The Souls That Could Not Return: Legal Disputes over the Restitution of Indigenous Remains and Cultural Artifacts

“They have yet to come home. They remain not only as bones but as memories, preserved and left in museums.”

From the 19th to the 20th century, under the names of colonialism and anthropology, numerous indigenous remains and cultural artifacts were moved to museums in Europe and North America. Bones were categorized as "scientific specimens," and ritual tools were turned into exhibition pieces. Decades later, descendants are demanding the return of these remains and heritage. However, this process has led to complex legal disputes, not merely ethical issues. I remember being shocked when I saw Aboriginal remains displayed in the "private section" of a museum in Sydney, Australia. Today, I will talk about this long journey to reclaim lost souls.

Table of Contents

How Were the Remains and Artifacts Collected? Indigenous Demands and Cultural Context Museum and Government Responses International and Domestic Legal Framework on Restitution Notable Restitution Cases and Outcomes Ethics of Memory and Future Ownership Discussions

How Were the Remains and Artifacts Collected?

In the late 19th century, scholars from Europe and the United States collected indigenous remains and artifacts in the name of anthropology and archaeology. The process often involved digging up graves, exploiting tribal disputes, and at times, coercive plunder. Although it was presented as "legitimate collection" for scientific research and exhibition, by today’s standards, it is clearly considered a violation of human rights. Indigenous communities in Australia, the Navajo people in the U.S., and various African communities were victims of such practices, and their legacies still remain in museums across the world.

Indigenous Demands and Cultural Context

Many indigenous communities view the return of remains and artifacts not merely as a property dispute but as a sacred act of reclaiming their identity and the souls of their ancestors. In particular, the remains of ancestors are directly tied to the spiritual restoration of the community and have profound significance in religious ceremonies. Restitution requests are often made through international petitions, protests, and official diplomatic channels. Below are some notable requests.

Requesting Community	Artifacts/Remains	Requested Institution
Aboriginal Australians	Ancestor remains, ritual masks	Natural History Museum, UK
Hopi Tribe, USA	Kachina dolls	French Auction House
Maasai Tribe, Kenya	Tribal flag, spear	German Folk Museum

Museum and Government Responses

Museums and governments often hesitate to return remains or artifacts, or only allow restitution under limited conditions. They argue the following points:

• Claims that artifacts were collected legally and did not violate international laws at the time
• Emphasis on public educational and research benefits
• Concerns about the original communities’ ability to manage or preserve the items

International and Domestic Legal Framework on Restitution

Restitution of indigenous remains and cultural artifacts involves a complex interplay of international and domestic laws. Internationally, the UNESCO 1970 Convention and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples provide key guidelines. Specifically, the UN Declaration, adopted in 2007, includes the principle that "indigenous peoples have the right to own and control their remains and cultural property." The United States, through the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA), mandates the return of remains and sacred items by federal agencies and museums, and Australia, Canada, and other countries have implemented similar legislation. However, European countries' legal responses have been slow and limited.

Notable Restitution Cases and Outcomes

Fortunately, in some cases, restitution has been successfully achieved. These outcomes serve as benchmarks for future similar cases.

Year	Returned Item	Institution	Outcome
2012	Aboriginal remains	French National Museum of Natural History	Returned to Australia
2016	Hopi ceremonial objects	French Auction House	Auction halted, returned to the U.S.
2020	Hawaiian Native remains	University of Munich, Germany	Buried after traditional ceremony

Ethics of Memory and Future Ownership Discussions

Museums must now serve as spaces that listen to the silenced voices of the past. Remains and cultural artifacts are not just exhibition items; they are ancestors and stories. Key ethical directions to consider moving forward are:

• Approach remains restitution from a humanitarian perspective
• Increase transparency regarding the provenance of museum collections
• Develop new models of joint management and exhibitions with indigenous communities

Frequently Asked Questions

Q How were indigenous remains exhibited in museums?

During the colonial era of the 19th-20th centuries, many museums and universities collected and exhibited remains for scientific purposes without consent.

Q What happens to remains and artifacts after restitution?

Returned remains are typically buried according to community traditions, and artifacts are preserved or used for religious purposes. This symbolizes cultural restoration.

Q Why do museums refuse restitution?

Museums often refuse restitution based on legal ownership, public education benefits, and research use, although these reasons are increasingly losing credibility.

Q Are there international standards that promote restitution?

The 1970 UNESCO Convention and the 2007 UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples are key standards. Some countries have also enacted domestic laws to institutionalize restitution.

Q Are all artifacts and remains being returned?

Not yet. Political, legal, and physical barriers exist, and restitution is still limited. Negotiations often take a long time.

Q Is joint exhibition or management possible?

Yes, recently there has been a growing model of collaboration, including joint curation and storage agreements with indigenous communities, based on mutual respect.

Conclusion

Restitution of remains and cultural artifacts is more than a matter of addressing the past. It is about restoring human dignity and recovering the history and memory of a community. Museums should no longer be merely places of collection, but healing spaces that mend the wounds of history. I also remember feeling a deep sorrow when I saw a skull labeled "awaiting restitution" at the Smithsonian Museum in the U.S. It is time for us to ask the important questions: Where do these remains and artifacts belong, and where should they be today?