Dialogues between Ainu, Ryukyu Peoples and Japanese Academic Associations Ends without Full Apology for Colonial Harm
On 7 June 2024, two months after the first dialogue on the Ethical Guidelines for Research on the Ainu People took place in Sapporo, the Ainu Neno An Ainu Association for Questioning Academic Associations in Japan (ANAAA), led by Kimura Fumio, sent an open letter of enquiry to three out of the dialogue’s four participants: with the Anthropological Society of Nippon, the Japanese Archaeological Association, the Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology, and the Ainu Association of Hokkaido. On 14 December, the ANAAA held the second dialogue between Ainu and Ryukyuan peoples to discuss the three academic associations’ responses to the open letter.
The Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology took the open letter’s three questions seriously, and their responses almost met the expectations of the Ainu and Ryukyuan participants. The responses of the other two academic associations made no progress. At the second dialogue, representatives of these two academic associations insisted that individual scholars were responsible for the scientific injustices inflicted on the Ainu and Ryukyu peoples in the past, including the robbery of Ainu and Ryukyu graves and the theft of their ancestral remains, and that their academic societies could not apologise for these injustices on behalf of the individuals.
The Context in the full report of the American Anthropological Association's Commission on the Ethical Treatment of Human Remains (2024, 2)* begins with the following historical reflection: Anthropology has its roots in settler colonialism, overseas imperialism, slavery, and white supremacy. The same goes for archaeology. Since the Anthropological Society of Nippon and the Japanese Archaeological Association represent their disciplines, they are obliged to take social responsibility for the results of their disciplines. In this context, these two academic associations should reflect on the relationship of their disciplines to society in terms of post-colonialism and decolonisation, stating an apology for their associations with settler colonialism, overseas imperialism and racism, and for historical and contemporary injustices committed by their members. Furthermore, they are recommended to actively engage in the repatriation and reburial of Ainu and Ryukyuan ancestral remains and funerary objects and the establishment of decolonial ethical guidelines for research on the Ainu and Ryukyu peoples under the initiatives of the Indigenous communities concerned. Doing so would be a first step towards preventing future harm caused by their disciplines.
In order to urge the Anthropological Society of Nippon and the Japanese Archaeological Association to fulfil their social responsibility, we decided to send the following statement to these academic societies with signatures.
Contextualizing Documents
Open letter of enquiry
From: Ainu-Neno-An-Ainu Association for Questioning Academic Associations in Japan, represented by Fumio Kimura
To: Anthropological Society of Nippon, Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology, Japanese Archaeological Association
7 June 2024
"On 13 April, the first public dialogue for decolonisation took place between the Ainu and Ryukyuan peoples - who were deprived of their land, name, language and culture under Japanese settler colonialism - and your academic associations. This meeting was held to discuss your Ethical Guidelines for Research on the Ainu People. The interest of the Japanese media was high, as reported on the front pages of the Tokyo and Hokkaido newspapers, and the tone was critical of the ethical guidelines. This reflects the voices of the Ainu and Ryukyu peoples who participated, as well as the reception of civil society.
We have since examined all the recorded views and summarised them in the following questions. As your academic associations have positioned Ainu consent as a basic principle in the above-mentioned research ethics guidelines, we would like you to answer in good faith. The deadline for responses is the end of August. Our questionnaire takes into account the thoughts of our Ainu predecessors, including Kaibazawa Hiroshi, who started the campaign for the return of Ainu remains stolen by researchers at Hokkaido University in 1980, Ogawa Ryukichi and Jonoguchi Yuri, who subsequently filed a lawsuit against Hokkaido University for the return of their ancestral remains. We would like to add that we are also following in the footsteps of Tamagusushi Tsuyoshi, Kameya Masako, Matsushima Yasukatsu and others from the Ryukyuan people who were centrally involved in the lawsuit against Kyoto University for the return of their ancestral remains.
1. Before proceeding with new research on the Ainu, three academic associations should face the past injustices caused by academia and issue a statement of apology. As long as the academic achievements of anthropology were based on the criminal act of grave robbery, they have been condemned not only by the Ainu and Ryukyuans, but also by Japanese civil society overall. In the same way, settler colonialism was later criticised by the new concepts of post-colonialism and decolonisation. This is what it means to be 'judged by history', and this is how humanity has taken a scalpel to the events of the past and built a better future. Learning is not a privilege, it is based on civil society and subject to social norms. We believe that the starting point of research ethics on Indigenous peoples in Japan is to respond to the voices of the Ainu and Ryukyu peoples who say 'return to us what you have stolen'. What do you think?
2. For the Ainu, whose communities have been all but dismantled by repeated forced relocations under settler colonialism and who have become marginalised in mainstream society, the bar is too high to apply for the return of their ancestral remains to their original places on the basis of the current national guidelines for regional restitution. Therefore, the guidelines should be abolished or revised in accordance with the wishes of the Ainu, and applications should not be unilaterally imposed on the Ainu, but should involve and cooperate with relevant parties, including the national government, universities, academia and local authorities. The same applies to reburial. The remains should be treated with respect, recognising that they are not objects but living human beings. Only when both perpetrators and victims mourn together for the dead who were unwillingly subjected to research and could not be returned to the earth, can reconciliation between the two parties begin. What is the position of your association?
