Museum Studies at Tufts University

Exploring ideas and engaging in conversation

Tag: decolonization (Page 1 of 2)

Example of museum professionals examining items subject to NAGPRA
The San Diego Museum of Man’s registrar and collections manager working with members of the Kashia Band of Pomo Indians of the Stewarts Point Rancheria, CA during a NAGPRA-based visit to collections. Photo courtesy of the San Diego Museum of Man

We Need to Talk About NAGPRA: Noncompliance & Cultural Affiliation

November 16, 2023 / / 0 Comments

Previously, we discussed what the Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act is and what it requires of museums and other institutions. NAGPRA is a federal law, so why do tens of thousands of ancestors and countless Native belongings remain unavailable for repatriation? Many institutions have massive numbers of Native Ancestors in their collections, not to mention funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony. In 1989, the Smithsonian Institution alone had 18,500 ancestors in its custody.[1] This has made repatriating ancestors a massive undertaking, requiring immense time, labor, and expertise. Beyond logistics, many academics argued that Native ancestors should be studied for the sake of science and education.[2] While this belief is not widely held today, the repercussions of this logic are still felt. Based on this argument, some institutions dragged their feet, resulting in today’s massive backlogs.

Many institutions are NAGPRA compliant or have made good-faith efforts to become compliant. However, some institutions had a vested interest in avoiding NAGPRA compliance. But how was and is that possible? There are two big elements of NAGPRA that have allowed non-compliant museums to fly under the radar: who NAGPRA applies to and how it is enforced. In my previous article, I discussed to whom NAGPRA applies: museums and government agencies. However, the way in which NAGPRA defines museums left a loophole. The statute states that “Museum means any institution or State or local government agency (including any institution of higher learning) that has possession of, or control over, human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony and receives Federal funds.”[3] What this has meant in practice is that only museums & institutions which have accepted federal, or state funding must comply. This resulted in some museums which had not already accepted federal funding not applying for funding in the future in order to avoid becoming subject to NAGPRA. These museums and institutions represent a significant gap in the data regarding ancestors and objects covered by NAGPRA held in museum collections. Databases like the one created by ProPublica depend on data published in inventories and summaries. Institutions that have not submitted inventories can often avoid public accountability.

The second element that has allowed some museums to avoid NAGPRA compliance is how the regulations are enforced. Enforcement and penalties for non-compliance are entirely dependent on individuals or groups officially reporting the failure of an institution to comply.[4] There are no regular or random inspections for NAGPRA compliance by the Department of the Interior. Furthermore, the civil penalties that museums face are minimal in practice. As of April 2022, only 20 institutions had been fined for non-compliance, with an average fine of only $2,955 per institution.[5] Essentially, the law has no teeth. 

Some museums have also acted in bad faith by complying with the letter of the law but not the true intent. One example of this is ‘culturally unidentifiable’ objects. In the past, museums claimed that they could not repatriate ancestors and funerary objects because they could not determine a cultural affiliation and designated ancestors as ‘culturally unidentifiable,’ or CUI.[6] Some museums set arbitrary dates to limit cultural affiliation. The Illinois State Museum set a guideline that “any individual buried prior to 1673, the date the first Europeans arrived in the State of Illinois, was not subject to NAGPRA.”[7] In 2010, the Department of the Interior enacted a new regulation that allows for culturally unidentifiable human remains and associated funerary objects to be repatriated. However, this rule does not cover unassociated funerary objects.[8]

But what is cultural affiliation and why is it so complicated? According to the NAGPRA regulations, “cultural affiliation means that there is a relationship of shared group identity that can be reasonably traced historically or prehistorically between members of a present-day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and an identifiable earlier group.”[9] Essentially, culturally affiliating something is determining what specific Native American culture an item originated with and the modern Native nations who might have a claim. You do not have to prove cultural affiliation definitively. The standard is “a preponderance of evidence,” meaning that there is substantial evidence to support your conclusion. There are different types of evidence that can be used to support cultural affiliation, such geographic affiliation, kinship, biological, archeological, anthropological, linguistic, folklore, oral traditions, and historical evidence. In recent years, more weight has been given to traditional Native knowledge and beliefs and the proposed new regulations codify that.

