Living things without bones pose a quandary formuseums

LONDON — In April 1868, Emperor Tewodros I I of Ethiopia killed himself with a pistol that had been given to him by Queen Victoria, so that he didn’t have to surrender to an invading British force.

A British military offifficer painted the emperor on his deathbed and then cut two locks of hair from his head.

The hair spent 60 years in the collection of Britain’s National Army Museum in London. On Wednesday, it was returned to Ethiopia.

It was an important, and sensitive, moment. “Tewodros is seen by many Ethiopians as a father of the country,” said Ababi Demissie, with the Ethiopian Embassy in London.

But the return of the hair was also a simple case in the wider debate about what to do with human remains in European museums that were removed without the consent of their countries of origin. Others are more complicated.

“Many objects that are seen to be ethnographic items are actually considered to be people’s grandparents,” said Christoph Balzar, a doctoral student in art history at the University of Bonn, Germany.

For example, he said, consider a girdle made from human hair .“What is that? Is it remains? Is it not?” he asked. “You can destroy amuseum’s collection with a defifinition.”

In the restitution debate swirling through European museums, the treatment of human remains has been cited as an area of steady progress. Museums say putting skeletons and relics on display aids understanding of world cultures and sci ent if ific development throughout history. But somewere taken from indigenous groups.

Last year, a report commissioned by President Emmanuel Mac ron of France that recommended returning artifacts to Africa highlighted France’ s plan to return the skulls of Algerian resistance fifighters taken during its rule of the country. It also mentioned actions by European museums to return preserved, tattooed Maori heads to NewZealand and to send the bones of indigenous people slaughtered by Germancolonial troopsback to Namibia.