University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 2020 When Repatriation Doesn’t Happen: Relationships Created Through Cultural Property Negotiations Ellyn DeMuynck Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd Part of the Museum Studies Commons, and the Social and Cultural Anthropology Commons When Repatriation Doesn’t Happen: Relationships Created Through Cultural Property Negotiations __________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences University of Denver __________________ In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts ___________________ by Ellyn DeMuynck March 2020 Advisor: Christina Kreps Author: Ellyn DeMuynck Title: When Repatriation Doesn’t Happen: Relationships Created Through Cultural Property Negotiations Advisor: Christina Kreps Degree Date: March 2020 Abstract This thesis analyzes the discourse of repatriation in connection to the Encounters exhibition held by the National Museum of Australia in 2015. Indigenous Australian and Torres Strait Islander artifacts were loaned to the Australian museum by the British Museum. At the close of the exhibition, one item, the Gweagal shield, was claimed for repatriation. The repatriation request had not been approved at the time of this research. The Gweagal shield is a historically significant artifact for Indigenous and non- Indigenous Australians. Analysis takes into account the political economy of the two museums and situates the exhibition within the relevant museum policies. This thesis argues that, while the shield has not yet returned to Australia, the discussions about what a return would mean are part of the larger process of repatriation. It is during these discussions that the rights to material culture are negotiated. Because many of the goals of repatriation are realized during throughout the process, the relationships built between museums and source communities are crucial. These relationships have the potential to support the preservation of Indigenous heritage beyond formal repatriation. ii Acknowledgements I would like to thank Mr. Peter Yu, Dr. Howard Morphy, Dr. Anna Edmundson, Dr. Maria Nugent, Dr. Margo Neale, Dr. Michael Pickering, Dr. Cressida Fforde, Dr. Ian Coates, and Dr. Shayne Williams for their participation in this research. This project could not have succeeded without their thoughtful insight into the complicated topic of repatriation. I would also like to thank all of my professors in the Anthropology Department at the University of Denver, especially my committee members, Dr. Christina Kreps, Dr. Bonnie Clark, and Dr. Elizabeth Campbell, for their patience and sound advice as I worked out how to put my thoughts to paper. I want to express gratitude to Madison Sussman for being a wonderful office-mate and always being willing to talk through any subject I got stuck on. Thank you to all of my co-workers for covering shifts when I needed to write and checking in on my progress. And finally, I want to thank my partner Henry Schiebel for his support and understanding throughout this process. iii Table of Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 Chapter Summaries ......................................................................................................... 8 A Note on Language ..................................................................................................... 10 Chapter One: Background..................................................................................................11 Captain Cook and the Collection of a Shield ................................................................ 11 Encounters ..................................................................................................................... 14 The British Museum ...................................................................................................... 21 The National Museum of Australia ............................................................................... 25 Chapter Two: Literature Review .......................................................................................30 Anthropology and Museums ......................................................................................... 30 Cultural Property Rights................................................................................................ 35 Heritage Discourse ........................................................................................................ 47 What is Returned ........................................................................................................... 52 Chapter Three: Theoretical Framework and Research Design ..........................................56 Theoretical Framework ................................................................................................. 58 Alternative Materialities ............................................................................................ 58 Object Biographies .................................................................................................... 60 Museum Objects as Contact Zones ........................................................................... 64 Political Economy...................................................................................................... 65 Methodology ................................................................................................................. 67 Studying Up and Critical Museology ........................................................................ 67 Discourse Analysis .................................................................................................... 69 Data Collection .............................................................................................................. 71 Semi-Structured Interviews ....................................................................................... 71 Secondary Analysis ................................................................................................... 73 Bibliographic Research .............................................................................................. 74 iv Coding ........................................................................................................................... 75 Ethical Considerations and Scope ................................................................................. 75 Chapter Four: Findings ......................................................................................................79 How Did The Purpose Of The Exhibition Develop Over Time? .............................. 80 What Were The Views On Cultural Property Being In Museums? .......................... 86 How Might Legislation Negatively Affect Repatriation Outcomes? ........................ 97 Can Relationship Building Be More Useful Than Repatriation? ............................ 104 How are These Relationships Important To The Recognition Of Aboriginal Rights? ................................................................................................................................. 109 If It Is Not a Museum’s Responsibility To Determine The Future Of Objects In Their Collections, What Is Their Role? ............................................................................ 115 Chapter Five: Discussion and Conclusion .......................................................................119 Conclusion ................................................................................................................... 135 Future Research ....................................................................................................... 140 References ........................................................................................................................141 Appendix A: Participant List ...........................................................................................151 Appendix B: Informed Consent Form .............................................................................153 v Introduction “Repatriation,” literally translated as back to the fatherland (Hafstein and Skrydstrup 2006, 40), was first used to describe expatriates and refugees returning to their home countries. It was a short enough conceptual leap to then apply the same word to the homecoming of human remains that had been unburied and removed from their community. This latter definition of repatriation was first used in a legal context in the National Museum of the American Indian Act 1989 and the subsequent Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 1990 (Hafstein and Skrydstrup 2006, 40). It follows that significant cultural artifacts, items that are part of the constitution of a group identity, like a human community member, can be repatriated as well. Originating communities and their advocates also often use the terms restitution or reparation when calling for the return of material culture. These related terms emphasize some of the philosophical attributes of material culture return like healing, reconciliation, and the acknowledgement of historic injustices (Prott 2009, xxi-xxiv) The Hauge Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 1954 (The Hauge Convention) first codified into law a growing post-war international concern over the protection of cultural