Politics of Repatriation: Formalizing Indigenous Repatriation Policy

Abstract

Abstract:This article will show how institutions and cultural values mediate changes in the governance of repatriation policy. By examining ownership paradigms and institutional power structures and analyzing the changing discourses before and after the passage of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, it is possible to understand the ramifications of formalizing repatriation. The current binary of cultural property nationalism/cultural property internationalism in relation to Indigenous ownership claims does not represent the full scope of the conflict for Indigenous people within the Western legal interpretations of property ownership. Inclusion of a cultural property indigenism component into the established cultural property nationalism/internationalism ownership paradigm will more accurately represent Indigenous concerns for cultural property. Looking at the rules, norms, and strategies of national and international laws and museum institutions, this article will argue that there are consequences to repatriation claims that go beyond the possession of property and that a formalized process (or semi-formalized approach) can aid in addressing Indigenous rights.

Recognition of the right to participation of tribal peoples in the repatriation of Lombok treasures

“…The legal frameworks of the repatriation need to set clear regulations regarding the criteria for identifying lawful ownerships of the cultural objects looted and to determine how the native community/tribal peoples would approach the ownership and protection of the objects concerned. This approach will necessitate the identification and declaration by the Indonesian government, considering that the objects owned by tribal peoples vary (Breske, 2018).…”

“…What stands out is the reasons behind the return of these 243 objects of Lombok treasures in 1977, given as a present marking the 200 th anniversary of Museum Nasional Indonesia (Adinugraha, 2016), while the repatriation in 2023 was to support human rights and cultural rights, allowing the claim on repatriation to be more than mere transfer of "material objects" (Lenzerini, 2016), but also as compensation given over injustice affecting tribal peoples in the past. These claims emerged and reactivated the memory of Tribal Peoples of a series of discrimination in the past, including the seizure of cultural heritage left by the ancestors, abuse of natural resources, and violence within the purview of colonial history (Breske, 2018).…”

Digging deeper into colonial palaeontological practices in modern day Mexico and Brazil

“…Despite this valuable collaboration, the irregularly acquired and exported specimens of fossil wood, including several holotypes, remain in Germany. Repatriation and restitution of fossils, especially ones that were acquired illegally, constitute key processes toward the decolonization of palaeontology by addressing the injustices under colonial or neocolonial contexts, as well as shifting the power of protecting heritage resources to the country of origin [223][224][225][226].…”