3. The principles of the Ethical Guidelines for Research on the Ainu and Ryukyu Peoples should be discussed when the issue of the remains has been resolved or is close to being resolved. Free, Prior and Informed Consent (FPIC), based on Ainu/Ryukyuan data sovereignty, must be respected to the fullest extent possible, and to ensure this, Ainu/Ryukyuans must constitute at least a majority of the members of the research ethics review committee. Decisions must be based on the unanimous consent of all committee members. Articles 11 and 12 of the UN Declaration on Indigenous Peoples apply not only to pre-modern Ainu remains, but also to the Ainu remains and funerary objects that have been excavated through the Burial Heritage Survey Procedures. We believe this to be the case with regard to the new research ethics guidelines, but would like to know the opinion of your academic association."
Statement: Oppose the Enforcement of the Ethics Guidelines for Research on the Ainu People
From: Ainu Neno An Ainu Association for Questioning Academic Associations in Japan, represented by Fumio Kimura
To: Anthropological Society of Nippon, Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology, Japanese Archaeological Association
14 December 2024
"We held two dialogue meetings on 13 April and 14 December 2024 on the Ethical Guidelines for Research on the Ainu People, which were drafted by four associations: The Anthropological Society of Nippon, the Japanese Archaeological Association, the Japanese Society of Cultural Anthropology (JSCA), and the Ainu Association of Hokkaido. Based on the discussions at the first dialogue meeting, and with a view to holding a second dialogue meeting, on 7 June we sent an open letter of inquiry to the three academic associations, excluding the Ainu Association of Hokkaido. We asked them to respond to the following three points:
(1) An apology for the past theft of human remains and burial accessories in the name of research.
(2) The abolition of national guidelines for the return of human remains to the region, or a review of these guidelines based on the wishes of the Ainu people, and the active involvement of these associations in the return and reburial of human remains.
(3) Clarification of data sovereignty of the Ainu and Ryukyu peoples, with the Ainu and Ryukyu peoples constituting the majority of the members of the Research Ethics Review Committee (in the case of the Ainu, the Committee consists of the Ainu Association of Hokkaido and the non-Ainu Association of Hokkaido), and the exclusion of the human remains and burial accessories unjustly stored at universities, Upopoy, etc., that have been excavated through the Burial Heritage Survey Procedures (and pre-modern human remains and burial accessories) from the study.
The responses received in early December 2024 showed that there is a significant gap in understanding between the three academic associations. The response letter from the JSCA stated that the association was committed to introspection about the history of past research and that 'research conducted by cultural anthropologists in the past has (generally) focused on documenting the social structures and cultures destroyed by settler colonialism, neglecting to critique the violence of the destroyers, to acknowledge the current situation of discrimination, and to rectify it'. The letter carefully described the events leading up to the release of a statement in April 2024 confirming that 'efforts to rectify the situation have been left behind' and stating that 'we once again sincerely reflect on our past research attitude towards the Ainu people and express our sincere apologies'. The statement also reflected the discussions at the previous dialogue meeting in April 2024, including active participation in the return of remains and revision of the guidelines, and a proposal to elect non-Ainu Association of Hokkaido members to the Research Ethics Review Committee in addition to Ainu Association of Hokkaido members, as well as expressing full support for the lawsuit for the return of the remains of the Ryukyuans, which at this point we consider to be welcome progress.
On the other hand, the Anthropological Society of Nippon and the Japanese Archaeological Association, in their joint response to our open letter, have confined themselves to quoting existing reports, ignoring the discussions at the April dialogue meeting and the issues raised in the open letter, and seemingly attempting to use the Ethical Guidelines for Research on the Ainu People as an excuse to continue their research. Their joint letter states that 'the memorialisation and return of human remains and funerary objects collected inappropriately in the past is a precondition for future research on the Ainu people', but refuses to apologise because 'each association has its own position on the matters to be apologised for and on the scope and position of the apology, and there are also different opinions within each association'. In the first place, is an apology not included in the memorialisation of "the memorialisation and return of remains and burial accessories"? If so, what is a memorialisation? In addition, the phrase "the three academic associations and the Ainu Association of Hokkaido would like to cooperate in what they consider necessary to ensure that memorialisation and restitution are carried out appropriately" completely lacks awareness of the parties (perpetrators) who caused the problem, which in itself is a lack of ethical awareness on the part of both associations. In contrast, the American Anthropological Association treats Ainu and Ryukyuan remains in the same category, but there is no mention of Ryukyuan remains in the written response of these two associations as if research ethics were not necessary for the Ryukyuans. Therefore, they have regrettably failed to apologise for the academic injustice symbolised by the past theft of Ainu and Ryukyuan remains and their unjust detention, and have failed to acknowledge that they are not responsible for the current regional restitution. As long as they do not have a sense of party as the perpetrators, do not follow the social norm of ‘restore what you stole and apologise’, and privilege and sanctify academia, our distrust of Ainu and Ryukyuan ethnic studies will only increase, but will never be resolved.
For the above reasons, we believe that research on the Ainu and Ryukyu peoples by the Anthropological Society of Nippon and the Japanese Archaeological Association should not proceed at this time. We also express our opposition to any ‘research ethics guidelines’ that are enforced by the three academic associations and the Ainu Association of Hokkaido that do not reflect the claims of the Ainu and Ryukyu peoples."
*The Commission for the Ethical Treatment of Human Remains, American Anthropological Association FINAL REPORT, June 2024. https://www.americananthro.org/wp-content/uploads/tcethr-report-2024-06.pdf?_gl=1*40dgul*_ga*MTQxMjUzMjY0Mi4xNzI2ODE3MTU3*_ga_NHV0Y97DC9*MTczNDU4MjcxNC4yMS4wLjE3MzQ1ODI3MTQuNjAuMC4w