So why are there so many CUI ancestors and objects in museums? How do you not know where an object or person came from? It’s a lot easier than you’d think. Native belongings have entered museum collections through a variety of colonial pathways, including “inequitable trade, ‘expeditions’, looting, and theft.[10] All of these pathways often work to obscure the provenance of items. The actions of anthropologists, museums, academic institutions, and the United States government all contributed to unethical collections lacking provenance. Shortly after the Civil War, the Surgeon General’s Order of 1868 was passed. Grave robbing of Native graves existed long before this, but this order enshrined such acts in federal policy, ordering soldiers and other army employees to unethically obtain remains for the Army Medical Museum.[11]Adding insult to injury, Native remains, particularly skulls, were used to support bunk race sciences like phrenology to justify settler colonialism and genocide.[12] Other justifications such salvage ethnography, and ‘preserving evidence extinct races’ abounded.[13] In 1906, the government even designated Native remains as “federal property” with the Antiquities Act.[14] Grave robbing combined with poorly documented archaeology resulted in large collections of human remains and objects with virtually no documentation.

To be very clear, not all museums, in fact, I would say most are not engaged in Machiavellian scheming to avoid NAGPRA compliance. Today’s museum professionals have often inherited collections management disasters decades in the making. I know of at least one museum professional who was told the museum was NAGPRA compliant. A sort of oral history surrounding NAGPRA compliance existed. However, further research revealed that no documentation or inventories existed in the museum’s records. Upon contacting National NAGPRA, they found that the museum had never submitted an inventory. Many museums don’t realize they are noncompliant or that they are subject to NAGPRA. Cultural affiliation is also challenging and nuanced work, requiring expertise, labor, and funding. Resistance to NAGPRA and cultural affiliation is fading, but the road to compliance remains rocky. For more information on the Native American Graves Protection & Repatriation Act, I highly recommend NAGPRA Comics. These comics tell true stories of repatriation under NAGPRA and are collaborative in community-based.

[1] Jack F. Trope, “The Case for NAGPRA,” in Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, 2013), 24.

[2] Devon A. Mihesuah, “American Indians, Anthropologists, Pothunters, and Repatriation: Ethical, Religious, and Political Differences,” in Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains, ed. Devon A. Mihesuah (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2000), 123–68.

[3] 43 CFR § 10.2 (d)(2), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[4] “Civil Penalties – Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,” National Park Service, October 14, 2020, https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/civil-penalties.htm.

[5] Mary Hudetz and Graham Lee Brewer, “Senate Committee Probes Top Universities, Museums Over Failures to Repatriate Human Remains,” ProPublica, April 21, 2023, https://www.propublica.org/article/senate-probes-universities-museums-nagpra-failures.

[6] Logan Jaffe Brewer et al., “America’s Biggest Museums Fail to Return Native American Human Remains,” ProPublica, January 11, 2023, https://www.propublica.org/article/repatriation-nagpra-museums-human-remains.

[7] Laurie W. Rush, “It’s Personal: My Lifetime Lessons Protecting Ancestors,” Indian Affairs Journal 192, no. Spring/Summer (2023): 6–8.

[8]

[9] 43 CFR 10.2 (d)(4), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[10] Brandie Macdonald, “Pausing, Reflection, and Action: Decolonizing Museum Practices,” Journal of Museum Education 47, no. 1 (January 2, 2022): 8–17, https://doi.org/10.1080/10598650.2021.1986668.

[11] Jack F. Trope and Walter R. Echo-Hawk, “The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Background and Legislative History,” in Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains, ed. Devon A. Mihesuah (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2000), 126;  Jack F. Trope, “The Case for NAGPRA,” in Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, 2013), 22.

[12] Logan Jaffe Brewer et al., “America’s Biggest Museums Fail to Return Native American Human Remains,” ProPublica, January 11, 2023, https://www.propublica.org/article/repatriation-nagpra-museums-human-remains; Jack F. Trope and Walter R. Echo-Hawk, “The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Background and Legislative History,” in Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains, ed. Devon A. Mihesuah (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2000), 126.

[13] Logan Jaffe Brewer et al., “America’s Biggest Museums Fail to Return Native American Human Remains,” ProPublica, January 11, 2023, https://www.propublica.org/article/repatriation-nagpra-museums-human-remains.

[14]  Jack F. Trope and Walter R. Echo-Hawk, “The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: Background and Legislative History,” in Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains, ed. Devon A. Mihesuah (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2000), 127;  Jack F. Trope, “The Case for NAGPRA,” in Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, 2013), 22.

We Need to Talk About NAGPRA…But What Is It?

