In Argentina, the indigenous peoples have regained their visibility and the possibility of claiming their legitimate rights to the return of democracy during the 1980s. The 1994 constitutional reform in Argentina produced important policy changes on indigenous rights that had their impact on the practice of archaeology and bioanthropology. This process has intensified in the last decade with the deepening of the defense of human rights as part of state policy.

In 2001, Federal Law 25.517/01 established that both public and private museums must make available to indigenous peoples or communities of belonging that claim aboriginal human remains which are part of their collections. It also requires that researchers should obtain the express consent of the indigenous communities concerned, in order to study these communities, as well as their historical and cultural heritage.

In May 2010, there were numerous complaints from indigenous organizations, mainly with regard to the possession of cultural heritage and land claims. As part of the celebration of the bicentennial of the May Revolution, the first instance of the process of emancipation and sovereignty of our country, a decree was issued by the National Executive, Decree 701/10, which regulated Law 25.517. This rule states that the National Institute for Indigenous Affairs (INAI) is responsible to coordinate, develop, and assist in the monitoring and study of Law 25.517 enforcement. In this sense, the INAI has the responsibility to make the necessary surveys to identify the remains of aboriginal people that are part of museums and/or public or private collections, promote restitution, and coordinate and collaborate with the National Institute of Anthropology (INAPL). Beyond these changes, little progress has been made in the adoption of practical measures and guidelines for the implementation of this decree, which has raised concerns among professionals.

In this framework, during 13 and 14 June 2013, the Third Workshop Discussion on Restitution of Archaeological Human Remains and Bioanthropological Interest [Taller de Discusión sobre Restitución de Restos Humanos de Interés Arqueológico y Biantropológico (III TaDiRH)] was held in the city of Olavarría, Province of Buenos Aires, co-organized by the INCUAPA (Instituto de investigaciones Arqueológicas y Paleontológicas del Cuaternario Pampeano), Unidad Ejecutora del Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Tecnológicas (CONICET), Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires (UNICEN), the Faculty of Social Sciences at UNICEN, and sponsored by the Society of Anthropology Argentina (SAA). This workshop is a continuation of two meetings that took place in Buenos Aires and Mar del Plata in 2011, with the objective of informing the academic community about the scope of Decree 701/10, which regulates the National Law 25.517, and discussing their implications in professional practice.

Since the enactment of the decree, it has witnessed different implementations, and difficulties have arisen that generated the need of a discussion forum to bring together researchers and institutions working throughout the country. Therefore, this meeting was proposed to discuss and try to reach consensus regarding criteria and lines of action to be adapted between archaeology and bioanthropology professionals in relation to the ethical treatment of human remains, their restitution, and the instrumentation of a protocol of free, prior, and informed consent (FPIC) of indigenous peoples. Given these objectives, the call was intended, in this instance, for biologists, archaeologists, and anthropologists in order to discuss experiences and proposals on ways to carry out professional activity, especially in relation to indigenous peoples. It is considered that with some degree of consensus in the academic community, this will assist further dialogue with the different social sectors (e.g., indigenous peoples, local communities). In this context, the activities of the III TaDiRH consisted of an introduction from a legal standpoint, a presentation of the state of affairs, and the degree of progress made in the previous workshops. Afterward, three discussion panels were developed consecutively in order to debate the following topics: FPIC, restitution and archaeological collections, and ethical procedures and precautions.

The meeting was attended by a large number of participants, totaling 63 attendees from across the country, many of them representing different institutions. It is important to mention the participation of members from the Ethnographic Museum J. B. Ambrosetti (Universidad Nacional de Buenos Aires), Museum of La Plata (Facultad de Ciencias Naturales y Museo, Universidad Nacional de La Plata), Museum of Anthropology of Cordoba (Universidad Nacional de Córdoba), as well as professional associations such as the SAA, the Association of Professional Archaeologists of Argentina (AAPRA) and the Argentine Association of Biological Anthropology (AABA). To this list were added directors and representatives of other public institutions, universities, research centers and laboratories, and the Secretary of Culture of Jujuy province, among others. This large and active participation of professionals is a clear indication of the interest that exists to gather information and comply with the law, as well as address claims of the indigenous people.

As a final result of the plenary at the end of the meeting, the following points were made in agreement:

1. 1. We express the need to intensify the debate on this issue among researchers and staff involved in management of collections in the fields of professionals, and the scientific and academic communities.

2. 2. We emphasize the importance of increasing intra- and intercultural dialogue with the different social actors in order to reflect and enrich professional practice.

3. 3. We agree with the need to extend the discussion to all tangible and intangible cultural heritage and, in this context, to consider issues relating to the return of human remains.

4. 4. We request the effective presence of the national state and provincial governments to support professional procedures in the different levels of management of bioanthropological archaeological materials, and promote the conclusion of agreements among all the social actors involved.

5. 5. We emphasize the need for representatives of our professional associations to be present and actively participate in the meetings of INAI where the themes involve the application and implementation of Law 25.517.

6. 6. We consider it essential to make explicit the contribution of archaeology, biological anthropology, social anthropology, and linguistics, and justify our right to participate in discussions on the implementation of the protocol of FPIC to be carried out on the proposal of the INAI. Also, it is essential to make FPIC viable in practice, especially in relation to the period in which consent is obtained from the native peoples and the language in which the protocol should be drafted.

7. 7. We highlight the problem of identifying the legally valid counterparty from whom the FPIC should be solicited, considering that there coexist different indigenous communities registers, and that there are communities that are not registered.

8. 8. We express the importance of active participation of the different institutions involved. In this regard, we request our representative institutions (universities, institutes, CONICET, etc.) to intervene in this matter, as this may affect the initiation and/or continuation of our research projects.

9. 9. We further agree on the need to develop general guidelines for a protocol based on professional informed consent, conforming to the characteristics of the cultural heritage and the research being done on them, in order to provide guidance for future instrumentation.

   1. 9.1. In this line of thinking, we believe that informed consent is not a specific act but a dynamic process of mutual understanding.

   2. 9.2. We agree that the guidelines must define the items to be included in the basic protocol of consent, including issues relating to human remains that are studied in the context of forensic investigations.

10. 10. We recommend considering those tasks and deadlines in research projects that are involved in establishing a dialogue with indigenous peoples as well as budget funds for conservation, documentation, and valuation of the cultural resources recovered.

11. 11. We agree that requests for restitution of human remains should be treated according to the particularities of each case.

12. 12. We suggest special care with respect to the terminology used to refer to human remains in scientific publications.

13. 13. We propose to widely distribute these conclusions in professional and academic fields to broaden the debate on future instances.

14. 14. We wish to pass on these points of agreements and to extend this debate to responsible managers, professionals, and workers from other institutions which hold collections of human remains of archaeological and bioanthropology, such as national parks, hospitals, museums, and so forth.

15. 15. We accept the motion to hold a meeting within two months, convened by the AAPRA, with representatives from different institutions to develop the project-based protocol. All SAA and AABA representatives support this proposal and invite their members to attend.

16. 16. We agree to carry out the IV TaDiRH at the Faculty of Natural Sciences and Museum (UNLP) in the city of La Plata, during the month of April 2014.

17. 17. We agree to create a forum for discussion and exchange of information among the participants of this workshop.

In conclusion, this workshop was a valuable experience because it helped to bring together various professionals to discuss productively the scope of Decree 701/10. As expressed in points 15 and 16, further work is still needed in this area that has direct implications for professional practice and in the relationship with indigenous peoples to properly care for their claims.