Remains of murdered Australian Aboriginal man repatriated by British university

Yahoo! News - Mar 19th, 2025

The skull of an Aboriginal man, believed to have been killed by colonizers in the early 19th century, has been repatriated from the University of Aberdeen to Tasmania for a ceremonial burial. The Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre will oversee the burial on Friday. This repatriation follows a proposal from the Scottish university in 2019, which was approved in 2020. The skull, missing its lower jaw, was part of a collection by William MacGillivray, a professor at Marischal College, and was used in medical education. The exact manner of acquisition remains unclear, but it is suspected to be the result of murder and trade in Aboriginal body parts.

This repatriation highlights the historical injustices faced by Aboriginal people, with the skull belonging to a man from the Big River tribe, completely wiped out by colonizers. Andry Sculthorpe of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre emphasized the importance of returning the remains to their homeland, addressing the wrongs of the past and restoring the spirits of the ancestral dead. The University of Aberdeen, which has previously returned artifacts such as a Benin bronze, acknowledges the violence and racism in the acquisition of such remains and has a procedure for repatriation, aiming to correct historical wrongdoings.

Colonial History Aboriginal Repatriation University Of Aberdeen Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre William Mac Gillivray Big River Tribe Historical Injustices

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article effectively communicates the significance of repatriating an Aboriginal man's skull from the University of Aberdeen to Tasmania, highlighting the importance of addressing historical injustices. It is well-structured, clear, and timely, engaging readers with a compelling narrative. The use of credible sources adds to its reliability, though the inclusion of additional expert perspectives could enhance its depth. The story addresses issues of public interest and has the potential to influence discussions about Indigenous rights and reconciliation. While it touches on controversial topics, it does so respectfully, fostering thoughtful consideration rather than polarization. Overall, the article is a strong piece of journalism that contributes meaningfully to ongoing debates about cultural heritage and historical justice.

Accuracy

The story is largely accurate, detailing the repatriation of an Aboriginal man's skull from the University of Aberdeen to Tasmania. The main claims, such as the skull's origin from William MacGillivray's collection and its educational use, are consistent with historical practices of the time. However, the exact circumstances of the skull's acquisition are not fully documented, leaving some aspects unverifiable. The description of the skull as belonging to a 'native of Van Diemen’s Land, who was shot on the Shannon River' aligns with historical records, but the lack of surviving documentation means this cannot be definitively confirmed.

Balance

The article presents the perspective of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre and the University of Aberdeen, offering a balanced view of the repatriation process. It highlights the significance of returning ancestral remains to Indigenous communities while acknowledging the university's efforts. However, the story could benefit from additional perspectives, such as those from historians or other experts on repatriation, to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the broader implications.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and written in clear, accessible language. It logically presents the sequence of events leading to the repatriation, making it easy for readers to follow. The tone is neutral and informative, maintaining focus on the facts without unnecessary embellishment. The clarity of the narrative aids in understanding the significance of the repatriation process and its impact on Indigenous communities.

Source quality

The article cites credible sources, including the University of Aberdeen and the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre, which are directly involved in the repatriation process. These sources provide authoritative information on the subject. However, the story could enhance its reliability by including more diverse sources, such as independent historians or anthropologists, to corroborate the historical context and the significance of the repatriation.

Transparency

The article is transparent about the sources of its claims, primarily quoting statements from the University of Aberdeen and the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre. It clearly outlines the known facts and acknowledges the gaps in documentation regarding the skull's acquisition. However, it could improve transparency by providing more context on the university's repatriation procedures and the broader historical practices of collecting Indigenous remains.