October 4, 2023 / / 0 Comments

 Museums are currently facing a reckoning for past collecting practices, with many nations demanding repatriation of illegally or unethically obtained items. It comes as no surprise that Indigenous Nations have been among those demanding the return of their cultural heritage and ancestors. Public scrutiny combined with new regulations in the coming weeks has resulted in greater interest in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, also known as NAGPRA. The legal language and fraught subject matter of NAGPRA makes the act complex and difficult to understand; but, we’re here to give you a crash course in what the law is and why all museum professionals need to understand it.

NAGPRA is a federal law passed on November 16th, 1990 that can be understood as human rights legislation related to the Indian Religious Freedom Act of 1978. Until 1978, government policy prevented Indigenous people in the United States from exercising their first amendment right to freedom of religion. Anishinaabe historian and NAGPRA practitioner, Eric Hemingway, has stated that, “Many Native people across the country saw the need to have their ancestors returned as part of their ceremonies, part of their religion, part of their belief system […] and also to reclaim many of the sacred items that have been taken or alienated from their communities.”[1] Under NAGPRA Indian Tribes, Native Hawaiian Organizations, or lineal descendants of the ancestor “whose remains, funerary objects, or sacred objects” are in the custody of a museum can make a claim for repatriation.  

In the simplest terms, NAGPRA requires museums and federal agencies to repatriate Native American human remains and belongings in their collections and to consult with Tribes when similar remains or belongings are discovered on federally owned land.[2] However, the law and its implementation are far more complex than this definition would suggest. NAGPRA covers five types of items in museum collections: human remains, associated funerary objects, unassociated funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony.[3] I should note that the terms ‘belongings’ or ‘items’ are preferred terminology, but ‘objects’ is the legal terminology used in both the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act and the accompanying regulations. When referring to legalities and official categories, I will use ‘object’ but will otherwise use the more respectful terminology. 

The definitions and categories of items are crucial to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act. Native ancestors, officially termed human remains in NAGPRA, are defined as the “physical remains of the body of a person of Native American ancestry.”[4] The category of human remains does not include parts naturally shed or potentially ‘freely given’, such as human hair.[5] This means that collections like the hair samples held by Harvard University, are not technically subject to NAGPRA. However, like Harvard, institutions can choose to repatriate Native belongings even if they are not legally obligated to do so. 

Funerary objects and the distinctions between associated and unassociated funerary objects are a little more complex. According to the NAGPRA regulations, funerary objects are “objects that were made exclusively for burial purposes or to contain human remains.”[6] This category might include belongings placed with an ancestor, such as beads or pottery, as well as burial containers like urns. Associated funerary objects are “funerary objects for which the human remains with which they were placed intentionally are also in the possession or control of a museum or Federal agency.”[7] Unassociated funerary objects are “funerary objects for which the human remains with which they were placed intentionally are not in the possession or control of a museum or Federal agency.”[8] Essentially, Native belongings are associated funerary objects when a museum holds the objects and the remains with which they were found. Native belongings are unassociated funerary objects when a museum holds the objects and does NOT have the remains with which they were found. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, ancestors were frequently separated from their belongings under a variety of circumstances. Grave robbers known as “pothunters” often only sought items highly desirable to white collectors, such as pottery and jewelry.[9] Other grave robbers stole the remains of ancestors to build osteological collections to support inaccurate race sciences, like phrenology.[10] In other cases, archaeologists would divide the items from an archaeological site among several museums, separating ancestors from their burial items. As a result, museums may have belongings from a burial in their collection while the ancestor remained interred, or an ancestor might be in their care, while belongings from the burial are in the care of another museum. A common misconception is that the remains and funerary objects must be held by the same museum in order for those funerary objects to be considered associated. However, the remains associated with the objects can be held by any museum or institution. In some of the most unfortunate cases there are simply no records to determine whether an item is an associated funerary object, and is deemed unassociated.  

