Restitution versus repatriation: Terminology and concepts matter
Ciraj Rassool, Victoria E. Gibbon- Paleontology
- Archeology
- Genetics
- Anthropology
- Anatomy
- Epidemiology
Abstract
Introduction
Through museum collecting practice, the deceased, possessions, plants and animals were turned into objects, removed from their communities and places of origin, and were segregated and divided into museum classificatory systems. In the decolonial work of embarking upon purposeful and proactive acts of return, the terms “repatriation” and “restitution” have often been used interchangeably.
Objective
To assess the terminological differences between repatriation and restitution.
Methods
Here, we critically discuss the politics of these terms and present an argument for restitution as restitutionary work.
Results
Repatriation refers to the legal, administrative and logistical matters of returning across national borders. However, restitution is a preferred concept highlighting deeper meanings of return to the proper owner, with restitutionary work being time‐consuming, emotional, often painful, enriching acts of restoration, and transitional justice. Restitution is about the embodiment and empowerment of choice over all aspects of the return.
Conclusion
Here, we argue that terminology matters. While restitution may involve repatriation, repatriation is not a substitute for acts of restoration embodied in restitutionary work.