In the storage rooms and exhibitions of museums worldwide lie millions of indigenous artifacts and thousands of human remains acquired during the colonial era. The repatriation movement demands not only the return of these objects but a fundamental ethical reorientation in dealing with cultural heritage and human remains. An examination of the historical, legal, and moral dimensions of this urgent matter.
The Scale of the Problem: Numbers and Stories
The dimensions of non-repatriationsystemic injustice.
- Human Remains: In German museums alone, an estimated 10,000-20,000 indigenous remains
- Example: Berlin: Over 7,000 human remains in the Ethnological Museum
- Example: Vienna: Weltmuseum holds 2,000 indigenous remains
- Sacred Objects: Tens of thousands of ceremonial items in European and North American museums
- Grave Goods: Complete burial assemblages, often removed without consultation of descendants
Historical Context: How Did the Objects End Up in Museums?
Colonial Collecting Frenzy (19th – Early 20th Century)
- Scientific Racism: Craniometry and race “scientific” collections
- Grave Robbing: Systematic plundering of cemeteries and sacred sites
- Unfair “Purchases”: Exploitation in colonial power relationships
- War Booty: Objects looted after military actions
- Missionary Activism: Destruction of “pagan” objects or shipment to Europe
The Role of Anthropology and Ethnology
Scientific disciplines legitimized the collection of human remains as necessary for research.
- “Vanishing Races”: Collecting before indigenous peoples “became extinct”
- Dehumanization: Treatment of remains as objects, not as humans
- Lack of Consent: No consent from communities or descendants
- Continued Practice: Some collections grew until the 1970s
The Ethical Argument for Repatriation
1. Human Dignity and Cultural Continuity
For indigenous communities, ancestors are not museum exhibits.
- Spiritual Connection: Ancestors remain part of the living community
- Interrupted Grieving Process: Impossibility of appropriate burial rituals
- Cultural Trauma: Ongoing harm through retention
- Human Right: Right to dignified treatment of the dead
2. Self-Determination and Cultural Sovereignty
Who controls cultural heritage? is a question of power and sovereignty.
- Colonial Continuity: Western institutions retain control over indigenous heritage
- Knowledge Systems: Indigenous decisions about meaning and handling of objects
- Healing Process: Repatriation as a step toward restoring cultural integrity
- Political Recognition: Respect for indigenous governance systems and decision-making processes
3. Right to History and Identity
Cultural objects are not just “art” – they are carriers of knowledge, history, and identity.
- Learning for Younger Generations: Objects as educational tools within communities
- Cultural Revitalization: Reconstructing traditional knowledge from objects
- Identity Formation: Connection to cultural practices and history
- Loss of Meaning: In museum contexts, objects often lose their original meaning
4. Scientific Ethics in Transformation
The scientific community increasingly recognizes its historical responsibility.
- Informed Consent: Modern ethical standards require consent
- Community-Based Research: New paradigms of collaboration
- Retrospective Ethics: Applying today’s standards to historical collections
- Alternatives to Possession: Digital archives, loans, copies
Legal Frameworks and Breakthroughs
The US NAGPRA (1990)
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act was a milestone.
- Mandatory Inventory: Museums must inventory human remains and cultural objects
- Repatriation Process: Tribes can request repatriation
- Successes: Over 1.7 million objects and 57,000 human remains returned
- Limitations:
- Applies only to US federal institutions
- Private museums partly exempt
- Cultural affiliation sometimes difficult to prove
International Agreements
- UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (2007): Article 12 – Right to repatriation of remains
- UNIDROIT Convention (1995): Return of illegally exported cultural property
- UNESCO Convention (1970): Prohibition of illicit trade in cultural property
- National Laws: Canada, Australia, New Zealand have developed similar regulations
The European Situation
Europe lags behind in the repatriation debate.
- Lack of Uniform Laws: Each country, often each museum has its own policy
- Ownership Claims: Museums cite lawful acquisition (often according to contemporary law)
- “Universal Museum” Argument: Objects as “world heritage” under “universal” custodianship
- Slow Movement: Individual returns, but no systematic policy
Arguments Against Repatriation and Their Refutation
“Scientific Value” vs. Human Rights
| Argument Against Repatriation | Counter-Argument |
|---|---|
| “Research needs the objects” | Non-destructive methods, digitization, research with community consent |
| “Scientific progress for all” | Research should not be based on human rights violations |
| “Future research technologies” | Ethical boundaries apply to future research as well |
“Universal Heritage” vs. Cultural Sovereignty
- Colonial Universalism: The assumption that Western museums are the best guardians of all cultures
- Double Standards: European human remains are not treated similarly
- Sharing vs. Owning: Objects can be shared through loans, digitization, copies
- Partnership Solutions: Co-curation instead of unilateral control
“Lawful Acquisition” in Historical Context
The argument of “lawful acquisition” ignores colonial power inequalities.
