nrc.nl
Netherlands Returns Misattributed Human Skull to Mexico
The Netherlands returned a human skull encrusted with turquoise, originally misidentified as a Mixtec artifact from 1300-1500 but later revealed to be a 1960s creation by a Mexican dentist, to Mexico at its request on Thursday, highlighting ethical complexities in repatriation of human remains.
- What are the immediate consequences of the Netherlands returning the turquoise-encrusted skull to Mexico?
- The Netherlands returned a turquoise-encrusted human skull to Mexico at the request of the Mexican government. The skull, previously considered a top piece of the Rijkscollectie at Leiden's Wereldmuseum, was presented at the Mexican embassy in The Hague on Thursday, as announced by Minister Eppo Bruins (OCW). This restitution is outside the usual procedures for colonial collections because it involves human remains; in such cases, the Committee for Colonial Collections doesn't need to be consulted, and return is the starting point.
- How did the misattribution of the skull's origin affect its acquisition and status within the Wereldmuseum?
- The skull, originally believed to be Mixtec from 1300-1500, was later found to be a 1960s creation by a Mexican dentist. The museum purchased it in 1963 for 75,000 guilders from an American art dealer who lacked proof of its claimed origin. This was common practice at the time, when many artifacts were acquired through semi-legal or illegal excavation in Mexico.
- What broader ethical and legal questions does the skull's return raise regarding the acquisition and repatriation of human remains from colonial collections?
- The case highlights the ethical complexities of repatriation concerning human remains and challenges assumptions about the provenance of artifacts acquired during periods of lax acquisition practices. The discovery that multiple similar skulls exist globally, possibly all made by the same dentist, demands reevaluation of museum collections and their origin stories. This event sets a precedent for future cases involving human remains in international collections.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The article frames the story around the successful repatriation, highlighting the positive aspects of the Dutch government's decision. While factually accurate, this framing might inadvertently overshadow potential criticisms or complexities related to the situation.
Language Bias
The language used is largely neutral and factual, however, phrases like "topstukken van de collectie" might subtly suggest a sense of loss or exceptional value, potentially influencing the reader's perception.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses on the return of the skull and its history, but omits discussion of the broader ethical implications of repatriation of cultural artifacts and the ongoing debate surrounding the ownership and display of such objects. It also doesn't mention potential legal challenges or alternative perspectives on the matter.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplified narrative by focusing on the fact that the skull is a modern creation, thus downplaying the complexities of the situation and avoiding a nuanced discussion on the cultural significance of similar artifacts.
Sustainable Development Goals
The repatriation of the skull addresses historical injustices and the unequal power dynamics that led to the appropriation of cultural artifacts from Mexico. Returning the artifact acknowledges the cultural significance of the object to the Mixtec people and helps to redress past wrongs. This action contributes to a more equitable distribution of cultural heritage.