The third category, sacred objects, are belongings needed for the practice of Native American religions with present-day adherents.[11] In other words, the religion must be currently practiced by Native American people. This can present a significant hurdle to tribes working to revive religious practices lost over centuries of oppression. Finally, objects of cultural patrimony are defined as items that are central to an Indian Tribe or Native Hawaiian Organization’s culture, traditions, or history to the point of being collective cultural property. This means that they cannot be owned or sold by an individual.[12] One of the best-known examples of cultural patrimony are the Wampum Belts belonging to the Haudenosaunee Confederacy. Several of these belts were repatriated in 1989 under the National Museum of the American Indian Act (NMAIA), a law similar to NAGPRA which governs the Smithsonian Institution.[13] 

But who must comply with NAGPRA? In short, museums and federal agencies. But it’s how NAGPRA defines museums that’s tricky. The statute states that “Museum means any institution or State or local government agency (including any institution of higher learning) that has possession of, or control over, human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, or objects of cultural patrimony and receives Federal funds.”[14] What this has meant in practice is that only museums & institutions which have accepted federal, or state funding must comply. For example, a small museum that has relied solely on its endowment and donations is not required under the current statute to comply with NAGPRA. 

In the more than thirty years since NAGPRA became law, progress has been incremental and many museums remain non-compliant. As of April 2023, 104,539 Native Ancestors have yet to be made available for repatriation.[15] However, this statistic only includes museums which have publicly reported their holdings in compliance with the law. Countless small museums across the country may not even be aware they are non-compliant. Though the task may seem daunting, it is one that museum professionals must undertake. We must step forward into a new era of collaboration with Native Nations and communities. It is an ethical imperative that we work to make museums safe and welcoming spaces which accurately and thoughtfully represent the cultures with whose belongings we have been entrusted. If you would like to learn more about NAGPRA, or are a museum professional working on compliance, we encourage you to explore the following resources:

The ProPublic Repatriation Project

The ProPublica Repatriation Project Database 

The NAGPRA Community of Practice

The National Park Service

The National NAGPRA Program Training Resources

 

Notes

[1] NAGPRA 101, 2023. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRteJ8IJiVY.

[2] Sangita Chari and Jaime M.N. Lavallee, “Introduction,” in Accomplishing NAGPRA: Perspectives on the Intent, Impact, and Future of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Corvallis, OR: Oregon State University Press, 2013), 8.

[3] NAGPRA, 25 USC § 3001(3), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[4] NAGPRA, 25 USC § 3001(3), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[5] NAGPRA, 25 USC § 3001(3), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[6] 43 CFR § 10.2 (d)(2), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[7] 43 CFR § 10.2 (d)(2), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[8] 43 CFR § 10.2 (d)(2), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[9] Devon A. Mihesuah, “American Indians, Anthropologists, Pothunters, and Repatriation: Ethical, Religious, and Political Differences,” in Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains, ed. Devon A. Mihesuah (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2000), 123–68.

[10] Devon A. Mihesuah, “American Indians, Anthropologists, Pothunters, and Repatriation: Ethical, Religious, and Political Differences.” 

[11] 43 CFR § 10.2 (d)(2), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[12] 43 CFR § 10.2 (d)(2), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[13] National Museum of the American Indian. “Repatriation.” Accessed October 2, 2023. https://americanindian.si.edu/explore/repatriation.; Fenton, William N. “Return of Eleven Wampum Belts to the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy on Grand River, Canada.” Ethnohistory 36, no. 4 (1989): 392–410. https://doi.org/10.2307/482654.

[14] 43 CFR § 10.2 (d)(2), https://www.nps.gov/subjects/nagpra/upload/Existing-Regulation.pdf.

[15] Suozzo, Ash Ngu, Andrea. “Does Your Local Museum or University Still Have Native American Remains?” ProPublica, January 11, 2023. https://projects.propublica.org/repatriation-nagpra-database/.

 

Article by: Madeline Smith

MA Candidate, History and Museum Studies

Tufts University ’24

Indigenous Peoples’ Day at Boston-area museums

October 13, 2019 / / 0 Comments

First, we’d like to start with a land acknowledgement for Tufts University that we are grateful to borrow from an article in the Tufts Daily:

Tufts University’s Medford campus is located on Wôpanâak (Wampanoag) and Massachusett traditional territory. Tufts’ Walnut Hill was once one of the hills in a slave-holding estate called Ten Hills Plantation. Both Africans and Native Americans were enslaved in the colony of Massachusetts, and trade in Native American and African laborers made Massachusetts a driving force in the Atlantic slave trade. 

Op-Ed: Acknowledging our settler-colonial present, the Tufts Daily

Last year, in honor of Indigenous Peoples’ Day, Tufts Museum Studies Blog editor Danielle Bennett shared a list of articles covering efforts to decolonize museums around the world. This year, we’re sharing events happening at Boston-area museums, planned jointly with indigenous educators, artists, and leaders, that celebrate native history and culture.

