From February 12 to 15, 2007, the Greenland National Museum & Archive convened an international and crossdisciplinary conference on repatriation of cultural heritage. Nearly 90 people attended the conference representing more than 20 different states and indigenous peoples. Based on experiences in relation to the recent return of 35,000 archaeological and ethnographic items from Denmark to the Greenlandic Home rule, the aim of the Greenlandic conference was to facilitate dialog and partnership between relevant stakeholders founded on mutual respect and understanding.

For the last couple of decades, the world has witnessed an increasing number of disputes over cultural heritage ownership, and often these disputes result in claims for repatriation. What causes the disputes is the fact that ethnographic, archaeological, or osteological collections often are of importance to several parties simultaneously: both to the source community, which claims it by virtue of being the culture of origin, and the state, museum, or private institution that currently holds the collections. Because most disputes relate to material appropriated within a colonial or otherwise occupational context, repatriation isn't restricted to having museological implications but touches on a wide variety of legal, political, ethical, and professional issues.

To encompass the wide variety of issues at stake, conference sessions included topics on the legal instruments on repatriation, past and present political abuses of cultural heritage, the affect of repatriation in relation to identity formation and revitalization processes, and the sometimes times conflicting ethical obligations of museum professionals toward the public, collections, and peoples of origin.

The conference program and a complete list of speakers can be found on the conference web site: 〈http://www.natmus.gl/con2007/index.html〉.

In Session 1, “Whose Property/Whose Heritage? The Legal Status of Cultural Heritage,” Guido Carducci (Division of Cultural Heritage, UNESCO) warned against “easy generalizations that may let appear as universal what is actually factually (historically) and legally specific” for a given repatriation case. Also, Catherine Bell (University of Alberta, Canada) spoke in favor of case-by-case negotiations and emphasized the value of collaborative solutions “based on mutual respect for human rights, differing conceptions of property and legal systems, and religious practices.”

In Session 2 “Does Cultural Heritage Matter—The Politics of Repatriation” Moira G. Simpson (Flinders University, Australia) demonstrated how cultural heritage to indigenous peoples might serve as more than a mere record of the past, but that it also constitutes a vital part of revitalizing culture and renewing knowledge. In line with this, Joe Watkins (University of New Mexico, United States) emphasized that repatriation is never an apolitical act, but that cultural heritage can be both used and misused in the rewriting of history.

In Session 3 “Ethical Considerations—Repatriation as a Ritual of Redemption” Jonathan King (British Museum, United Kingdom) explained how repatriation seems to leave contemporary conflicts unresolved and stated that there is a need for repatriation alternatives, such as “virtual and visual return,” long-term loans, cocurated museum exhibitions. and other forms of cultural interaction. George Abungu (Okello Abungu Heritage Consultants, Kenya) suggested though that the reluctance of so-called Universal Museums in assisting claimants in physical repatriation could be questioned as yet another act of promoting “the western world's dominance and elaboration of culture and colonization.”

In Session 4 “Preservation or Reuse—Repatriation as a Challenge to Museums” Jack Lohman (Museum of London Group, United Kingdom) argued that the conflicting language of ownership disputes is an obstacle that must be surmounted “since it separates museums from the very communities they wish to serve.” Te Taru White (Te Papa Tongarewa, New Zealand) stressed the importance of moving beyond notions of power and control in favor of healing and reconciliation. In speaking in favor of “power sharing” with indigenous communities and thereby placing science and traditional knowledge on a equal footing, he challenged colonial constructs prevalent a many Western museums.

In the early spring of 2008, a volume derived from the conference presentations will be published in cooperation between IWGIA (International Work Group for Indigenous Affairs and the Greenland National Museum & Archives). During the conference, a work group drafted a document on repatriation guidelines based on central issues and key conclusions extracted from the conference. In a revised version, this will be included in the publication as the organizers recommendations.