By Kulasumb Kalinoe

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.

Looted Egyptian artifact 4, British Museum, Bloomsbury, London, UK. By Cory Doctorow. CC BY-SA 2.0

This series addresses the legal and political anthropology of cultural rights as human rights and the importance of decolonializing museums through repatriation and source community partnerships. Repatriation debates today often result from European museum collections  that were acquired through unjust means during colonial occupations. Colonial collecting was carried out extensively by government administrators, missionaries, art dealers and scientists. In most circumstances cultural material and ancestral remains were forcibly removed, stolen, and looted without the consent of local communities.

Recent thefts at the British Museum have brought to light the 1963 U.K. law that prevents the return of artifacts to their country of origin based on security arrangements in their home countries (Batty and Brown 2023). This has brought Greece and Nigeria to demand the return of the Parthenon Marbles and Benin Bronzes, respectively, from the British Museum (Sommerlad 2023). There have also been ongoing calls by the Ethiopian government for the return of the remains of their Ethiopian Prince Alemayehu who was buried in London after he was taken by British soldiers who looted his father’s fortress in the nineteenth century (Tammarat and Macauley 2023). Early twentieth-century Smithsonian Institute curator Ales Hrdlicka, an anthropologist, was recently identified as leading the non-consensual collection of brains and body parts  from indigenous and minority communities in the 1930s (Dungca, Healy, and Ba Tran 2023).

Harrison (2012) asserts that the collection of human remains is an act of war that diminishes colonized and marginalized people as less than human. Such dehumanization allows human remains to be turned into war trophies. Essentially this is symbolically perpetuated when museums refuse to return ancestral remains and cultural objects.  Thus, museums that house colonial collections symbolically perpetuate colonialization (Mataga 2018).

There have been numerous reparations requests from local communities, formerly colonized nations, and peoples that experience ongoing colonial occupation—seeking the return of their cultural material and ancestors from museums. Repatriation debates highlight the power dynamics between first world countries and developing nations. The significance of repatriation claims goes beyond the objects themselves but also reflects the restitution of past injustices committed against Indigenous people (Breske 2018). Colonial collections held in European museums have been questioned and museums with looted collections have been challenged to consider repatriation and reparation (Hicks 2020, Mbembe 2021, Mataga 2018). For indigenous nations whose artifacts were collected under colonial rule, repatriation is representative of self-determination (Glass 2004).  Repatriation also brings to light the importance of social justice, cultural sensitivity and political redress for past violence (Glass 2004).

Cultural material that is found in museums and western institutions is inalienable from the traditional knowledge from which it is produced and the traditional lands on which it is made. However, the separation of objects and knowledge, and nature and culture, stem from western perspectives (Dailoo and Pannekoek 2008).  Also, there are limitations with the protection of indigenous traditional knowledge under the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Law regimes. This is because IPR laws developed in the west are focused on protecting individuals and commercial value. On the other hand, traditional knowledge bestows shared and communal ownership and the relationships that indigenous people share with their lands and cultural material is at most times that of custodianship rather than ownership in the western tense. Western law seeks to exclude all others and exert control whereas the general indigenous approach is to preserve what has been handed down from the past (Recht 2009). These interrelationships are not always translated and recognised in legal frameworks. Despite these discrepancies, the United Nations recognises that cultural rights are human rights. As found in article 27 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

1. Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.
2. Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author (United Nations 1948).

Requests for the repatriation of cultural material highlight not only property rights but also human rights and cultural rights (Breske 2018). This feature draws on the human rights that bestow cultural rights on indigenous people to assert claims for the return of their ancestral remains and cultural material from museums.

Objects may have held different meanings before and after they entered the museum and by preserving cultural objects museums can provide an avenue for cross-culture dialogue (Herle 2003). Giving source communities a platform and an opportunity to engage with institutions works to empower both parties. Museums need to reinvent themselves by understanding and including indigenous epistemologies; doing so will create avenues for decolonized museum practices (Lonetree 2012, Mignolo 2012, Rasool 2015). Issues of law, control, and circulation surrounding cultural heritage objects and traditional knowledge are complex and vary among indigenous groups. Therefore, it is important to consult source communities and diasporas to define and determine access rights and protocols.  This is to ensure that cultural objects and traditional knowledge are safeguarded in a manner that reflects the intentions and protocols of source communities.  Peers and Brown (2003) describe this interaction as “one of the most important developments in the history of museums” (1). Empowering indigenous communities with a voice in the halls of colonialization works to challenge these archaic power structures.

