By Ashleigh ML Breske

Emergent Conversation 21

This essay is part of the series Cultural Rights are Human Rights: Decolonizing Museums through Repatriation and Source Community Partnerships, PoLAR Online Emergent Conversation 21.

Normative practices concerning the historical power dynamics between museums and source communities have undergone significant shifts in the twenty-first century. Large museums, known for their vast collections and their historical role as universal survey institutions, represent important conceptual ideas surrounding repatriation and shifting norms on what belongs in these spaces. Repatriation approached as a means of reparation, alters institutional power structures, and reconnects source communities with their cultural property. This lessens the cultural hegemony perpetuated by imperialistic tendencies and can act as a step towards decolonization. Legislative acts such as the 1989 National Museum of the American Indian Act (NMAI Act) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, 1990) served as pivotal legal catalysts for Indigenous repatriation within the United States. In the twenty-first century, ethical repatriation policies established by museums bridge the gaps when legal frameworks may not require repatriation, but where it is morally imperative. The Smithsonian Institution’s Ethical Repatriation Policy (2022) will be discussed as a case study for this practice.

A History of Display and Regulation at the Museum

When thinking about museum collections in the twenty-first century, Indigenous communities, scholars, and professionals in the field are confronted with overlapping questions of how museum and source community partnerships can challenge the representation of colonialism within museums and incorporate cultural property rights that correspond with human rights in their repatriation and reparation policies. The recent publication of a new ethical returns policy at the Smithsonian Institution serves as an example of how museums can tackle the ethical norms inherent in the process of decolonializing museum collections through repatriation and source community partnerships within the space.

There is a history of legal cultural property rights lacking for Indigenous communities and often we see ethical returns regulating museum practices when interpretation of existing law does not require it. Historically, how objects were displayed in museum exhibits highlighted institutional power structures that showed marginalization and exploitation in relation to the co-option and display of Indigenous cultural property and human remains. Often Indigenous owners were reduced to mere references on a placard, while the public’s understanding was shaped solely by   Western perspectives described by the collector or curator without the inclusion of Indigenous voices. Since exhibitions were disseminated by the curatorial staff through a Western lens that catalogued, categorized, and analyzed objects before placing them behind glass cases, this approach resulted in visitors becoming separated from the cultural context of the objects, inadvertently fostering a hierarchical conceptualization. In essence, this divorce of the object from the land in which it was created severed the intangible relationship between the two and established the Western construct of the object as the dominant paradigm, thus removing it from its ontological relationship to space and knowledge (Dailoo and Pannekoek 2008; Kuprecht 2014; Breske 2018).

Given the persistent echoes of conquest and empire, repatriation policies work to alter the established norms of the settler colonial paradigm. Museums wield the power to create subjects, displays, and realities that are politically charged. Michael F. Brown (2009) stated that critics of museums see them as “theaters of power” which deploy “their cultural capital and sumptuous architecture to shape attitudes toward everything from artistic taste (thus ratifying the superiority of ruling elites) to the moral standing of the nation-state (thereby mobilizing public sentiment in favor of state power)” (148). Traditionally, narratives constructed at traditional universal survey, or encyclopedic, museums[1] display an understanding of the world through these Western frameworks (Breske 2018). Today, the mainstream narratives have taken strides toward inclusivity, embracing Indigenous perspectives but are still structured around the settler colonial legacy’s connection to Indigenous objects.

Changing Norms and Repatriation Policies

Repatriation policies recall questions of how institutions—the rules, norms, and cultures—spread horizontally among museums and other institutions, as well as vertically between museums, institutions, and governments/nation-states. Museums can be considered organizations with bylaws, board compositions, regulations, and best practice guidelines. These embedded power relationships within the institution have changed over time with the incorporation of formalized repatriation policies like the 1989 NMAI Act and the 1990 NAGPRA in the United States. Additionally, the inclusion of Indigenous voices in exhibition creation has contributed to this shift. The shaping of norms and strategies within both national and international legal frameworks and museum institutions filter through broader theories of powers structures, cultural property paradigms, and shifts in value. The historical context of museum culture, including curatorial practices, funding mechanisms, and past collecting practices, along with the prevailing Eurocentric and Western ideologies and legal structures are influential in how Indigenous communities make claims on their heritage within both national and international legal structures.

Linda Tuhiwai Smith (2012) asserts, “History is mostly about power. It is the story of the powerful and how they became powerful, and then how they use their power to keep them in positions in which they can continue to dominate others” (35). Smith continues, “Research has not been neutral in its objectification of the Other. Objectification is a process of dehumanization” (41). To counteract this legacy, the process of decolonization within these spaces must create new paradigms for conceptualizing cultural property rights as human rights for source communities. Given that museum curation is a tightly controlled social and political practice and shapes collective values and social understandings (Luke 2002, xiii), the formalization of repatriation policies has, in essence, established a novel dominant discourse. This discourse emphasizes that returning cultural objects and human remains is an ethical imperative to address Indigenous claims (Breske 2018).