- Unfree Consent: “Purchase” under colonial rule or war
- Lack of Authority: Sellers often had no right to sell sacred or communal objects
- Ethical Retrospection: Apply today’s ethical standards to historical actions
- Reparation: Even if “legal” then, not ethically justifiable today
Successful Repatriations: Models and Examples
The Return of Māori Heads (Toi moko)
Mummified Māori heads were particularly coveted “collector’s items”.
- Scale: Hundreds in European museums
- Campaign: Decades-long demands by Māori
- Successes: France, Great Britain, Germany returned heads
- Process: Complex negotiations, often with museum resistance
- Current Status: Many heads returned, but not all
Repatriations from German Museums
- Lübeck to Hawaii (2017): Return of 2 Māori heads and Hawaiian objects
- Stuttgart to Namibia (2019): Return of remains from the colonial era
- Berlin (ongoing): Slow processes, often with resistance
- Reasons for Delays: Bureaucracy, “research,” ownership claims
The Smithsonian Institution as a Model?
The National Museum of the American Indian has a proactive repatriation policy.
- Own Repatriation Department: Active since 1989
- Over 2,000 human remains returned to 160 communities
- Process: Communities decide on treatment after return
- Challenges: Even here, delays and bureaucratic hurdles
Practical Challenges of Repatriation
1. Identification and Provenance Research
- Incomplete Documentation: Colonial collectors often documented inadequately
- Determining Cultural Affiliation: Which present-day community do objects/remains belong to?
- Resource-Intensive Research: Requires time, money, specialized knowledge
- Incorporating Indigenous Knowledge Systems: Oral history alongside written documentation
2. Logistics and Funding
- Costs of Return: Transport, insurance, ceremonies
- Who Pays?: Often communities are expected to bear costs
- Infrastructure in Communities: Appropriate storage or burial facilities
- Sustainable Solutions: Long-term funding models
3. Culturally Appropriate Processes
Repatriation must follow indigenous protocols.
- Spiritual Accompaniment: Involve elders and traditional healers
- Appropriate Treatment: Specific cultural protocols for different object types
- Community Decisions: Non-indigenous institutions do not determine post-repatriation treatment
- Temporal Flexibility: Respect indigenous concepts of time
The Role of Museums in the 21st Century
Museums must transform from owners to mediators.
New Models of Collaboration
- Co-Curation: Joint exhibitions with indigenous communities
- Digital Repatriation: 3D scans for research, return originals
- Long-term Loans: Objects in communities for specific periods
- Community Fellowships: Indigenous researchers in museums
- Transparent Provenance Research: Joint research on origins
Developing Ethical Collection Policies
- No More Collecting of Human Remains: Ethical moratorium
- Strict Acquisition Policy: Only with full informed consent
- Proactive Repatriation: Don’t wait for requests, offer actively
- Open Inventories: Transparent lists of all human remains
- Educational Work: Educate public about colonial collection history
What You as a Museum Visitor Can Do
Public pressure can accelerate change.
- Ask Critical Questions: Inquire about provenance, consent, repatriation policy
- Use Social Media: Draw attention to non-repatriated human remains
- Show Support: Support museums with good repatriation policies
- Educational Work: Inform others about the issue
- Political Activism: Advocate for laws mandating repatriation
Conclusion: From Colonial Trophies to Healed Relationships
The repatriation of artifacts and human remains is not a question of museum generosity, but one of justice and human dignity. It marks a necessary step in addressing colonial injustice and restoring cultural integrity for indigenous peoples.
Museums stand at a crossroads: They can continue to act as guardians of colonial loot or transform into partners in healing processes. Repatriation is not the end but the beginning of new relationships – relationships based on respect, equality, and genuine partnership.
Every returned object, every repatriated ancestor is not only a correction of historical injustice but an investment in a more just future – a future where all cultures can determine their own heritage.
The question is not whether museums must return, but how quickly and respectfully they do it. For as long as indigenous ancestors lie in museum storage rooms, our museums remain monuments to colonial violence rather than places of true human encounter.