The Repatriation of Sara Baartman

Case Study

The Repatriation of Sara Baartman

At a Glance

Status

Contact

Researcher

Phumzile Nombuso Twala

Belonging

Sara Baartman is a KhoeSan human ancestor. She was born in 1789, in Gamtoos River Valley, in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa. In 1810 she travelled from Cape Town to England, and was exhibited as the “Hottentot Venus” in a London-based ‘freakshow’. This case study profile concerns the repatriation of her skeletal and soft tissue remains and body cast,  which were preserved and displayed, upon her death in France.

Place of Origin

Gamtoos River region (present-day Hankey), in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa.

Significance

Sara Baartman’s death in France, on 1 January 1816, at the probable age of 26 years catapulted her life journey into the annals of history for a significant period of time. 

Her experience of being exhibited in England and France as the ‘Hottentot Veus’, in what were then known as ‘freak shows’, have been identified and documented as unethical, morally complex and symbolic of systematic oppression and violent racial injustices. The long-term preservation and storage of her skeletal and soft tissue remains under the guise of scientific research, the display of her body cast, and the museum practices of the time that enabled this for nearly two centuries were highly contentious issues, for the same reasons.

Baartman’s story and life experiences during this period of her life and her death have also become emblematic of the loss of identity and the subjugation of Griqua peoples, and all people of KhoeSan descent, under British colonisation and apartheid rule. 

The demand for the return of Baartman’s remains by the Griqua community to which she belonged underscored the need for her proper burial according to Griqua values. While this demand was mainly based on an emphasis on the right to dignity for Baartman, it also implicitly symbolised a need for Baartman’s spiritual reconnection to the land of her birth and of her people. The Griqua emblem, a desert plant known as ‘kanniedood’ (cannot die) became a powerful reminder of this connection to the land. 

Current Location

Sara Baartman’s skeletal and soft tissue remains and body cast were preserved and displayed at the Musee de l’Homme in Paris, France from 1816 until 1974. From 1974 – 2002 her reconstructed skeleton and soft tissue remains were held in the storeroom of Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle in Paris, France. Her skeletal remains and soft tissue were buried in her birthplace of Gamtoos River Valley, in Hankey, in the Eastern Cape Province of South Africa in 2002. 

Circumstances of Removal

The prevalence of exploitation imposed within the Cape Colony (present-day Western, Eastern and Northern Cape provinces of South Africa) in the form of slavery, forced labour and servitude informs the circumstances of Sara Baartman’s early life.

Her name is laden with information on her life as a domestic servant, probably at the Baartman’s Fonteyn farm. Illegally sold to merchant Pieter Cezars and enslaved as a child in approximately 1797, Baartman’s exploitation continued when she was relocated to Cape Town. Cezars, his brother Hendrik and British physician Alexander Dunlop conspired to coerce Baartman to leave the Cape and travel to England in what has been speculated to be a dubious arrangement. On the 7th of April in 1810 the Cezar brothers left with Baartman for London, where she would be received as a ‘free black’, given the ban on slavery in the British Isles at the time. Here she would be exhibited in degrading conditions to satisfy European curiosity about KhoeSan women’s bodies and ongoing racial science-based speculation about ethnicities. Her captors would go on to make financial gains from these exhibits. Baartman was sold to animal trainer Henry Taylor, based in Paris, France, where her body continued to be used as a spectacle for the European gaze.

Baartman died in France in 1816. Shortly after her death, Georges Cuvier made a plaster cast of her body and removed her skeleton, after removing her brain and genitals. Cuvier pickled Baartman’s skeletal and soft tissue remains and displayed them in bottles at Musee de l’Homme in Paris.

Impact of Loss

Indigenous peoples of South Africa, particularly the Griqua community, valued the life of Sara Baartman and claimed her as one of their own. Her personhood and the journey experienced through her human remains were regarded as symbolic of the injustices visited upon indigenous communities. From the early 1990s, this community led advocacy and persistent demands for the return of Baartman’s human remains from France to South Africa. The impact of loss was expressly articulated and emphasised Baartman’s human rights and right to dignity.

