“Taking local beliefs into account was key for trade contacts”

Interview with Matthias Bähr on the global trade in human remains

Debates on restitution have led in recent years to increased media attention on the human remains held in German collections since the colonial era – most recently, for example, in the “Zeit“. But there was a brisk trade in human remains even before German colonialism. During his fellowship at the Kolleg, the historian Matthias Bähr is looking at the trade in human remains in the early modern period. He talks about his research in this interview, discussing among other things power asymmetries and the essential role of negotiations between the actors involved.

During your fellowship at the Kolleg, you are working on the global trade in human remains during the early modern period. What made you interested in this subject?

Human remains were bought and sold almost incessantly in the early modern period, but surprisingly little is known about this so far. This is because research long focused more on burial practices and other issues in the history of religion, and the economic dimension of bodily matter was simply not in focus. So I wanted to know more about what was going on. I now think that the trade in human remains actually tells us a great deal about what was important to people back then. After all, human remains were usually not just any ordinary goods. Moral ideas and legal concepts had to be agreed upon first, for example, especially in the context of cultural contact. So this can tell us a lot about how the pluralism of norms was dealt with in the past.

In what form and in what contexts were human remains traded?

At the moment, I am particularly interested in the trade in skulls and mummified heads, for example from the Pacific region, such remains having been used since the 18th century to legitimise racist ideas. In general, trade in human remains has been going on since the Middle Ages, for example in the form of relics, i.e. body fragments that were venerated for religious purposes and were sometimes incredibly valuable. The early modern period also saw a flourishing trade in anatomically prepared specimens, which were made with extraordinary skill. If you were really good at it, you could make a lot of money in the 17th century. Bodily matter was also imported from North Africa, for example, and used as a medicine in Europe – that was a huge market that we still know relatively little about. We know about the trade in anatomical corpses, which were dug up from cemeteries at night. For me, that’s what’s so exciting about this period: human remains were a highly coveted commodity in many contexts in the early modern period. But you often only realise that when you look very closely and read the sources differently than researchers have often done in the past.

Were there conflicts or negotiations between those involved in the trade? Were (new) legal regulations found?

Actors from non-European societies, for example in India and Oceania, were in principle very much involved in the trade in human remains – this is an important aspect of my work. The appropriation of human remains often witnessed brutal power asymmetries and injustices. Nevertheless, the rules by which this trade was conducted were often negotiated between European commercial agents, naturalists, missionaries, and indigenous actors in the context of cultural contact, with local beliefs and legal concepts often playing a significant role here. These included, for example, rules for the religious handling of bodily matter, but also practices of violence and humiliation in dealing with enemies killed. My research shows that taking these local beliefs into account was absolutely key for successful trade contacts.

How did the Christian churches react to the trade in human remains? Did the church or other groups express moral concerns or even protest?

That depends entirely on the context. In the 18th century, there were organised gangs that exhumed and sold human remains. There were regular protests, including from the church. In the case of human remains from Europe’s overseas colonies, though, Christian missionaries were heavily involved in the trade. But my research indicates that there was also a certain awareness of wrongdoing here, because, despite the brutality of the colonial structures, these people often saw themselves as advocates for indigenous groups and, in many cases, were also abolitionists, that is, opponents of slavery who vehemently rejected the trade in living human beings. And now they were suddenly involved in the trade in dead human bodies! So it’s really exciting to pursue the question of how these missionaries dealt with their complicated role and whether, for example (and there is evidence of this), they disguised their involvement in the trade in human remains by presenting the profit-oriented trade as selfless service to science.

There are currently public debates on the handling of human remains in museums or scientific collections. This mostly concerns collections established during the German colonial era. To what extent can your research findings contribute to these debates on restitution?

Provenance research, which deals with the origin of such specimens, has seen great progress in recent years, and many human remains from colonial contexts of injustice have already been returned to the societies of origin. Public awareness of the ethical issues associated with this history has increased enormously in recent years. In some collections, however, research is only just beginning. In particular, looking afresh at sources that have been neglected so far, for example those of European trading companies, promises new insights and can sharpen our awareness that the global trade in human remains has a very long history and did not suddenly appear in the 19th century.

Interview by Kathrin Schulte

---

Cite as:

Matthias Bähr/Kathrin Schulte: “Taking local beliefs into account was key for trade contacts”. Interview, EViR Blog, 10.04.2025, https://www.evir.uni-muenster.blog/en/interviewbaehr

License:

​​This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.