News about colonial collections and restitution

RM* reports news about collections from former colonial territories and their future.

RM* enables heritage lovers to inform themselves about developments in this field and reduces the knowledge gap between the global south and the global north.

RM* is for all heritage enthusiasts around the world – both professionals and others – concerned with decolonising collections from colonial areas. 

Filter by content type
The Pitt Rivers Museum has transferred ownership of a Māori kiwi feather cloak, held on loan since 1913, to the Ngāti Rārua o Te Wairau Society.
Gunther Fehlinger-Jahn's 2028 campaign pledge puts one of the world's most significant pre-Columbian artifacts back in play and signals how repatriation politics are reshaping what institutions can keep and what collectors can trade.
The newly created Commission for Historically Problematic Cultural Heritage has adopted the procedural rules for dealing with individual cases of disputed items, either related to Nazi loot or colonial loot.
Nigeria rejects the prospect of borrowing the Benin Bronzes from the British Museum. 'Such a proposal as an insult to a nation seeking the return of artefacts looted by British forces in 1897.' Holloway said that restitution must involve 'transferring ownership, not merely temporarily returning objects'.

Dedicated to a mask, its maker and first users

Long ago, it was in Goma (DR Congo), I held this Congolese mask in my hands. The dealer claimed it to be very old; he was keen to sell it. But unlike other wooden pieces, which he offered for little money, he asked a big sum for this one. Perhaps, it was indeed old and valuable. Back then, the mask struck a chord with me. Nowadays, it still does.

Drawing on his TheMuseumsLab journey through Berlin, Gothenburg and Addis Ababa — and on the CRDS in Senegal becoming a host institution one year later — Alioune Samb’s reflection asks: if objects move but the power to define them does not, what exactly has been decolonised?
[in German] What is the goal of the restitution of cultural artifacts? How can restitution be turned into an expression of appreciation for cultural heritage? And what role do the actors play in the restitution process? 'Restitution requires long-term cooperation.'
Repatriation has been widely examined in international and settler-colonial contexts, but its operation within postcolonial nation-states presents a different configuration of heritage relationships that has received less attention.
In 'Loot and the Making of British India', James L. Hevia unveils the intricate and often contentious role of military looting and prize practices in shaping British imperial expansion on the Indian subcontinent. The British army developed a unique system that transformed plundered property into 'booty' and redefined it as prize money, distributed under royal prerogative.

When restitution reproduces colonial harm

A crucial question in any restitution process is deceptively simple: to whom do we return? What does restitution mean if the People whose Ancestors are being returned have not given their free, prior and informed consent to the process, and if its leaders have publicly contested the arrangements through which the return has been organised? The restitution of three Kawésqar Ancestors helps us find the answer to these questions.

>>>

The Warlpiri Project and Yuendumu community uses repatriation to create a better future for the next generations

Since 2019, a number of sacred objects and ancestral remains have been repatriated to the Warlpiri people of Yuendumu community north-west of Alice Springs in the middle of Australia. For them repatriation is about healing the community, but in particular healing the young men and women of their community, writes Jamie Hampton*. In this Blog, he shares his story about the Yuendumu community and how repatriation has helped them heal from past injustices, providing pathways for the next generations of Warlpiri to ensure they live a life grounded in culture in a changing world.

>>>