Chronology of Restitution Efforts

At a time when the anti-slavery movement was in full-force in England, the case of the Hottentot Venus was heard by the Court of The King’s Bench on 24 and 28 November 1810. The African Association led by anti-slavery adherents Zachary Macauley and William Bullock, leveraged the promulgation of the Slave Trade Act of 1807 and filed a lawsuit against Alexander Dunlop and Henrick Caesar, advocating for the release of Baartman from their custody. Affidavits produced by The African Association stated that Baartman had been brought to England under false pretenses and exhibited against her consent. Following Baartman’s testimony, the court found no evidence to the contrary and the case was ultimately dismissed. This was one of the earliest documented cases of demands for Baartman’s return to her home land. 

Even in death, the degradation and exploitation of her body continued. The final death knell to Baartman’s personhood was sounded when her corpse was dismembered after her death in 1816. Her remains were displayed in French Museums for many years. 

The President of the South African Museums Association (SAMA) in 1949, Percival R. Kirby renewed interest in Baartman when he presented a paper titled “‘The Hottentot Venus’ of the Musee de l’Homme in Paris” at the organisation’s annual convening. This text (later published in the 1954 South African Journal of Science) perpetuates the harmful racial scientific reading of Baartman’s life as it details her anatomical structure with minimal acknowledgement of her personhood beyond her physique. It is unclear how the publishing of this article affected the Griqua community (a subset of the Khoekhoe peoples) residing in South Africa at the time. South African writer, storyteller and activist Diana Ferrus, however, has identified the 1950s as a period during which the Griqua petitioned the French, requesting the return for Baartman’s remains. Further details of this petition are currently unknown.

Baartman’s remains were removed from public view at the Musee de l’Homme in 1974. This is said to have been catalysed by complaints of the exhibit’s degrading representation of women regarded as distasteful to those engaging with it. Her skeletal remains and soft tissue were placed in a storage room at the Museum National d’Histoire Naturelle, where access for viewing was limited but made available upon special request to a select few individuals. This signalled an important turning point as it was the first time that Baartman’s body was not made available for public exhibition in Europe since the 1800s. Additionally, this moment became the foundation for the planting of seeds of a movement of European introspection and questioning of racial science and its effects. 

American paleontologist, evolutionary biologist and historian of science Stephen Jay Gould authored ‘The Mismeasure of Man’ book which was published in 1981. By retracing previous research steps taken and questioning much of the scientific data, Gould produced compelling evidence of biased data that was essentially manipulated and falsified in favour of justifying notions of classifying KhoeSan people as subhuman and Africans as an inferior race. This presented an opportunity towards beginning to undo some of the harm caused to many African communities by racial scientists and to begin rehumanising efforts.

During the 1990 to 1996 period the KhoeSan Revivalism Movement gained momentum within Southern Africa, aiding calls for the recognition of Indigenous peoples’ rights and advocating for the return of Sara Baartman’s skeletal and soft tissue remains to South Africa.

Between 1994 and 1995, President Nelson Mandela (South African) and President Francois Mitterand (France) deliberated on the possible return of Baartman’s remains to South Africa. Concurrent media campaigns and activist-led demands amplified these efforts. These calls for return were primarily premised on the human rights of Indigenous Peoples of South Africa.

In 1996 South African government officials from the Department of Arts, Culture, Science and Technology (DACST), Department of Foreign Affairs and the South African Embassy in France set off a series of protracted strategies to request the return of Sara Baartman’s skeletal and soft tissue remains from France to South Africa. These efforts were complemented and endorsed by the annual SAMA conference in April 1996, which sought to conceive frameworks for dealing with issues of sensitive collections. This was important for the ongoing development of general repatriation strategies. That same year the South African government mandated the formation of a Reference Group to be led by Palaeoanthropologist Professor Philip Tobias.

