The DOI matches its Crossref record; 17 of the 17 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 16 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics
Open accessAbstract
The last decade has witnessed increasing numbers of “provenance research” projects investigating the histories of human remains in academic collections and leading to their restitution. Such projects explicitly and implicitly address the historical injustices and their continuities of amassing people’s mortal remains and their subsequent use by those who have appropriated them. This article considers which historical wrongdoings provenance research and restitutions attempt to address and how effective they are in doing so. Firstly, the article points towards the relatively effective recognition of spiritual and emotional injustice. Secondly, it discusses the limited recognition of “race science’s” history and legacies and of its logic’s persistence in a social essentialism that inheres in contemporary handling of such human remains. Thirdly, it discusses how recognition of past oppression, dispossession and exploitation ties to broader political goals and attempts at redistribution.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The article argues that provenance research and restitution of human remains most effectively deliver spiritual and emotional recognition, but address the injustices of “race science” and colonial exploitation less well. It contends that restitution often relies on essentialist identity ascriptions, making it a form of identity politics with limited potential for redistribution or structural change.
Key findings
- Restitutions can provide spiritual and emotional recognition: Damiana/Kryygi’s remains were restituted from Argentina in 2010 and Germany in 2012 and ceremonially buried in Paraguay; Hawaiian iwi kūpuna were restituted from the University of Göttingen in 2022, with rituals and statements about restoring ancestral foundations.
- Recognition of “race science” is limited: the paper states it knows of no restitutions that included a detailed exposé of “race science’s” exact errors, and argues restitution reproduces social essentialism by ascribing ethnic or national identities through phenotype, genotype, place of dwelling, or place of death.
- Redistribution is limited and politically contested: German restitutions to Namibia in 2011, 2014, and 2018 were tied to recognition of colonial violence and a 1.1 billion Euro additional aid package over 30 years to the Namibian government, almost half earmarked for land reform; the Damiana/Kryygi restitution led to no concrete redistribution.
- The author’s Göttingen project received close to 1 million euro from the Volkswagen Foundation; after a year and a half, the 3-year project had led to one restitution of remains of fourteen individuals to Hawaii, with perhaps groundwork for two or three more, while a couple of thousand human remains held by the university remain unresolved.
Methods
- Conceptual and analytical article using Nancy Fraser’s distinction between recognition and redistribution to assess provenance research and restitution as identity politics.
- Draws on illustrative cases: Damiana/Kryygi in Paraguay, Argentina, and Germany; Hawaiian restitutions from the University of Göttingen; and German restitutions to Namibia.
- Mentions interviews with people involved in provenance research and restitutions, particularly scientists caring for and working with academic collections; the number and sampling of interviewees are not stated.
Limitations
- No formal limitations section is present; the paper states that evaluation of restitutions depends on one’s political convictions.
- Evident in the text: the interview data are not quantified or systematically described, and the case selection is illustrative rather than exhaustive.
- Evident in the text: the author was employed in the University of Göttingen “Sensitive Provenances” project funded by the Volkswagen Foundation, a positionality relevant to the analysis.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
46 Own interpretation · 26 No basis given · 6 No full text of the sources · 5 Own result · 4 Sources not found · 4 Not checked yet · 1 Own method
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In other words, in most restitution cases, human remains have social identities ascribed to them using criteria such as phenotype, genotype, place of dwelling or place of death, with no knowledge of the identities which the living person actually identified with.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The scientific racism underlying such collections' histories is sometimes mentioned during restitution ceremonies.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Damiana/Kryygi's restitution to Paraguay included public mention and recognition of Aché people's experiences of violence, killings and land dispossession and of the persistent oppression and exploitation they still face.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of historical oppression and exploitation, and the issue of redistribution
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Contemporary provenance researchers and restitution personnel then face the problem of identifying the origin of specific human remains in collections.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blumenbach and other”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“restitution relies on ascribing a group identity-a contemporary ethnic or national identity.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While this restitution attracted media attention, it led to no concrete redistribution-although some might argue that the attention provided some symbolic weight for future redistribution claims.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of historical oppression and exploitation, and the issue of redistribution
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These examples illustrate how restitutions can provide some sense of spiritual and emotional justice in the form of recognition of spiritual claims and demands, and of historical trauma, alongside the return of ancestral spirits.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Spiritual and emotional recognition
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Professor Tolan's framing of the restitution as repairing the wrong which”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Blumenbach's naming types as”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 43
- It may state two separate claims as one. 29
- The quote only partly states this claim. 2
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some objected to affording priority to non-scientific beliefs over the scientific potential of such collections to produce knowledge.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Spiritual and emotional recognition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This example is hardly exceptional.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some said that spending such sums solely on research and restitution ceremonies is perverse in contexts where restitutions often involve poor communities which could benefit materially from such money (see discussion below regarding the redistribution aspect of social justice).”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Spiritual and emotional recognition
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Comparative anatomical and anthropological taxonomies produced essentialist race categories by objectifying, de-individualising and using people's bodies.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The human-remains collections are merely”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I know of no restitutions that have included a detailed exposé of”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Spiritual and emotional claims are perhaps the most commonly and explicitly emphasised aspect of restitutions.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Spiritual and emotional recognition
hedgedSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Others questioned the substantial amounts of funding and work it requires-it involves years, even decades, of research to investigate hundreds or thousands of human remains, needing substantial funding.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Spiritual and emotional recognition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In today's context, demands for restitution overlay a sense of national guilt.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“So-called”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Such ascriptions are based on either historical information about regions or places of”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Hawaiian restitutions explicitly and primarily relate to spiritual and cultural values, but they also entail political hopes and agendas (see final section).”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Spiritual and emotional recognition
plaincorrelationalSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There is neither examination of that paradigm's precise scientific errors nor of its socio-political consequences.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Also, a couple of interviewees suggested other less expensive ways of honouring the dead and recognising the injusticese.g.collective funerals or even mass graves.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Spiritual and emotional recognition
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Human remains are then”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“While the majority saw it positively, others expressed doubts that a sense of spiritual justice can legitimise restitutions.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Spiritual and emotional recognition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many official representatives of so-called”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Spiritual and emotional recognition
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That the ideas it generated in turn legitimised discrimination, slavery and colonialism exacerbated that injustice.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This logic inherent in his words is, in turn, facilitated by provenance research having established that the human remains were”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Provenance research and restitutions are no exception in a contemporary world where much socio-political organisation relies on essentialist and reified notions of groups and identities.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The two restitutions, from Argentina and Germany, to some extent symbolically addressed the injustices committed both against the young girl who was oppressed and exploited in life and in death, and against those who share similar stories and are the heirs of continuous oppression of indigenous people in Paraguay.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Spiritual and emotional recognition
hedgeddirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“I have interviewed people involved in provenance research and restitutions, particularly scientists caring for and working with academic collections, about their thoughts and positions regarding restitutions.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Spiritual and emotional recognition
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Almost half of the amount is earmarked for land reform which is locally contentious as it might be used to provide land to families other than those whose ancestors were subjected to the genocide (van Wyk 2021).”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of historical oppression and exploitation, and the issue of redistribution
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites van Wyk 2021
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(2) Addressing injustices through using essentialist identity categories assumes that people are necessarily underprivileged primarily because of their identity.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In some cases, it can be quite reasonably assumed that an individual would in fact not identify with such ascribed categories, as many present-day social (ethnic or national) categories do not have a continuous history.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Conclusions
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“He wished to prove inheritance of negative traits amongst”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lösch 1997
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Addressing other historical injustices, such as spiritual injustices, through restitutions usually also relies on such identity ascriptions.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Publicly recognising”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Social essentialism is inherently erroneous so seeking to address social injustices using essentialist thinking perpetuates that error and risks unforeseen consequences”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Contemporary Germany's prevailing critical historical gaze on the horrors of National Socialism also gave important visibility to earlier historical injustices and pressured politicians to act.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of historical oppression and exploitation, and the issue of redistribution
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The role of restitutions in such political agendas is, however, difficult to assess in social justice terms.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of historical oppression and exploitation, and the issue of redistribution
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“While the pain cannot be fixed, such restitution offers spiritual and emotional recognition, a platform to express pain and trauma.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Spiritual and emotional recognition
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Fernández Mouján (2015)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Koel-Abt and Winkelmann 2013 source
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“For example, Eugen Fischer, conducted research on human remains and curated a collection at the University of Freiburg, along with research on living people in German South-West Africa.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Conclusions
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lösch 1997
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Consequently, many restitutions have an inherently spiritual and emotional character, and address the spiritual and emotional offence of appropriation of human remains.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Spiritual and emotional recognition
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In Namibia, too, the restitutions marked an important recognition of past violence-of murder, genocide and land dispossession-but then became entangled in conflicting claims.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of historical oppression and exploitation, and the issue of redistribution
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Sometimes restitutions relate to broader agendas of political change and, on occasion, to some form of redistribution.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of historical oppression and exploitation, and the issue of redistribution
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In that sense, restitution addresses harmed people's sense of spiritual and emotional injustice and the injustice of theft of mortal remains.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Spiritual and emotional recognition
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The act of”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of historical oppression and exploitation, and the issue of redistribution
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Not only is”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The above examples all reveal the entanglement of restitutions of human remains in diverse socio-political issues, which are often complex and in myriad ways attempt to achieve social justice through both recognition and redistribution.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of historical oppression and exploitation, and the issue of redistribution
