Museums occupy a cherished yet complicated place in our cultural landscape. They are, at their best, sanctuaries of human achievement and memory; places where we marvel, learn, and connect. They are guardians of our collective stories, offering glimpses into lives, ideas, and aesthetics across time and geography. Yet increasingly, those guardianship roles are being scrutinized. In this post, the first of a two-part reflection, I want to explore how museums must reckon with their past in order to remain relevant, ethical, and inspirational institutions in a post-colonial world.
Modern museums serve multiple purposes. They are educators, preserving and interpreting both natural and human histories. Through exhibitions, talks, and online media, they help us understand not only what came before us, but also how those pasts continue to shape the present. They are also preservers of culture, entrusted with tangible and intangible heritage, from tools and textiles to oral traditions and sacred rites. Increasingly, they are also spaces of community engagement and social inclusion. The best of today’s museums are no longer content to speak about people; they strive to speak with them, creating room for conversations around identity, migration, environment, and justice. And let’s not forget their economic impact: museums draw visitors, support local artisans, and boost cultural tourism. Their value is not only educational, but civic and economic.
And yet, many of the very objects that give museums their gravitas are also at the heart of a profound ethical challenge. Too many were acquired in contexts of coercion, extraction, or outright theft during the height of imperial expansion. The British Museum’s possession of the Elgin Marbles or the Rosetta Stone, icons of antiquity mired in controversy, is not exceptional; it is emblematic. These artifacts, however artfully displayed, carry the invisible weight of colonial conquest. For many communities of origin, their removal constitutes not just a historical grievance, but an ongoing erasure of identity.
Western museums often point to their capacity to conserve, study, and exhibit these artifacts responsibly. They argue, sometimes sincerely, that global access to human history is a noble goal. But this defense rings hollow in a world where digital preservation is commonplace and where the moral imperative to return stolen cultural property grows louder each year. The question isn’t simply who can care for these artefacts, it’s who should.
Repatriation, the return of cultural property to its place of origin, has shifted from a theoretical debate to a global movement. France’s pledge to return looted artifacts to Benin, Germany’s restitution of the Benin Bronzes, and the Smithsonian’s newly developed ethical return policies are not fringe gestures. They are signals of a deeper cultural shift. Repatriation, after all, is not just about boxes being shipped back across oceans. It’s about truth-telling. It’s about nations acknowledging histories of violence and dispossession, and about institutions committing to restorative justice.
This new ethical landscape demands changes in practice. Provenance research, once an obscure archival task, must now be a public commitment. Shared custodianship models, where institutions collaborate with origin communities to co-curate, rotate, or jointly own artifacts, offer ways forward that don’t sacrifice conservation. And above all, museums must embrace the decolonization of their own internal cultures: rethinking who gets to tell the stories, who sits on the boards, and whose voices shape the narrative.
Museums can still be temples of learning and wonder. But for them to truly serve society in the 21st century, they must relinquish their roles as colonial trophy cases. The future lies in humility, transparency, and cooperation. In part two of this series, I’ll look at how new technologies and evolving curatorial philosophies are helping museums reinvent themselves for the world to come.
The Rowanwood Chronicles 