This was intended to leverage the combined expertise of multiple stakeholders such as KhoeSan community members, activists, government officials, researchers, academics, the deputy chairperson of the Human Rights Commission and a representative of the Commission on Gender Equality, in order to ensure that the South African government made informed decisions that would need to made in order to address a multitude of concerns during negotiations. Concerns such as the need to address human rights, belonging, gender rights, legal jurisdiction, diplomatic relations and negotiations, racial science, reintegration activities and KhoeSan customs, rituals, practices and burial rites, among numerous others would be tackled by this cohort. 

During said period between 1996 and 1997, Musee de l’Homme Museum Director Henry de Lumley declared Sara Baartman’s skeletal and soft tissue remains inalienable, as he considered them to be an integral part of the museum’s collection. In light of this the Director felt it was his responsibility to ensure the retain her remains; in order to preserve the integrity of the museum’s collection. In 1997 major conferences on KhoeSan studies took place in Germany and South Africa, also influencing much of the discourse and decision-making by key actors.

In 1998, numerous artistic interventions were instrumental in shining a light on the demand for the return. A poem by Diana Ferrus, titled  “I have come to take you home” was published that year. Nicolas About, a member of the French Senate, encountered this poem and was moved by its message, prompting him to write to Ferrus. About requested permission to include a translated version of the poem in his petition to the French Senate for the repatriation of Sara Baartman’s skeletal and soft tissue remains from France to South Africa.

At this time, the government of France expressed resistance and was hesitant to make any concessions, lest it open the floodgates for multiple demands for restitution. Furthermore, it was argued that, in the absence of an official request from the South African government, France could not unilaterally offer the return of the remains. The South African Ambassador to France and UNESCO, Barbara Masekela, then made an official demand for the return of Sara Baartman’s skeletal and soft tissue remains from France to South Africa on the 6th of October 2000.

The demand for the return of Baartman’s remains was framed as a humanitarian gesture towards the peoples of South Africa , and a reaffirmation of France’s historic role as an upholder of human rights, to allay France’s fears that the repatriation would be seen as admission of blame or guilt

During a period of ongoing negotiations from 2000 to 2001, there were internal discussions going on in the respective countries. In South Africa, the Reference Group deliberated the activities and actions that would need to be undertaken for the return of Sara Baartman’s remains, and thereafter The issues they discussed included: Baartman’s name, the site of her burial, and the nature of the funeral practices. Following these deliberations, the final demand for return was specified. The Reference Group recommended that Baartman be regarded as a symbol of the colonial violence that was experienced by the KhoeSan indigenous community as a whole, and that her remains be repatriated to South Africa. This meant that the South African government would become the official custodians of her remains. They also recommended that the care and conservation plan for the proposed ‘Saartje Baartman memorial shrine’ include the KhoeSan communities. It was further recommended that the South African government should decide upon how Baartman’s remains would be cared for, in consultation with various stakeholders. 

In France, the issue of who had the authority to approve the repatriation of Sara Baartman remains was discussed. From a legal perspective, Sara Baartman’s remains were defined as part of the National Collection of France; meaning that the transfer of her remains to South Africa would require permission from the French Parliament. Musee de l’Homme Museum Director, Henry de Lumley, stated that he would only be able to sign off on the de-accessioning of Baartman’s remains, if the French Parliament had authorised him to do so. This authorisation would have to come in the form of an act. The act explicitly acknowledged that France no longer had interest in owning Sara Baartman’s skeletal and soft tissue remains because of the lack of scientific interest and/or public utility, and authorised their removal from the French State patrimony and into the care of the South African Government. The French Government initially opposed the restitution by raising the argument that there could be no property rights on human remains regardless of the merits of the claim. This was then debated in the French parliament. 

France’s parliament passed a bill to permit the return of Baartman’s remains to South Africa. This was moved in the French Senate by Nicholas About on 29 January 2002 and approved on the same day.

The bill was passed to the Committee of Cultural Affairs on 14 February 2002, receiving unanimous support. On 20 February 2002 the bill came before the full French National Assembly and was passed with full support. 

Legislation went to the French Cabinet for approval, the text stipulating that the remains be returned within two months. The Administrative Authority in France approved the bill. On 6 March 2002 the French Parliament adopted a legislative act ordering the return of Sara Baartman’s human remains to South Africa. Arrangements were then made for Baartman’s remains to be returned to South Africa.