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Under pressure, German authorities have recently acknowledged and apologised for the genocide and, after long and controversial negotiations, have agreed to a 1.1 billion Euro additional aid package, over 30 years, to the Namibian government.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of historical oppression and exploitation, and the issue of redistribution
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As with all political processes, evaluation of such practices depends on one's political convictions.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of historical oppression and exploitation, and the issue of redistribution
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Yet, despite his anti-racist motivations,foot_5 his racial taxonomy-a development of Linnaeus's-conflated biological and social categories and, in so doing, helped perpetuate social essentialism and enabled others to solidify the idea of biological”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wilckens 2022 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Spiritual restitution ceremonies often rest on the assumption that a given person belonged to a given ethno-cultural group, and by extension shared the group's spiritual or religious convictions.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A further portion of the amount is to be used to improve rural roads, water, sanitation and (renewable) energy infrastructure, and education and vocational training.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of historical oppression and exploitation, and the issue of redistribution
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“That historical offence is exacerbated by the contemporary harm of keeping ancestors' remains in collections, a harm that contradicts principles of respect for and honour of other people's religious or spiritual beliefs.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Spiritual and emotional recognition
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Here, one sees restitution of human remains being tied both to broader issues of recognition of colonial oppression and exploitation and to concerns for redistribution.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of historical oppression and exploitation, and the issue of redistribution
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Acknowledging a negative right to identities means that, then any identitarian ascription, without a person's consent would be a form of injustice.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, identity politics focuses on issues of recognition of historical and continuous forms of oppression, dispossession and exploitation while offering limited opportunity for surface redistribution and little hope for political-economic change.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Conclusions
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Evaluating the extent to which social justice is achieved through such redistribution depends on one's political convictions.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of historical oppression and exploitation, and the issue of redistribution
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Theories produced through”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of historical oppression and exploitation, and the issue of redistribution
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Herero and Nama non-governmental organisations identified the human remains to be their ethnic ancestors, while national government representatives identified them as Namibian national heroes.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of historical oppression and exploitation, and the issue of redistribution
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Even if, in specific contexts, experiences of oppression and exploitation statistically correlate with identity, using identity categories is an imprecise and indirect strategy for addressing their exploitation and oppression.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The vocabulary used in provenance research and restitutions often conveys identitarian meaningsobjects or human remains are returned to their patria (repatriated) and handed over to ethnic or national representatives who are seen as inheritors by the virtue of identity (a groupist and culturalist view of society and history).”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Conclusions
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is hard to imagine restitutions of human remains contributing to such an overall goal.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of historical oppression and exploitation, and the issue of redistribution
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It would complicate restitutions further by raising doubts about whom to address, especially if the goal is to deliver sustained justice.”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Recognition of the errors of "race science"
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This contemporary practice most explicitly focuses on spiritual and emotional harm, which is recognised in acts of returning mortal remains to the places from which they were taken, and to representatives of so-called”
§ Bones and injustices: provenance research, restitutions and identity politics > Conclusions
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
The last decade has witnessed increasing numbers of provenance research projects investigating histories of human remains in academic collections and leading to their restitution.
“The last decade has witnessed increasing numbers of”
The paper relies on this without support.
Science was the main motivation for amassing large numbers of human remains from around the world.
“Science was the main motivation for amassing large numbers of human remains from around the world.”
The paper relies on this without support.
In colonial and imperial contexts, bodies of those seen as lesser beings were systematically collected around the world.
“In colonial and imperial contexts, bodies of those seen as lesser beings were systematically”
Citations
Cites
From Redistribution to Recognition? Dilemmas of Justice in a “Postsocialist” Age
(2014) · Justice Interruptus · doi:10.4324/9781315822174-8 · Cited by 1,121
Templeton, A. R. (2013) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.04.010 · Cited by 279
Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations
Witherspoon, D. J., Wooding, S., Rogers, A. R., Marchani, E. E., Watkins, W. S., Batzer, M. A., & Jorde, L. B. (2007) · Genetics · doi:10.1534/genetics.106.067355 · Cited by 271
Who Is the Citizen's Other? Considering the Heft of Citizenship
Macklin, A. (2007) · Theoretical Inquiries in Law · doi:10.2202/1565-3404.1153 · Cited by 53
Reticulate evolution and the human past: an anthropological perspective
Winder, I. C., & Winder, N. (2014) · Annals of Human Biology · doi:10.3109/03014460.2014.922613 · Cited by 43
Realism, Antirealism, and Conventionalism about Race
Kaplan, J. M., & Winther, R. G. (2014) · Philosophy of Science · doi:10.1086/678314 · Cited by 43
Antiracism: a neoliberal alternative to a left
Reed, A. (2018) · Dialectical Anthropology · doi:10.1007/s10624-017-9476-3 · Cited by 37
Patrimonialities: Heritage vs. Property
Hafstein, V. T., & Skrydstrup, M. (2020) · doi:10.1017/9781108933629 · Cited by 29
Encountering, explaining and refuting essentialism
Kurzwelly, J., Rapport, N., & Spiegel, A. D. (2020) · Anthropology Southern Africa · doi:10.1080/23323256.2020.1780141 · Cited by 28
Self-citationIdentity Politics: A Marxist View
Das, R. J. (2020) · Class Race Corporate Power · doi:10.25148/crcp.8.1.008921 · Cited by 22
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Lösch, Niels C. 1997. Rasse Als Konstrukt: Leben Und Werk Eugen Fischers. Europäische Hochschulschriften. Reihe III, Geschichte Und Ihre Hilfswissenschaften, Publications Universitaires Européennes. Série III, Histoire, Sciences Auxiliaires de l’histoire ; European University Studies. Series III, History and Allied Studies, Bd. 737 = vol. 737 = vol. 737. Frankfurt am Main ; New York: Lang.