In this emergent conversation we sought contributions from scholars who have focused on museums, archival, and cultural heritage research to address how museum and source community partnerships are challenging the representation of colonization in museums. We asked scholars to consider the issue of  cultural rights as human rights in relation to questions concerning the repatriation of, and reparations for cultural objects. Finally, we asked them to reflect on what legal and political anthropology can do to advocate for cultural rights through repatriation and source community partnerships.

Professor Ashleigh M.L. Breske discusses the changing dynamics of repatriation policies in US museums and the broader context of decolonizing museum collections. The paper highlights that historical power imbalances between museums and source communities have evolved significantly in the twenty-first century. Repatriation is seen as a way to address these imbalances, with a focus on reparation and shifting institutional power structures. The 1989 National Museum of the American Indian Act (NMAI Act) and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA, 1990) played pivotal roles in Indigenous repatriation within the United States. Ethical repatriation policies in museums have emerged as a response to situations where legal frameworks might not mandate repatriation yet repatriation is seen as morally imperative. Breske discusses the Smithsonian Institution’s Ethical Repatriation Policy (2022) as a case study, which emphasizes ethical considerations in repatriation, especially in cases involving items acquired unethically or without the consent of the owner. Breske emphasizes the need to involve source communities in the presentation of their heritage and history within museums, empowering them to reclaim cultural agency and providing museum visitors with insights from Indigenous perspectives. Breske highlights the evolving nature of museums in the 21st century, as they adapt to changing norms, embrace ethical repatriation policies, and seek to decolonize their collections in collaboration with source communities. These changes are a step toward addressing historical injustices and promoting cultural renewal.

Professor Brian Daniels‘ essay explores the intersection of repatriation, recognition of Native American tribes, and the role of museums in addressing cultural rights and sovereignty. In the United States, legal barriers and issues surrounding the recognition of Native American tribes impact the repatriation process. Daniels highlights the concept of cultural rights as fundamental human rights, emphasizing the right to participate in the cultural life of one’s community. Repatriation, as discussed in the U.N.’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (United Nations 2007), is recognized as essential for Indigenous peoples to exercise their cultural rights. In the U.S., the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990 (NAGPRA) faces issues of documentation and the distinction between federally recognized and unrecognized tribes. Daniels argues that museums need to go beyond object-oriented approaches, considering the totality of dispossession faced by Indigenous communities. Museums possess valuable archival knowledge that could aid tribes in achieving recognition and repatriation. While museums may vary in their willingness to support these efforts, it is suggested that in the twenty-first century, Daniels asserts museums must find ways to assist all Native American tribes, recognized or not, in the repatriation process. Repatriation is not just about returning objects but also about acknowledging and supporting Indigenous sovereignty and cultural rights.

Professor Diana Marsh, Amanda Sorenson, Samantha Lee and Ia Bull make a compelling argument for the importance of engaging with archives to advocate for cultural rights and Indigenous sovereignty. They emphasize the significance of considering archival materials, including documents, photographs, and audiovisual records, not only as secondary evidence but as primary candidates for physical repatriation. The authors stress that returning these materials to Indigenous communities is essential for cultural survivance, revitalization, and upholding the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, particularly article 27. They acknowledge that this work is critical in Indigenous contexts but also challenges Western-centric notions of authorship and ownership. They examine the limitations of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) in addressing archival materials and the need for a more comprehensive approach to repatriation. Notably, the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act does not cover archival material despite archives playing a key role in the repatriation of ancestors and belongings. They call for a broader perspective on repatriation beyond NAGPRA and emphasize the importance of legal and political anthropologists, cultural heritage professionals, and policy writers in promoting human rights and Indigenous knowledge systems.

Ana Temudo’s essay delves into the interplay of culture, heritage, and diaspora in the context of Guinea-Bissau. It commences with an exploration of the bombolom, a sacred drum used for communication in coastal Guinean villages. The drum symbolizes the transformation of Guinean culture from colonial to post-colonial times, emphasizing the significance of how objects like the bombolom traverse different contexts and historical periods, reshaping their meanings. Temudo discusses the importance of understanding the colonial context of acquiring Guinean collections, highlighting how the colonial museum prioritized aesthetics over ethnography. The diaspora’s relationship with their heritage is explored through interviews, revealing a complex blend of ethnic identity and globalization. The Guinean diaspora in Lisbon, often unfamiliar with their own country’s museums, views cultural heritage as important, especially in a foreign land where it facilitates a deeper understanding of their roots. Temudo highlights how the diaspora celebrates their culture through music and traditional dances in Portugal, fostering a sense of unity despite originating from different ethnic backgrounds. Temudo’s research seeks to break down cultural barriers, encouraging dialogue and understanding within the diaspora community. It suggests that the movement of cultural objects across borders enhances cultural appreciation and knowledge. The study remains open-ended, offering no definitive conclusions, while emphasizing the ongoing, dynamic nature of cultural heritage’s significance.