Ethical Repatriation Policy at the Smithsonian Institution

Two foundational policies in the late twentieth century were seminal for the formalization of the repatriation process in the US. The 1989 NMAI Act specifically addressed collections held by the National Museum of the American Indian (part of the Smithsonian Institution). NAGPRA (1990) was legislation that oversaw the protection and possible repatriation of Native American human remains and sacred objects held by museums, institutions, and excavations that received federal funding (NMAI 1989; NAGPRA 1990). With the implementation of NAGPRA and the NMAI Act, there was a paradigm shift, compelling museums to make reparations for past injustices and forge new relationships with Indigenous communities. Essentially, the processes of repatriation and consultation have enriched historical records, archaeological study, and the understanding of culture (Watkins 2013). The initial legislation and creation of repatriation policy in the US have facilitated the cultivation of stronger collaborative relationships with source communities.

There have been revisions for NAGPRA and NMAI legislation through amendments over the years. For instance, repatriation requests made through NAGPRA must prove objects belong to lineal descendants of federally recognized tribes (Breske 2018; Kuprecht 2012, 2013). This is sometimes a burden since not all tribes are well-documented or recognized and must rely on help from federally recognized tribes, or on the museum’s willingness to repatriate based on an ethical guideline. Fortunately, museums and repatriation staff have progressively developed a deeper understanding of cultural perspectives outside Western traditions. They now recognize that meaning is layered and political and are adjusting their policies to align with this more nuanced understanding. Acceptance that concepts of heritage are socially constructed and are influenced by the “historical, political, and social frameworks in which cultural meanings are produced and interpreted” are utilized in the decision-making process for repatriation claims (Anico and Peralta 2009, 63).

As a prominent museum, research, and educational institution, the Smithsonian Institution must continually address norm shifts and has recently published a new ethical repatriation policy for all of its collections (McGlone 2022; Stevens 2022). According to the Smithsonian news release published on May 3, 2022, a group of curators and collections specialist discussed in 2021 what a formal policy related to ethical considerations would include:

“The group’s recommendation, now adopted as policy, authorizes Smithsonian museums to return collections, in appropriate circumstances, based on ethical considerations. The way a collection was originally acquired, and the context of its acquisition, are important considerations. Circumstances demonstrating unethical acquisition may include items that were stolen, taken under duress or removed without consent of the owner” (Smithsonian 2022).

The release went on to state,

“[t]he ethical returns policy, which is now part of the Smithsonian’s Collections Management policy as of April 29, 2022, applies to all Smithsonian museums. However, because the collections are so diverse—from spacecraft to fine art—implementation will be specifically tailored to each museum and its collections” (Smithsonian 2022).

This adoption of an ethical policy, in conjunction with the existing NMAI Act, demonstrates that the Smithsonian is more deeply considering the collecting and display norms of its vast collections. The Institution recognizes that there are disparities between legal requirements and ethical norms in repatriation claims. By incorporating best practices that encompass ethical norms and extend beyond legal obligations, demonstrate that the Smithsonian is exemplifying its dedication to establishing a more all-encompassing and inclusive policy. One example of a successful repatriation since the establishment of the new ethical policy is the repatriation of twenty-nine Benin Bronzes to the Nigerian National Commission for Museums and Monuments.

The pieces were stolen from the Benin Kingdom (in present-day Nigeria) in 1897 by British forces and returned in October 2022 (Smithsonian press release). As detailed in the press release, this is the first return under the new guidelines: “This policy authorizes Smithsonian museums to return collections to the community of origin based on ethical considerations, such as the manner and circumstances in which the items were originally acquired” (2022).

Decolonizing Museum Spaces

Thinking beyond repatriation to other forms of decolonization, the social world undergoes significant transformations when source communities present their heritage and history from their perspective. Within the museum, this involvement empowers these communities to reclaim some of their cultural agency and provides museum visitors with insights into the worldviews of the source community. Experts in decolonization and repatriation in museums believe this model is a source for changing views on Indigenous communities (Lonetree 2012). This allows for a reconnection between past historical culture and scientific study to present day activities within the community that may act as a proponent of cultural renewal (Simpson, 2009). Museum collections are vast, with most of the objects residing in storage, and how they should be treated is influenced by the cultural practices of Indigenous peoples. The objects held in storage at the collections’ facility for the Smithsonian Institution are visited by tribal representatives who give guidance and input on how objects should be respectfully stored and conserved (SAA tour, 2018).[2] This shows an evolution of thought within the institution.