- Winther, Rasmus Grønfeldt. 2014. The genetic reification of “race”?: A story of two mathematical methods. Critical Philosophy of Race 2(2): 204–223. https://doi.org/10.1353/por.2014.0008. · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Calcified identities: Persisting essentialism in academic collections of human remains
Kurzwelly, J., & Wilckens, M. S. (2022) · Anthropological Theory · doi:10.1177/14634996221133872 · Cited by 15
Self-citationA consolidated summary of South African human skeletal repositories
Baliso, A., Malek, S., & Gibbon, V. E. (2024) · Annals of Anatomy - Anatomischer Anzeiger · doi:10.1016/j.aanat.2024.152326 · Cited by 10
van Beurden, J. (2024) · Amsterdam University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9789048564088 · Cited by 9
Identity politics and social justice
Kurzwelly, J., Pérez, M., & Spiegel, A. D. (2023) · Dialectical Anthropology · doi:10.1007/s10624-023-09686-9 · Cited by 9
Self-citationContracting imaginations: on the political and hermeneutical monopoly of identity politics
Pérez, M. (2023) · Dialectical Anthropology · doi:10.1007/s10624-023-09683-y · Cited by 3
“The city before the city”: Attempts at unravelling colonial violence in Canadian museums
Mannitz, S., & Kopp, R. T. (2025) · Cultural Dynamics · doi:10.1177/09213740251323378 · Cited by 2
van Beurden, J. (2024) · Amsterdam University Press eBooks · doi:10.1515/9789048564088-012
Semal, P., Chapman, T., Tilleux, C., Gonnissen, J., Declippele, M.-S., Ngongo, E., Busselen, L., & Cornelissen, E. (2023) · Lirias
Ships and Bones: Violence contributing to and consisting in osteological museum collections
Schattke, C., Wolf, D., Berner, M. E., & Eggers, S. (2026) · Annals of the Natural History Museum Vienna · doi:10.3897/anhmw.127.182645
The legal classification of hominin fossils: lessons from the Broken Hill skull*
Stewens, P. P. (2026) · International Journal of Heritage Studies · doi:10.1080/13527258.2026.2673358
Chami, M. F. (2026) · Journal of African Diaspora Archaeology and Heritage · doi:10.1080/21619441.2026.2665565
Skrydstrup, M. (2026) · Göttinger Studien zur Kulturanthropologie/Europäischen Ethnologie · doi:10.17875/gup2026-3068
Cuestionando convenciones y lógicas establecidas: el embrollo del expolio y de la restitución
García, A. P. G. (2026) · UNED repository
Cardboard boxes: The (in)visibility of human remains and their mobilizing potential
Bendix, R. (2026) · History and Anthropology · doi:10.1080/02757206.2026.2738537
Metadata
- Authors
- Kurzwelly, J.
- Affiliations
- University of the Free State (ZA)
- Corresponding author
- Kurzwelly, Jonatan
- ORCID
- Kurzwelly, Jonatan
- Venue
- Dialectical Anthropology
- Published
- 2022-10-25
- Volume
- 47
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 45-56
- ISSN
- 0304-4092 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-0786
- OpenAlex
- W4307404065
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 16
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 6.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Dialectical Anthropology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- GoeScholar The Publication Server of the Georg-August-Universität Göttingen (Georg-August-Universität Göttingen) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Georg-August-Universität Göttingen
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Cultural Identity and Heritage
- Social Sciences › Anthropology › Race, Genetics, and Society
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Archeology (arts and humanities) › Forensic Anthropology and Bioarchaeology Studies
- Keywords
- provenance research, restitution of human remains, human remains, historical injustice, identity politics, scientific racism, social essentialism, dispossession, exploitation, redistribution, academic collections
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
