 31 July, 2019
- Ikeda, M. (online-b) Introduction to The Ainu culture and history for the Sisamu and the Ainu (inJapanese)https://www.cscd.osaka-u.ac.jp/user/rosaldo/170101_Ainu.html - retrieved in 31 July, 2019
- Ikeda, M. (online-c) Can human remains claim for their return and reburial from the University
Collection Room to their land of origin? (in Japanese)
https://www.cscd.osaka-u.ac.jp/user/rosaldo/Human_Remains_as_plaintiff.html - retrieved in 31 July,2019- Ikeda, M. (online-d) Dr. Takeo Kanaseki and Ryukyuan Remains (in Japanese)
https://www.cscd.osaka-u.ac.jp/user/rosaldo/ Takeo_Kanaseki1897-1983.html - retrieved in 31 July,2019- Ikeda, M. (online-e) Short history of medical school of the Taipei Imperial University, Taiwan,
1899-1945 (in Japanese)
https://www.cscd.osaka-u.ac.jp/user/rosaldo/Medical_school_Taipei_Imperial_University.html retrieved in 31 July, 2019
- Magee, Seana K., “Okinawan activist fights for rights of indigenous Ryukyuans at U.N. forum,”
15

Repatriation of human remains and burial materials of Indigenous peoples in Japan: Who owns their cultural heritages and dignity?

The Japan times, May 27, 2018. https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2018/05/27/national/socialissues/okinawan-activist-fights-rights-indigenous-ryukyuans-u-n-forum/ -retrieved in 25 October,
2019

先住民の遺骨と副葬品の返還について：
誰が文化遺産と尊厳を所有（保有）するのか？
池田光穂（大阪大学 CO デザインセンター）

要旨
この論文を通して、筆者はアイヌと琉球＝沖縄の人びとの遺骨と副葬品の返還に関する倫理的・法的・社会的課題（ELSI）について論じる。この社会的課題は、法廷における原告（先住民とその末裔）と被告（遺骨と副葬品を保管する大学と政府）に擬することができ、かつ現実に、訴訟問題になり司法に裁定が委ねられているものもある。遺骨返還を含む先住民のさまざまな権利は「国連先住民に関する権利宣言（2007）」以降、復権しつつあり、この政治的環境の下で、筆者は論文中で集団的先住民権を含めた４つの課題について問いかつ答える。最後に、返還問題における実行可能な解決に関して文化人類学の寄与について考察する。

キーワード

16

返還、遺骨、副葬品、先住民、倫理の人類学、ELSI（倫理的法的社会的関連性）

（投稿日：2019 年 7月31日）

（受理日：2017 年 11月15日）