Within the shifting global context of restitutionary practices, ancestral remains have come to occupy a special space of concern across the museum profession, among academics, and importantly, among representatives of different communities who share relations with these ancestors. Within the framework of restitution of objects collected within a colonial context, ancestral remains present similar complications to other objects, for example in terms of their precise provenance, or the complexity of the historical conditions through which they entered museums. Like other objects, ancestral remains were gifted, traded through established dealers, acquired during conditions of war, but also stolen. And yet, they also present more complex challenges.
On the one hand, questions may arise as to whether ancestral remains can/should be regarded as museological objects and therefore can be owned by museums in the first place. Are human and ancestral remains “objects”? It could also be asked, how do we deal with the differing ways of assigning value to this category of object that would make them either scientific, cultural, or ancestral, whether these are mutually exclusive categories, and how might these different categories impact decisions about return? Indeed, as a category of “object”, does it matter how they were collected, for example, through scientific expeditions or in hospitals after the patient died? Were they collected as part of medical explorations or to prove specific, now discredited, racial ideas? Does it make a difference? Can we conceive of ethico-legal frameworks beyond return that could allow ancestral remains to be cared for, researched, or displayed, for example, when done together with descendant communities, as part of a scientific or educative agenda, that still honor ancestral rights and dignity? Said differently, is return the only option for repair?
Arguably, a more mundane question to ask is how to define human and ancestral remains, and what are the limits of what fits in or outside of this category? Are all human remains ancestral? Should all categories of ancestral remains be treated in the same way – is the category hair or nail similar to skin or even skeletal remains? How might the different intellectual histories, or the historical function for which remains were used impact on how we treat with them in the present? Or do we also include photographs, or facial mask taking in the process of physical anthropology?