Indigenous Peoples’ Day at the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston

Monday, October 14, 2019
10:00 am–5:00 pm

Features: free admission, special events

Enjoy free admission and special events at the MFA for Indigenous Peoples’ Day—and the Fenway Alliance’s 18th annual Opening Our Doors Day. Indigenous Peoples’ Day recognizes and celebrates the heritage of Native Americans and the histories of their nations and communities. Enjoy music and dance, take a tour of our Native North American Art Gallery and respond to our collection, and drop in on family art-making activities and artist demonstrations.

Co-created and presented in partnership with Akomawt Educational Initiative and Jonathan James-Perry, Tribal Citizen of the Aquinnah Wampanoag Nation.

Founded in 1870, the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, stands on the historic homelands of the Massachusett people, a site which has long served as a place of meeting and exchange among different nations.

Cost: free with free admission

Indigenous Peoples’ Day: Abundant Voices at the Isabella Stewart Gardner Museum

Monday, October 14, 2019
10:00 am–4:00 pm

Also offered as part of The Fenway Alliance’s Opening Our Doors Day.

This Indigenous Peoples’ Day, the Gardner Museum is honored to collaborate with choreographer and Neighborhood Salon Luminary Marsha Parrilla of Danza Orgánica to present local Indigenous artists from the Massachusett, Nipmuc, Mashpee Wampanoag, and Aquinnah Wampanoag tribes.

The theme for the day is “Abundant Voices,” emphasizing the necessary perspectives and incredible work of these creative leaders. Enjoy hands-on art making, interactive performance, storytelling, a special performance from Gardner Museum Choreographers in Residence All Ready with local youth performers and more. 

Explore additional hands-on activities and performances organized by The Fenway Alliance throughout the day across the street from the Gardner Museum in beautiful Evans Way Park.

Cost: free with free admission on a first-come, first-served basis

Native American Poets Playlist at the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology

Saturday, October 12–Monday, October 14, 2019
9:00 am-5:00 pm

In a program marking Cambridge’s Indigenous People’s Day–celebrated as the federal holiday Columbus Day–eight Native American poets may be heard reading their work in the galleries. Enrich your museum visit by listening to an evocative recorded playlist of contemporary poems by Native American authors. Wander freely across the first-floor galleries to see where the poems take you and expand your understanding of Native arts and cultures. The poems, drawn from a powerful recent anthology, New Poets of Native Nations (edited by Heid E. Erdrich; Graywolf Press) celebrate Native poets first published in the twenty-first century. Hear the exhibits “come into voice” and experience the museum in a new way. Borrow a free audio player with regular museum admission.

Jointly sponsored with the Harvard University Native American Program and the Woodberry Poetry Room at Harvard University

Cost: free with regular admission

Indigenous People’s Weekend at Plimoth Plantation

Saturday, October 12–Monday, October 14, 2019
9:00 am-5:00 pm

Long before Europeans arrived, the Wampanoag people were living in this area known as Patuxet. Join us as we acknowledge the indigenous groups that have called this place home and celebrate their traditions through song, dance, and craft.

Cost: free with regular admission

Wampanoag Perspectives on Land: Acknowledging Indigenous Space at the Fruitlands Museumm

Monday, October 14, 2019
2:00–3:00 pm

Join Elizabeth James-Perry (Aquinnah Wampanoag) on Indigenous Peoples’ Day at Fruitlands Museum as she presents “Wampanoag Perspectives on the Land: Acknowledging Indigenous Space.”  Elizabeth James-Perry (Aquinnah Wampanoag) is a multi-medium traditional and contemporary artist, with specialties in wampum shell carving and reviving natural dye techniques for her finger-woven sashes, bags, and baskets.

Cost: free with regular admission (space is limited – registration is requested)

Though the city of Boston and state of Massacusetts have yet to officially recognize Indigenous Peoples’ Day, we’re heartened to see that hasn’t stopped our cultural institutions. You can find other Boston-area happenings in this list from Cultural Survival. If you’re not in the Boston area, you can find Indigenous People’s Day events around the country in this list by Indian Country Today. Our guess (and hope) is that more museums near you may be celebrating and collaborating with indigenous voices tomorrow* – take a look for yourself!

*and next week, and next month, and next year, and so on – for many more days besides just tomorrow!

