Long Abstract:

While the discussion on the restitution of colonially acquired arts objects has recently stirred lots of public debate this is much less so the case for human remains in European collections - while they arguably represent even more of a ‘colonial crime’. Limited attention has been paid to the problematic contexts (violence, medical research and/or race theories) of their collection, storage, alteration and use and the need to find a permanent solution in terms of return as well as remembrance both in colonial metropoles and colonized areas.

Human remains have been “acquired”, traded, swapped, presented as a gift and exposed in different colonial (and non-colonial) contexts, depending on the constellations of actors involved. In the heydays of colonialism, bone and skull collections had material and immaterial value in Europe while ethical considerations were pushed aside. The pain of African (but also Oceanian, Asian etc.) families who saw the remains of their loved ones desecrated and deported was deliberately ignored.

Today, such collections constitute “a problem” for universities, municipal or state museums and potentially also private collections. One of the issues the roundtable wants to discuss is the question what said institutions should do in terms of self-inspection, engagement with the public (in Germany AND in Africa): Should they reconfigure such collections as locations of remembrance and engage in new forms of research cooperation between the Global North and South?

A second topic is the appropriation of on-going provenance research. Due to sloppy conditions of storage and destruction of documentation it seems impossible to clearly attribute the provenance of specific human remains – a precondition for return to countries, communities, families. One element of discussion is the potential aim to “re-personalise” humans who had been “depersonalised” earlier as they were giving registration numbers instead of names. This begs the question of an adequate methodology to be evaluated both on a pragmatic and on an ethical level if re-humanisation is the agreed aim. However, the question remains how a one-sided Eurocentric imposition can be avoided. Trust is a rare currency in this field…

A third topic is the thorny issue of return: Remembering a painful chapter of the history of “communities of origin” comes with psychological, political, ethical and material/practical challenges: How can agency be assured for the descendants of the victims, and how can this be related to institutional challenges? Who is/should be included in this process, how strongly must this process be diplomatically and psychologically accompanied, who pays for ceremonies etc.? Who is to preside over the process and put into control? What is the medium-term perspective of upholding a relationship between the localities of a “journey” that resembled a simple trade in the eyes of those who entertained it and an abduction and crime in the eyes of those who lost human individuals?

The roundtable builds on on-going discussions within a research project funded by the German Lost Arts foundation that highlights the need and challenges of reciprocity. The group of involved researchers is working on a policy paper on the aforementioned and other topics (elaborating recommendations).

The roundtable builds on Panel Rest01, yet focusses more strongly on policy implications.