Should museums change their approach to restitution?
Geraldine Kendall, 13.07.2010
Calls for new approach at conference session hosted by MA policy head Maurice Davies
Questions were raised last week about whether museums should entirely rethink the current approach for dealing with restitution claims.
Maurice Davies, the MA head of policy and communication, spoke about the issue in the closing session of the Museums and Restitution International Conference in Manchester. Representatives of museums and claimant groups from around the world were present.
Referring to discussions that arose during the conference, Davies said that indigenous communities had been strongly critical of what they see as “adversarial” criteria and inconsistent decision-making regarding their restitution claims.
Museum and ethics consultant Tristram Besterman, who was also at the conference, said the current criteria seemed designed “to repel an unwanted invader”. The burden of proof currently lies with source communities, many of whom lack the resources to justify their claims.
Besterman advocates a system whereby representatives from both sides could sit down as equals and reach mutual understanding on disputed objects.
Davies said afterwards: “It is a very, very messy area because there are hundreds of different museums and claimant groups, all working independently of each other. It is not an area susceptible to easy change.”
But Davies also said it was apparent from the conference that debate on the issue had moved forward significantly. Restitution, he said, has become “normal museum practice” within many countries, including the USA, Canada and Australia.
According to Davies, fears that the floodgates would open had proved “utter nonsense”. He said it was mainly objects of major symbolic importance to source communities, such as human remains, that were being returned.
He added that many restitution projects focus instead on shared access and interpretation. The Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford received praise for its progressive system of building knowledge-sharing networks with claimants.
Elena Korka of the Greek Culture Ministry told the conference that repatriation across international borders remains remarkably rare - with no more that 15 objects being returned in a single year since the practice began.
Conference attendees suggested that the demise of New Labour museum policy and upcoming upheaval in the sector might give UK museums the opportunity to try a new approach to restitution.
Davies said: “Restitution doesn’t just mean returning objects, it is a way of making good. It can often be about very collaborative projects.”
Image: the repatriation of a Sioux ghost dance shirt from Kelvingrove Museum, Glasgow, to the native American Lakota people in 1999. Copyright: Culture and Sport Glasgow (Museums)
Maurice Davies, the MA head of policy and communication, spoke about the issue in the closing session of the Museums and Restitution International Conference in Manchester. Representatives of museums and claimant groups from around the world were present.
Referring to discussions that arose during the conference, Davies said that indigenous communities had been strongly critical of what they see as “adversarial” criteria and inconsistent decision-making regarding their restitution claims.
Museum and ethics consultant Tristram Besterman, who was also at the conference, said the current criteria seemed designed “to repel an unwanted invader”. The burden of proof currently lies with source communities, many of whom lack the resources to justify their claims.
Besterman advocates a system whereby representatives from both sides could sit down as equals and reach mutual understanding on disputed objects.
Davies said afterwards: “It is a very, very messy area because there are hundreds of different museums and claimant groups, all working independently of each other. It is not an area susceptible to easy change.”
But Davies also said it was apparent from the conference that debate on the issue had moved forward significantly. Restitution, he said, has become “normal museum practice” within many countries, including the USA, Canada and Australia.
According to Davies, fears that the floodgates would open had proved “utter nonsense”. He said it was mainly objects of major symbolic importance to source communities, such as human remains, that were being returned.
He added that many restitution projects focus instead on shared access and interpretation. The Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford received praise for its progressive system of building knowledge-sharing networks with claimants.
Elena Korka of the Greek Culture Ministry told the conference that repatriation across international borders remains remarkably rare - with no more that 15 objects being returned in a single year since the practice began.
Conference attendees suggested that the demise of New Labour museum policy and upcoming upheaval in the sector might give UK museums the opportunity to try a new approach to restitution.
Davies said: “Restitution doesn’t just mean returning objects, it is a way of making good. It can often be about very collaborative projects.”
Image: the repatriation of a Sioux ghost dance shirt from Kelvingrove Museum, Glasgow, to the native American Lakota people in 1999. Copyright: Culture and Sport Glasgow (Museums)
Add your comment