We hope that these pieces will renew conversations for legal and political anthropology to champion cultural rights in colonial institutions and further the decolonization of museum collections.

Kulasumb Kalinoe (Kula) is a PhD candidate at James Cook University in Cairns, Australia. Her project PNG Heritage in the Archives: A Legal Anthropology of Cultural Property focuses on the cultural heritage issues concerning Papua New Guinean collections held in public institutions. This project will analyse issues regarding access, gender, repatriation, ownership rights and will also explore knowledge production, preservation, and protection in Papua New Guinea. As a PoLAR Digital Editorial Fellow, she is curating an emergent conversation Human Rights are Cultural Rights: Decolonizing Museums through Repatriation and Source Community Partnerships. This feature draws on the complexities of safeguarding cultural property held in western institutions. Kulasumb’s broader research interests are human rights, social justice, and Papua New Guinea.

Works Cited

Batty, David and Brown, Mark. 2023. “Thefts Expose British Museum’s ‘Ridiculous’ Stance on Return of Artefacts, Says MP”. The Guardian, August 27, 2023. Last access November 1, 2023:  https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/aug/27/thefts-expose-british-museums-ridiculous-stance-on-return-of-artefacts-says-mp.

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

Brown, A.K., & Peers, L. (Eds.). (2003). Museums and Source Communities: A Routledge Reader. Abingdon, Oxfordshire:  Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203987834

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

Dungca Nicole, Healy Claire, Ba Tran Andrew. 2023. “The Smithsonian’s ‘Bone Doctor’ Scavenged Thousands of Body Parts”. The Washington Post, August 15, 2023. Last accessed November 1, 2023:  https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/interactive/2023/ales-hrdlicka-smithsonian-brains-racism?itid=lk_interstitial_manual_4.

Glass, Aaron. 2004. “Return to Sender: On the Politics of Cultural Property and the Proper Address of Art.”  Journal of Material Culture 9 (2):115-139. doi: 10.1177/1359183504044368.

Harrison, S. 2012. Dark Trophies: Hunting and the Enemy Body in Modern War. Oxford:  Berghahn Books.

Herle, Anita. 2003. “Objects, agency and museums: continuing dialogues between the Torres Strait and Cambridge.” In Museums and Source Communities, edited by Alison K. Brown and Laura Peers. Pp. 194-207. London:  Routledge.

Hicks, Dan. 2020. The Brutish Museums.The Benin Bronzes, Colonial Violence and Cultural Restitution. London:  Pluto Press.

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

Mataga, Jesmael. 2018. “Shifting Knowledge Boundaries in Museums. Museum Objects, Local Communities and Curatorial Shifts in African Museums.” In Museum Cooperation between Africa and Europe, edited by Laely Thomas, Meyer Marc and Schwere Raphael. Pp. 57-68. Bielefeld: Transcript Verlag.

Mbembe, Achille. 2021. Out of the Dark Night Essays on Decolonization. New York:  Columbia University Press.

Mignolo, Walter. 2012. “Decolonizing Western Epistemology/Building Decolonial Epistemologies.” In Decolonizing Epistemologies: Latina/o Theology and Philosophy, edited by Ada Maria Isasi-Diaz and Eduardo Mendieta. Pp. 19-43. New York:  Fordham University Press.

Rassool, Ciraj. 2015. “Re-storing the Skeletons of Empire: Return, Reburial and Rehumanisation in Southern Africa.”  Journal of Southern African Studies 41 (3):653-670.

Recht, Jo. 2009. “Hearing Indigenous Voices, Protecting Indigenous Knowledge.”  International Journal of Cultural Property 16 (3):233-254.

Sommerlad, Joe. “Which Artefacts Have the British Museum Been Urged to Return?” Independent, September 7, 2023. Last access November 1, 2023:  https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-museum-contested-artefacts-benin-bronzes-b2394754.html.

Tamirat, Jibat and Macaulay, Cecilia. “Ethiopia’s Prince Alemayehu: Buckingham Palace Rejects Calls to Return Royal’s Body. BBC News, May 22, 2023. Last accessed November 1, 2023: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-65588663.

UN General Assembly. “Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.” United Nations, 13 Sept. 2007, www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf.

United Nations. “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.” United Nations, 10 Dec. 1948, www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/.