Post by Infinity Blade on Aug 27, 2023 3:16:43 GMT 5
So this is a question I pondered as I became more aware of the movement to "decolonize" archaeology. Many (if not most) museums in the Western world with archaeological/anthropological collections obtained artifacts from foreign countries via colonialism. "Decolonizing" archaeology is often meant to mean repatriating artifacts back to their countries or other such places of origin, as well as allowing archaeological narratives to be formed by the descendants of past civilizations themselves (e.g. letting people from Iraq study their own artifacts and ancient civilizations, without having to rely on Western scholars taking up the bulk of study).
I think everyone (or at least anyone who isn't completely apathetic to historical injustice and the modern legacy of Western colonialism) agrees that there are artifacts and other archaeological/anthropological material that have been unjustly stolen by colonial powers and put on display in their countries (e.g. see the Negro of Banyoles->). But as far as repatriating artifacts goes, how far should we take that? Should ALL foreign objects from Western archaeological/anthropological museum collections be returned to their land of origin? Or is there a cutoff point where having foreign objects on display or in collections for study becomes acceptable?
My personal thoughts: It's been argued that museums hesitate to repatriate artifacts because of a loss of revenue that would result. Now, I personally could not care less about fattening up the wallets of museum executives and directors, but I do care about public education and engagement. While I do believe we should first and foremost respect the places where archaeological/anthropological material is taken from, the whole point of a museum is to educate the public. In the case of an archaeological/anthropological museum, it's to educate the public on human cultures/civilizations, very often ones that existed in the past. But if they cannot publicly display genuine material from foreign countries or hold them in their collections, how will they be able to do this? Entirely through reproductions? I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't want that.
Imagine a hypothetical natural history museum that has no actual fossils, taxidermied or preserved animal specimens, or genuine rocks and minerals. Everything on display is entirely fabricated (and there would be no point to a collection, as they have no genuine material to study). Would you ever want to waste your money on a joke of a museum like that? I might as well go to one of those outdoor dinosaur theme parks where they have a bunch of dinosaur models on display (of varying levels of quality and accuracy), and I have zero interest in such places.
Another potential point of consideration is whether or not people would be willing to travel internationally just to visit a foreign museum with a certain culture/civilization's artifacts/materials in it (for most people, the answer is almost certainly "no").
Again, I cannot stress the importance of the decolonization of archaeology enough. I am just not sure how far repatriation should go. Do people argue taking it to its logical extreme or only up to a point (the latter of which would mean I am arguing against a point no one makes)?
What are your thoughts?
I think everyone (or at least anyone who isn't completely apathetic to historical injustice and the modern legacy of Western colonialism) agrees that there are artifacts and other archaeological/anthropological material that have been unjustly stolen by colonial powers and put on display in their countries (e.g. see the Negro of Banyoles->). But as far as repatriating artifacts goes, how far should we take that? Should ALL foreign objects from Western archaeological/anthropological museum collections be returned to their land of origin? Or is there a cutoff point where having foreign objects on display or in collections for study becomes acceptable?
My personal thoughts: It's been argued that museums hesitate to repatriate artifacts because of a loss of revenue that would result. Now, I personally could not care less about fattening up the wallets of museum executives and directors, but I do care about public education and engagement. While I do believe we should first and foremost respect the places where archaeological/anthropological material is taken from, the whole point of a museum is to educate the public. In the case of an archaeological/anthropological museum, it's to educate the public on human cultures/civilizations, very often ones that existed in the past. But if they cannot publicly display genuine material from foreign countries or hold them in their collections, how will they be able to do this? Entirely through reproductions? I don't know about you, but I certainly wouldn't want that.
Imagine a hypothetical natural history museum that has no actual fossils, taxidermied or preserved animal specimens, or genuine rocks and minerals. Everything on display is entirely fabricated (and there would be no point to a collection, as they have no genuine material to study). Would you ever want to waste your money on a joke of a museum like that? I might as well go to one of those outdoor dinosaur theme parks where they have a bunch of dinosaur models on display (of varying levels of quality and accuracy), and I have zero interest in such places.
Another potential point of consideration is whether or not people would be willing to travel internationally just to visit a foreign museum with a certain culture/civilization's artifacts/materials in it (for most people, the answer is almost certainly "no").
Again, I cannot stress the importance of the decolonization of archaeology enough. I am just not sure how far repatriation should go. Do people argue taking it to its logical extreme or only up to a point (the latter of which would mean I am arguing against a point no one makes)?
What are your thoughts?
