6.1 Reflection

I chose to explore this issue as it is something that I feel extremely passionate about. My intention with this piece is to facilitate a deeper level of understanding surrounding the reasons for and against repatriation.

While I was researching, I discovered many unfair and unethical practises that seem to be common in the industry, such as museums taking advantage of uncertain provenance and gatekeeping access to information surrounding controversial and contested items in their collections. I also found that it was common for museums to say in interviews and articles that they were open to the potential repatriation of an artefact, but when that process started they would become uncooperative and difficult, making their statements performative. I also discovered a pattern of unscrupulous behaviour from high-ranking museum staff, ranging from being openly anti-repatriation to some (now former) curators conspiring with dealers to purchase looted art.

I also found that many anti-repatriation arguments were founded in a neo-colonialist way of thinking and were driven by museums’ financial desires. For example, museums argue that if artefacts are returned, they may be at risk of damage due to environmental changes, natural disasters or political instability and would therefore be safer in certain museums. Museums that were directly born from and thus benefited from imperialist countries argue that their financial resources and conservation experience lead to the superior position of maintaining the ownership of certain artefacts as a form of safekeeping. However, this is not accurate in the current landscape and reinforces a colonialist system that prevents repatriation for cultures and communities that have been, and are continuously, harmed by this way of thinking.