By Princess Eugene Majuru, Princess of Harare
Historically, many human remains—including full skeletons, skulls, and anatomical parts—were acquired under circumstances now deemed unethical, particularly during colonial eras or through methods like grave robbing and battlefield collection. The Clinical Anatomy paper categorizes these remains, noting types such as “Modern skulls and moldings… as illustrations of ‘variability among human races,'” a practice rooted in obsolete and often racist scientific theories like those of Lombroso.
For former colonies, the retention of these remains by institutions in countries like the UK is viewed as a continuation of historical injustice and a violation of human dignity. The debate is often framed by two opposing views:
Global Conservation: The scientific and historical interest in maintaining collections for study and education, as seen in the examples of the brain of Buffon or anatomical preparations.
Systematic Restitution: The moral obligation to return human remains to their cultural home for proper burial, ceremony, and respect for the dead.
The Zimbabwean Claim
Zimbabwe is a prime example of a nation actively fighting this battle. The country is seeking the repatriation of numerous ancestral remains, including the skulls of revered historical figures and heroes of the First and Second Chimurenga (wars of resistance against British colonial rule in the late 19th and early 20th centuries).
These remains are often held in major British museums and institutions, sometimes classified as “curiosities” or “specimens.” For Zimbabwe, the return of these ancestors is not simply about history; it is a profound act of cultural, spiritual, and national healing. Their absence is felt to impede the well-being and spiritual balance of the nation, making the remains symbolic links to their past and their fight for independence.
The Linchpin of Restitution: The Power of a Name
The central argument proposed by Charlier for legitimizing restitution is the nominal identification of the remains. He argues that the moment an institution can attach a name to a set of bones, the case for repatriation becomes ethically undeniable.
”We propose that the only precise element permitting any restitution should be the name of the individual… Naming the dead is comparable to an identified burial, i.e., reversing the process by which they passed, years ago, from individual to scientific specimen.”
This principle is supported by key historical precedents:
Charles Byrne (“The Irish Giant”): His case, though stemming from the 18th century, illustrates the ethical tension. Byrne wished to be buried at sea, but his skeleton was instead preserved in a London museum. The demand for burial is driven by respect for his individual wishes and name.
Saartjie Baartman: Her remains were returned by the National Museum of Natural History (NMNH) in Paris to South Africa in 2002 precisely “because a name was unequivocally associated with them.”
For institutions, this provides a clear, defensible benchmark: when the anonymity of “scientific specimen” is replaced by the identity of an “individual,” the body is no longer property but a person with inherent dignity.
⚖️ Navigating the Dilemma: Rules for Repatriation
While the return of human remains is becoming more common—such as the repatriation of Maori Toi Moko (tattooed heads) from France to New Zealand—institutions are attempting to formulate clear, non-arbitrary rules for when to proceed.
The French NMNH, for instance, follows two main rules:
Only human remains that are nominally identifiable or already identified are considered appropriate for repatriation.
The request must be legitimate, emanating from relatives or a nation (in the case of historical figures).
However, political and cultural considerations often override these strict rules, as seen with the Toi Moko, which were returned even without an individual name, based on their profound significance to the Kanak community.
Ultimately, the debate challenges the Western concept of the dead body as a non-property entity or a mere artifact. The actions taken by countries like Zimbabwe and the resulting negotiations with institutions in the UK are defining a new moral consensus: that human remains, particularly those connected to a living community, must be treated with respect for human dignity, culture, and belief, prioritizing the right to repose over scientific and historical retention.
Comments
About Author
