Hostname: page-component-5db58dd55d-m58mf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-26T13:58:36.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reviewing the experience with the repatriation of sacred ceremonial objects: A comparative legal analysis of Canada and South Africa

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 January 2023

Allan Ingelson  and
Ifeoma Owosuyi Open the ORCID record for Ifeoma Owosuyi [Opens in a new window]
Allan Ingelson*
Affiliation:
Professor of Law, Canadian Institute of Resources Law, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, Canada; former Associate Curator, Glenbow Museum, Calgary, AB, Canada
Ifeoma Owosuyi
Affiliation:
Post-doctoral Research Fellow, South African Research Chair in Cities, Law and Environmental Sustainability, Faculty of Law, North-West University, Potchefstroom, South Africa; Visiting Research Scholar, Canadian Institute of Resources Law, Faculty of Law, University of Calgary, AB, Canada
*
*Corresponding author: Allan Ingelson, email: ingelson@ucalgary.ca
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Recent global interest in preserving cultural identity and heritage for the future of previously colonized Indigenous groups has prompted the resuscitation of local and Indigenous cultures from the brink of extinction. The pertinence of protecting and managing cultural heritage as an endowment that transcends generations of people and serves as a ligature between their past, present, and future cannot be overstated. In this respect, the repatriation or restitution of sacred ceremonial objects (SCOs) and cultural artifacts constitutes an integral aspect of reviving Indigenous people’s cultural and living heritage, which has been eroded by colonialism and other forms of occupation. In Alberta, Canada, the First Nations Sacred Ceremonial Objects Repatriation Act is the foremost legislation that provides a formal mechanism for the return of SCOs to the First Nations. Thus far, it has successfully facilitated the repatriation of several hundred repatriated several SCOs. In contrast, South Africa’s primary heritage legislation, the National Heritage Resources Act, lacks direction and detail on the restitution of SCOs, specifically to cultural communities. With the aid of a comparative approach, this article critically examines one successful approach to the repatriation of specific sets of heritage objects in Canada and analyzes South Africa’s legal frameworks that consider SCOs as a component of its national estate within its framework for restitution and the promotion of cultural revival in cultural communities.

