Museums and universities around the world hold vast collections of cultural artefacts, artworks, objectified belongings and even ancestral remains. Many were not freely given but taken during colonial times through force, manipulation, theft or violence. For decades, they have sat in storerooms and display cases, classified into categories such as anthropology, natural history or ethnology, separated from the people and communities to whom they once belonged.
In recent years, there has been growing recognition that the collections carry painful legacies. Calls for their return have become part of a global conversation about decolonisation, justice and healing. In 2018 French president Emmanuel Macron produced a report which called for a new ethics of humanity, setting off a new willingness to return African artworks and material culture.
However, African calls for restitution were made at least five decades earlier after former president of the Democratic Republic of the Congo Mobutu Sese Seko’s address to the UN. In all the engagements, two words are often used: repatriation and restitution. At first glance they may seem to mean the same thing, and the two involve the return of something.
Read Full Article on TimesLIVE
[paywall]
However, as South African scholars working in the fields of history, museum studies and human biology, we argue the difference between the terms is not only semantic. The choice of word reflects deeper politics of justice, recognition and repair. We argue that, unlike repatriation, restitution speaks directly to justice.
The word repatriation comes from the Latinpatria, meaning “fatherland”. Traditionally it refers to the return of a person or their remains to their country of origin. Governments often use the term for the logistical and legal transfer of people, artworks, or ancestral remains across national borders.
In countries settled by colonisers, such as the US, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, repatriation has become the dominant language. This is partly due to specific laws and frameworks. In the US, for example, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act requires museums to return human remains and cultural items to indigenous communities in a proactive manner.
In New Zealand, the national museum Te Papa plays a central role in repatriating Māori and Moriori ancestral remains from overseas institutions before returning them to local communities. In Australia, the choice of repatriation by activists, communities and scholars also sought strategically to draw a connection with the return of the remains of fallen soldiers.
[/paywall]