Taking Stock

May 8, 2019 / / 0 Comments

As this academic year draws to a close, Kelsey, Amanda, and I are preparing to hand over the reins of this blog to our wonderful new editors who will be introducing themselves to you shortly. In the past year we’ve been able to explore museums from so many angles. We have asked questions about what museums should be and what they shouldn’t. We’ve looked at collections, from the issues with preserving 20th century plastics to the plain weird! We’ve considered how museums play a role in thinking about important social issues of our time and how museums are affected by political events and trends. We believe a deeply considered understanding of and engagement with the local community is crucial to creating a strong and successful museum.

Some of our conversations centered around issues that will concern us directly as workers in the museum industry, whether it be wages and unionization fights, ethical donations, or managing burnout. We’ve examined forward-thinking programs, compelling trends, and how to improve visitor experience. And we’ve considered matters of inclusion, asking who gets included in collections, exhibits, and outreach. We know that museums can not afford to disregard their workers, their visitors, or innovative design if they want to grow and survive a changing landscape.

What we have spent the most time on, however, are matters of race and decolonization. Questions of what history is covered and how, who owns artefacts and how they were obtained are a serious part of the zeitgeist and museums must continue to grapple with them for a long time. We examined changing interpretations to center marginalized people, who is served by an organization, and how to implement decolonization practices. We are certain that this is one of the major issues facing the museum sector globally and many more honest and serious conversations will be needed in the coming years.

We hope that we’ve encouraged you to keep thinking about what a museum can and should mean to its visitors, place, subjects, and workers. We will certainly take these conversations with us as we enter the workplace. Thank you for being a part of this community! Stay tuned to see what the next set of editors will bring to the dialogue.

Adventures in Repatriation: Around the World and Down the Street

December 6, 2018 / / 2 Comments

 

Last month, the Medford Public Library, in the town where Tufts University is located, announced an auction of “surplus goods”. The goods turned out to be a number of Native American religious objects, including shaman’s masks and rattles and a totem pole, all of considerable monetary value. The items were donated to the library in the 1880s by James G. Swan, a Medford-born collector of Native American objects, long before the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) was passed in the 1990s. The auction was halted by the mayor of Medford, Stephanie M. Burke, after public outcry organized by American Indian groups took hold.

Even though NAGPRA governs ownership and repatriation of sacred indigenous objects and remains in the hands of institutions that receive federal funds, not all organizations have completed the required inventory of objects that apply to this law. An incident like this might have happened and could still happen anywhere in the country. Native American object collecting was incredibly popular in the late 19th century, as indigenous people were thought to be “vanishing” as the conquest of the American continent completed. It is entirely likely that similar collections exist unprocessed in the archives of other libraries, schools, or museums across the country, and that more attempts to auction goods may take place in the future against a background of dwindling federal funds for cultural institutions.

Controversies around objects stolen from indigenous, colonized, and otherwise disempowered people around the world are making news every day now, in a flood that is by turns both reparative and dismaying. Under reparative, the President of France, Emanuel Macron, recently announced the planned return of 26 works of Dahomey art to the Benin government, who formally requested their return a number of years ago. Macron suggested that more such repatriations would be forthcoming, an important step in acknowledging the role France had in the destructive colonization of Africa in the 19th century.

Under dismaying, however, one can find any number of refusals including the famed Benin Bronzes or the Kohinoor Diamond, all of which remain in British hands for now. But changes may be underway. Not only are governments demanding the return of cultural objects from colonizing countries, in some cases countries or individuals are stealing objects out of the Western museums that keep them. Private citizens are also forming groups to wage social media campaigns that pressure institutions to return works to home countries.

As technology and globalization conspire to shrink the world, the call to return wrongfully obtained objects will only grow louder. Amid the din, protests and refusals from governments and institutions still holding ill-gotten treasures will sound like the weak excuses they are. In an attempt to counter tours that highlight illicit artworks at the British Museum, the museum has developed a series of lectures that focus on the proper provenance of many works originating in other countries. While any move toward transparency is positive, telling a partial story designed to improve an organization’s credibility while ignoring the larger issue the institution is complicit in is marginally laudable. With some luck and a lot of guilt and outcry, however, the public can keep pushing this important conversation to a place of resolution, rather than obfuscation.

« Older posts

Contact Us

Contact Us

Do you have jobs, events, or ideas for a post? We want to hear from you!

First
Last
Sending

© 2025 Museum Studies at Tufts University

Theme by Anders Noren — Up ↑