Information

Type
Article
Information
International Journal of Cultural Property , Volume 29 , Issue 3 , August 2022 , pp. 217 - 241
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the International Cultural Property Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Amoah, Jewel. 2008. “The Freedoms of Religion and Culture under the South African Constitution: Do Traditional African Religions Enjoy Equal Treatment?” African Human Rights Law Journal 8, no. 2: 357–75.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, Ralph. 1995. “Anthropology, History and the Changing Role of the Museum.” In Anthropology and the Museum. Proceedings of the International Conference, edited by Lin, Tsong-Yuan, 247–60. Taipei: Taiwan Museum.Google Scholar
Bell, Catherine. 1992. “Aboriginal Claims to Cultural Property in Canada: A Comparative Legal Analysis of the Repatriation Debate.” American Indian Law Review 17: 457–521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, Catherine. 2009. “Restructuring the Relationship: Domestic Repatriation and Canadian Law Reform.” In Protection of First Nations Cultural Heritage: Laws, Policy, and Reform, edited by Bell, Catherine and Paterson, Robert K., 15–77, vol. 2. Vancouver: UBC Press.Google Scholar
Bharadia, Seema. 1999. “The Return of Blackfoot Material by Museums of Southern Alberta.” MA thesis, University of Calgary, Canada.Google Scholar
Black, Wendy, and McCavitt, Keely. 2021. “The Southern African Human Remains Management Project: Making (p)reparations in Year One.” In Working with and for Ancestors: Collaboration in the Care and Study of Ancestral Remains, edited by Meloche, Chelsea H., Spake, Laure, and Nichols, Katherine L., 115–26. Oxford: RoutledgeGoogle Scholar
Brown, J., and Deumert, A.. 2017. “My Tribe Is the Hessequa. I’m Khoisan. I’m African’: Language, Desire and Performance among Cape Town’s Khoisan Language Activists.” Multilingua 36, no. 5: 571–94. https://doi.org/10.1515/multi-2017-3046CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conaty, Gerald T. 2008. “The Effects of Repatriation on the Relationship between the Glenbow Museum and the Blackfoot People.” Museum Management and Curatorship 23, no. 3: 245–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conaty, Gerald. 2015a. “Beginnings.” In We Are Coming Home: Repatriation and Restoration of Blackfoot Cultural Confidence, edited by Conaty, G., 21–36. Athabasca: Athabasca University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conaty, Gerald, ed. 2015b. We Are Coming Home: Repatriation and Restoration of Blackfoot Cultural Confidence. Athabasca: Athabasca University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davidson, Robert, and Steltzer, Ulli. 1994. Eagle Transforming: The Art of Robert Davidson. Washington, DC: University of Washington Press.Google Scholar
Fuo, Oliver. 2013. “Constitutional Basis for the Enforcement of ‘Executive’ Policies That Give Effect to Socio-economic Rights.” Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal 16, no. 4: 2–44.Google Scholar
Glazewski, Jan. 2000. Environmental Law in South Africa. Durban, South Africa: Butterworths.Google Scholar
Gottlieb, Yaron. 2005. “Criminalizing Destruction of Cultural Property: A Proposal for Defining New Crimes under the Rome Statute of the ICC.” Penn State International Law Review 23, no. 4: 857–96.Google Scholar
Gulliford, Andrew. 1992. “Curation and Repatriation of Sacred and Tribal Objects.” The Public Historian 14, no. 3: 23–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harrison, Julia D. 1993. “Completing a Circle: The Spirit Sings.” In Anthropology, Public Policy and Native Peoples in Canada, edited by Dyck, N. and Waldram, J. B., 334–57. Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.Google Scholar
Ives, John W. 2015. “Moving toward Repatriation.” In We Are Coming Home: Repatriation and Restoration of Blackfoot Cultural Confidence, edited by G. Conaty, 223–40. Athabasca: Athabasca University Press.Google Scholar
Janes, Robert R., and Conaty, Gerald T. 1992. “Contact Continues: Museums, First Nations and Their Changing Relationships.” Paper presented to the Plenary Session of the 25th Annual Chacmool Archaeological Conference, Calgary, AB.Google Scholar
Jethro, Duane. 2018. “Liberated Waste: Heritage and Materiality at Robben Island and Constitution Hill, South Africa.” International Journal of Heritage Studies 25, no. 3: 259–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klaasen, John Stephanus. 2018. “Khoesan Identity: A Contribution towards Reconciliation in Post-Apartheid South Africa.” Studia Historiae Ecclesiasticae 44, no. 2: 4143–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koehler, Elizabeth M. 2007. “Repatriation of Cultural Objects to Indigenous People: A Comparative Analysis of U.S. and Canadian Law.” The International Lawyer 41, no. 1: 103–26.Google Scholar
Kotze, Louis, and Van Rensburg, Linda Jansen. 2003. “Legislative Protection of Cultural Heritage Resources: A South African Perspective.” Queensland University of Technology Law and Justice Journal 3, no 1: 122–40.Google Scholar
Ndlovu, Nduyakhe. 2011. “Legislation as an Instrument in South African Heritage Management: Is it Effective?” Conservation and Management of Archaeological Sites 13, no. 1: 31–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owosuyi, Ifeoma Laura. 2019. “The Considerations of Culture in the Sustainability of Biodiversity in South Africa: A Legal Standpoint.” Stellenbosch Law Review 30, no. 2: 261–64.Google Scholar
Painter-Thorne, Suzianne D. 2002. “Contested Object, Contested Meanings: Native American Grave Protection Laws and the Interpretation of Culture.” University of California Davis Law Review 35: 1261–1303.Google Scholar
Phelan, Marilyn. 1993. “A Synopsis of Laws Protecting Our Cultural Heritage.” New England Law Review 28: 63–107.Google Scholar
Roodt, Christa. 2000. “Legal Aspects of the Protection of Cultural Heritage.” PhD diss., University of the Free State.Google Scholar
Roodt, Christa. 2013. “Restitution of Art and Cultural Objects and Its Limits.” Comparative and International Law Journal of Southern Africa 46, no. 3: 286–307.Google Scholar
Schaepe, David M., and Rowley, Susan. 2021. “The Journey HomeStó: lo values and collaboration in repatriation.” In Working with and for Ancestors: Collaboration in the Care and Study of Ancestral Remains, edited by Meloche, Chelsea H., Spake, Laure, and Nichols, Katherine L., 139–50. Oxford: Routledge.Google Scholar
Smith, Andrew. 1986. “Competition, Conflict and Clientship: Khoi and San Relationships in the Western Cape.” South African Archaeological Society: Goodwin Series 5: 36–41.Google Scholar
Task Force Report on Museums and First Peoples. 1992. Turning the Page: Forging New Partnerships between Museums and First Peoples. Ottawa: Task Force Report on Museums and First Peoples.Google Scholar
Venter, Francois. 1998. “The Protection of Cultural, Linguistic, and Religious Rights: The Framework Provided by the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.” SA Publiekreg / Public Law 13, no. 2: 438–59.Google Scholar
Veracini, Lorenzo, and Verbuyst, Rafael. 2020. “South Africa’s Settler-colonial Present: Khoisan Revivalism and the Question of Indigeneity” Social Dynamics, 46: no. 2: 259–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbuyst, Rafael. 2016. “Claiming Cape Town: Towards a Symbolic Interpretation of Khoisan Activism and Land Claims.” Anthropology Southern Africa 39, no. 2: 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, Dawn “Sacred Bundles Returning to Native Lands: Unique Law That Led to the Return of Ceremonial Objects to Blackfoot Confederacy Bands Is Cause for Celebration,” Globe and Mail, 30 July 2009.Google Scholar
Weiss, Edith-Brown. 1989. “In Fairness to Future Generations: International Law, Common Patrimony, and Intergenerational Equity.” United Nations Digital Library, 353–63. Dobbs Ferry, NY: Transnational Publishers.Google Scholar
Williams, Terri-Lynn. 1995. “Cultural Perpetuation: Repatriation of First Nations Cultural Heritage, Part III: Repatriation and Protection of First Nations Cultural Heritage in Canada.” University of British Columbia Law Review 29, Special Issue: 183–201.Google Scholar