Sympatico / MSN News : Entertainment : British Museum returns aboriginal ashes to Tasmania

Here is something interesting. I mean the actual process of repatriation, rather than the specific details of this case.

As the past few months have seen the repatriation of objects from such hallowed institutions as the Met and the Getty by Italian and Greek authorities, (see my earlier post: A Change in the Tide of Repatriation) the issue of repatriation is beginning to emerge in my mind as a fascinating track to pursue in the future.

How is the provenance and acquisition of these objects characterized before and after repatriation? How do their meanings change in the process of repatriation - moving for instance, from the status of foreign "treasure" to symbol of national heritage? What does the political act of standing up to a major American or British museum do to the reception of the objects in their "home" countries? Or to their significance as "art" or "artifact"? And finally, this idea that objects inherently belong in a geographically bounded region or city is also interesting. Are they actually going back to their immediate place of fabrication, or (more often the case, I'm sure) are they going back to adorn National Museums? Is a repatriated object in this capacity more 'valuable' than one that is not because of the political implications behind its acquisition?

Too many questions - precious few answers. Although I will suggest that particularly as Asian countries come increasingly into their own on the economic stage, there will be more aggressive calls for repatriation.

And as a branch of museum studies and art history, the results of tracing some of the political claims on these objects, and their subsequent journeys back "home" could be fascinating.