Museums are institutions of culture, art, and history, and one can learn so much from visiting. I grew up going to museums on family trips and weekends with my grandparents. Last summer, I had the privilege of working in a museum and greatly enjoyed the experience. I have always been drawn to vivid colors and intricate patterns, so it is not surprising that I was so attracted to the striking items that museums typically put out on display. It wasn’t until I began to take anthropology courses in college that I learned of the truth behind how these artifacts got to be where they are today and about the problematic history of museums.
There are differing opinions on whether particular artifacts should be on display, and if so, where they should be on display. Some argue that it is important for artifacts to be displayed in places other than where they originated so that the knowledge and history surrounding the artifact and the culture from which it came can be shared with all. On the other hand, oftentimes an artifact has cultural significance to a group and it is argued that the artifact should be kept within the community/country from which it originated. Cultural heritage matters to contemporary communities and is a part of their identity and ancestry. To deprive communities of keeping their objects of cultural heritage is to deprive them of the right to learn about their history and connect to their ancestors.
There has been a recent movement to decolonize museums, particularly in the United States, Europe and Australia. Many museums in these areas have objects that were stolen from another cultural group during times of colonization. In recent years, there have also been more and more cases of a country or community, such as an indigenous group, requesting that artifacts be returned to them. While some artifacts have been returned, or “loaned” to their home countries, many continue to be on display or in collections at museums outside of the country of origin. International jurisdiction (or lack thereof) plays a role in if and when an artifact is returned to its home country.
So… how can museums become more ethical?
Well, this may seem obvious, but… ask! Museums should communicate with the communities from which artifacts, art, and remains were taken if they would like these objects to be returned. Museums must acknowledge the problematic ways in which their artifacts were obtained and work to correct those historical errors.
Museums should consult and collaborate with representatives of an object’s community of origin. And the museums should be transparent about the means by which those particular artifacts or cultural objects came to be in that museum. In order to address colonialism’s involvement in museums, it is important that the whole story be told about the journeys of artifacts and the individuals or countries that were involved in the removal of the artifact or art from the country of origin. Museums acknowledge that objects come from other countries and/or other cultures, yet they seldom acknowledge the mistreatment, theft, and exploitation that was involved in obtaining those objects. In an effort to decolonize and allow a platform for Indigenous people, museums could also (and should) have Indigenous artists and academics visit museums to present their artwork and studies.
While repatriation may seem like a relatively easy option for righting museums’ wrongs, there are a few reasons why this may not be quite so simple. Repatriation is often a long and complicated legal process. For example, NAGPRA, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, was established in 1990 to facilitate repatriation efforts of Native American “human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony.” This law only applies to situations in which cultural items are kept by institutions in the United States and does not necessarily apply to other countries, though there are Native American objects of cultural heritage that are kept in museums outside of the United States.
There is an added level of complexity to the possible return of objects that is associated with the physical transportation of the object. Historic and prehistoric artifacts, in many cases, are delicate and require specific conditions for their preservation. Transporting the artifacts from the museum where they are held to their home country or region would require a plane, boat, and/or automobile. Even with careful packaging, the artifacts may not withstand the journey.
Museums have to address their own histories and decolonize in order to remain relevant. Museums were created to share artifacts, history, art, and culture, however, in doing so, they have proliferated the idea that these objects belong to everyone. This is problematic because, in most cases, the objects are being kept from the people that have a spiritual, cultural and/or ancestral connection to them. Recent discussions in the museum world have centered on the question of whether museums can be reworked to become a new, more ethical model. There are many museums that have not changed all that much over the last 50 or so years, however, there have also been many museums that have been created and many that have adapted the way in which they engage with visitors and the community. For this reason, there is a debate over what a museum is and which institutions should be called a “museum.” Museums can address current hot-topics, such as environmental issues and racial inequality, in order to stay relevant.
Working with Indigenous people to return items can create relationships between the museum and Indigenous groups that may not have existed before. This can also allow for better and more accurate representations of the objects and the culture to which they belong. Museums need to be transparent about the role they played in proliferation of colonial attitudes and the marginalization of Indigenous people and speak about the efforts that they are making in order to correct these misdeeds.