While the bill was being passed through French legal infrastructure the South African DASCT Deputy Minister Brigitte Mabandla stated that Baartman’s skeletal remains would be temporarily housed at the South African Embassy in France and then in South Africa. 

In April 2002 it was reported that a DACST officer confirmed the exact location of Baartman’s brain and genitalia and that her soft tissue remains had been seen by Deputy Minister Mabandla and Ambassador Masekela. This had to be confirmed to ensure that these were indeed Baartman’s remains. Back in South Africa, a DACST committee was negotiating with a private company for the purchasing of privately-owned land in the Gamtoos River valley, Hankey, the proposed burial site for Baartman. Despite this being a very costly undertaking, this was ultimately favourable, as this land did not require a time-consuming environmental impact assessment. This would enable the burial of Baartman to proceed within the earmarked time frame, having considered all recommendations put forth by the Reference Group.

The South African Government decided that Sara Baartman would be laid to rest on 9 August 2002, to coincide with International Indigenous Peoples’ Day and South Africa’s Women’s Day. 

On 3 May 2002 Sara Baartman’s skeletal and soft tissue remains and full body cast were officially returned to South Africa in a bubblewrapped crate marked as ‘fragile’. This process was informed by museum conventions, as her remains were regarded as ‘an object’ and there was a lack of awareness in terms of humanisation processes at the time. Baartman’s remains were received at Cape Town International Airport and thereafter taken to an army site for safekeeping, where they remained under 24-hour guard. The South African government planned an enrobement or ‘Aantrek’ ceremony, titled ‘Flowers for Sarah Bartmann’.  It began on a Sunday afternoon on 4 August 2002 in Cape Town, South Africa.  

A few days later, Sara’s remains were flown to the Eastern Cape.   

On 9 August 2002 approximately 15 000 people converged in Hankey to lay Sara Baartman’s remains to rest. Although her Christian faith was recognised during the burial rights and rituals, she was still  buried according to Khoekhoe traditions. A pile of stones marked her final resting place. Red African soil surrounded her grave. ‘Boegoe’ bush was placed on top of Baartman’s grave to purify her spirit, and reunite her with the earth.

Current Status

Contact

Sara Baartman’s grave in Vergarderingkop in Hankey is declared a National Heritage site and a ‘Sarah Baartman Centre of Memory’, is planned to become a national heritage institution that will provide public education, heritage interpretation and visitor management. Construction of the Centre is partially complete.

Contents

Phumzile Nombuso Twala

Case Study Researcher

Phumzile Nombuso Twala

Phumzile Nombuso Twala is a cultural heritage practitioner and researcher. With a background in museum praxis, community engagement and curatorial practice in the visual arts, Phumzile’s entry point into this case study is as a Research Associate of the Open Restitution Africa (ORA) project. Her experience and ongoing development in community participatory and engagement models continues to be informed by her work at ORA as well as her role as a member of the Board of Directors at Funda Community College.

In 2025 she attended the Mazibuyele eAfrica Conference, part of the “Reclaiming Our Heritage – Harnessing Educational Pathways for the Return and Restitution of Cultural Property in Southern Africa” initiative endorsed by UNESCO, African Union Development Agency NEPAD and the University of Pretoria (UP). She contributed towards deliberations on the designing of an educational programme on restitution.

Methodology and Field Experience

Sources consulted throughout the research process for this case study include publications, oral interviews and archival records available in digital formats. Desktop research was conducted to gain an initial understanding of existing knowledge on the repatriation process. Consultation of literature and online publications was also part of this process. Oral interviews were conducted with the aim of gathering any first-hand accounts. This proved to be quite challenging as government officials were not readily available or accessible for interviews. 

Duration of Research:

This research data was gathered as part of our exploratory research into restitution processes, from March – May 2023. The information in this case study profile reflects the status of this restitution case as at January 2025.

The Repatriation of Sara Baartman

The Repatriation of Sara Baartman

Website Link