Conclusion

The museum was, and continues to be, an institution (instrument) of power. Many museums were established on the premise of creating grand narratives for their audiences—overarching stories that placed Western and European culture as the height of intellectual achievement. History and social structures were understood based on their relationship to this narrative of colonization and cultural appropriation. Legal attempts to repair the damage inflicted on Indigenous and source communities is still conducted within a Western-constructed legal model. Attempts to decolonize these spaces is difficult but with the continuation of cultural norm shifts we will see ethical repatriation policies become normalized. These counter-hegemonic policies will lead to more repatriations as reparations for source communities. The topic of repatriation is political and has created normative changes in cultural property ownership paradigms and cultural value shifts in society. Museums are adapting for the twenty-first century and beyond when they question what they stand for and what their future practices and bylaws include to maintain relevance. Ethical repatriation policies like the recently adopted Smithsonian’s policy bridges possible gaps when museums are not legally required to repatriate. Notably, the Smithsonian addresses potential difficulties implementing the ethical returns policy and I am curious to see how they will respond to repatriation requests moving forward.

Ashleigh Breske is an assistant professor of international studies in the global politics and societies (GPS) department at Hollins University. She earned her Ph.D. in planning, governance, and globalization at Virginia Tech, her M.A.L.S. in social sciences with a focus on Roman history from Hollins University, and her B.S. in biology with a concentration in classical studies and chemistry. Her current research explores how institutions and cultural values mediate changes in repatriation policy for indigenous cultural property.

 

Notes

[1] The terms encyclopedic and universal survey refer to institutions that exhibit overlapping human histories, cultures, and narratives like the Smithsonian Institution, Field Museum, and Penn Museum in the United States, or the British Museum in England.

[2] During the Society for American Archaeology conference in April 2018, I toured the Smithsonian facility with other conference participants and learned about their collaborative practices.

Works Cited

Anico, Marta and Elsa Peralta, eds. 2009. Heritage and Identity: Engagement and Demission in the Contemporary World. London and New York: Routledge.

Breske, Ashleigh. 2018. “Politics of Repatriation: Formalizing Indigenous Repatriation Policy.”  International Journal of Cultural Property 25(3): 347-373.

Brown, Michael F. 2009. “Exhibiting Indigenous Heritage in the Age of Cultural Property.” In Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate over Antiquities, edited by J. Cuno. Pp. 145-164. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Dailoo, Shabnam Inanloo and Frits Pannekoek. 2008. “Nature and Culture: A New World Heritage Context.” International Journal of Cultural Property 15(1): 25-47.

Kuprecht, Karolina. 2012. “The Concept of ‘Cultural Affiliation’ in NAGPRA: Its Potential and Limits in the Global Protection of Indigenous Cultural Property Rights.” International Journal of Cultural Property 19: 33-63.

Kuprecht, Karolina. 2013. Indigenous Peoples’ Cultural Property Claims: Repatriation and Beyond. New York: Springer.

Lonetree, Amy. 2012. Decolonizing Museums: Representing Native America in National and Tribal Museums. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Luke, Timothy W. 2002. Museum Politics: Power Plays at the Exhibition. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

McGlone, Peggy. 2022. “Smithsonian Updates Collection Policy to Promote Ethical Returns.” Washington Post, May 3, 2022. Last accessed November 1, 2023: https://www.washingtonpost.com/arts-      entertainment/2022/05/03/smithsonian-collections-policy-ethics/.

National Museum of the American Indian Act (NMAI Act). 1989. Repatriation Policy, Public Law 101-185. Smithsonian/NMAI publication. Washington, DC: Smithsonian. https://americanindian.si.edu/sites/1/files/pdf/about/NMAIAct.pdf

Society for American Archaeology. 2018. Annual Conference Special Tour of the NMAI Collection Facility. Washington, D.C.

Simpson, Moira G. 2009. “Museums and Restorative Justice: Heritage, Repatriation and Cultural Education.” Museum International 61(1-2): 121-129.

Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. 2012. Decolonizing Methodologies. London & New York: Zed Books.

Smithsonian Institute. 2022. “Smithsonian Adopts Policy on Ethical Returns.” News Release, May 3, 2022. https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/smithsonian-adopts-policy-ethical-returns

Smithsonian Institute. 2022. “Smithsonian Returns 29 Benin Bronzes to the National Commission for Museums and Monuments in Nigeria.” News Release, October 11, 2022. Last accessed November 9, 2023:  https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/smithsonian-returns-29-benin-bronzes-national-commission-museums-and-monuments.

Stevens, Matt. 2022. “In a Nod to Changing Norms, Smithsonian Adopts Policy on Ethical Returns.” The New York Times, May 3, 2022. Last accessed November 1, 2023: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/03/arts/design/smithsonian-ethical-returns.html

US Department of the Interior. 1990. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Last accessed November 30, 2023:  http://www.nps.gov/nagpra/.

Watkins, Joe. 2013. “The Politics of Archaeology: Heritage, Ownership, and Repatriation.” In Negotiating Culture: Heritage, Ownership, and Intellectual Property, edited by Laetitia La Follette. Pp. 15-37. Amherst and Boston: University of Massachusetts Press.