Australian collecting institutions have historically played a significant role in the removal of Indigenous Australian cultural objects from both people and Country, and in the provision of objects to collections internationally. Consequently, valuable information about Indigenous Australian objects in overseas collections is often still held within the Australian institutions that sent them. The ‘Collection Ecologies for Repatriation Practice' project (2022-2024) examined the potential use of records in Australian collecting institutions to trace the origins (provenance) and movements of cultural objects, particularly since such items are often poorly documented in the overseas institutions that received them. Archival research was conducted at major collecting institutions in New South Wales, Victoria, and South Australia, with pilot research extending to other states and territories to build a foundation for future investigation. The research focused on records relating to international museum exchanges and collecting expeditions. An information management tool was developed to unify dispersed information and records and provide an interoperable dataset to support repatriation research and practice. This research confirmed that records in domestic institutions can be used to increase object level provenance, and are therefore vital for repatriation efforts. Archival research highlighted several underutilised datasets - particularly export permits and inter-departmental records of collecting institutions - that can significantly assist provenance research for cultural objects. Understanding local record-keeping processes relating to overseas provision activities helps clarify how objects can ‘lose’ their provenance information as they move between institutions, and how that information can subsequently be retrieved. The project findings have important implications for the provenance of Australian Indigenous cultural objects abroad and their possible repatriation; ultimately, this research will inform future developments of provenance infrastructure, as well as training and practice in repatriation.

This article centres on two digital return projects led by Yolngu community stakeholders from North East Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory of Australia. Both projects illustrate how concepts of decolonisation and Indigenisation have been mobilised by Yolngu people within an affirmative action framework to overcome past malpractices, and to bring about a transformative environment of cultural reclamation and sovereignty. Both projects have served as pioneering models for digital return initiatives in Australia and internationally. The discussion begins by briefly addressing some of the critical differences between repatriation and the return of documentary heritage in the form of digital ‘archives’ (including collection images and provenance data, photographs, film and sound recordings). It then outlines two different but related pathways taken by Yolngu stakeholders in establishing cultural archiving projects, each centred on decolonising and indigenising museum collections through collaborative partnerships with museums and universities. Inherent in these discussions is the idea that decolonisation is complex, multi-sited and multifocal. The article concludes by arguing that museums need to be more proactive in reconnecting communities with collections. Working collaboratively with First Nations and formerly colonised peoples to restore cultural knowledge lost as a direct result of colonisation is a vital step for moving forward.

The University of Michigan’s role in US colonial expansion resulted in the accumulation of one of the largest Philippine cultural and natural history collections in North America. It is time for the university to address its colonial complicity in the formation of these collections by developing decolonial practices so that the institution can provide reciprocal and reparative access to these Philippine collections. In response, the ReConnect/ReCollect project is currently developing and testing relative approaches for culturally responsive and historically minded stewardship of Philippine materials at the university. Our overall goal is to create both the framework and the corresponding set of practices that will intervene in contemporary scholarship and curation to pursue what constitutes reparative work for Philippine collections. We engage in three interrelated interventions: reparative curation, reparative connections to community and reparative scholarship. Our anticipated outcomes include a full inventory of the university’s Philippine collections, opening our collections for iterative and inclusive community engagement and the creation of a multiplatform toolkit for reparative actions. The first project of its kind for Philippine collections, this work holds far-reaching implications, offering a new vantage point from which to engage scholarly conversations around decolonising collections. Our project builds on recent efforts to decolonise collections, which foreground Indigenous perspectives and community collaboration, consultation and dialogue to construct a model of relationality and shared stewardship.

Sound-producing objects, such as musical instruments and sound devices, are a distinct category of museum objects because their museification has deprived them of their primary characteristic: sound. This paper discusses the use of sound as an interpretive tool in exhibitions of sound-producing objects. After reviewing the use of sound as an interpretive medium in contemporary museum exhibitions, the discussion focuses on sound-producing objects and analyses the concerns about their functionality in the museum context. The last section of the paper introduces sonic references, a specific type of sonic practices integrated in contemporary museum exhibitions. The documentation of the interpretive approaches adopted towards sound-producing objects aims to explore the potential of sound in creating meaningful experiences for museum visitors. Finally, the paper seeks to encourage sound-led curatorial strategies that explore more experiential ways to engage visitors with museum exhibitions.

A museum visit is a life event, which can result in an array of experiences that its digital counterparts are not able to reproduce. Museum topographies reveal themselves through our encounters with them. The knowledge we gain is connected to physical locations and things, stored as scenarios and registered as whole events. The context of embodied and situated cognition provides a strong and thought-provoking argument for experiencing real-life museum spaces. What embodied cognition theories suggest is that the restricted use of our bodies might result in profoundly altered, limited forms of cognition. Online interactions increasingly force us into modes of thinking which rely on eye-based absorption of the mimetic language. The non-linear events and tapestries of real-life experience are replaced by ‘eye-screen cognition’, spatial inertness and disconnection from the modes which most likely play a crucial role in our cognitive processes. Without dismissing the obvious benefits of online presence, like reaching new audiences and connecting databases and thus creating new research opportunities, I would like to argue the case for the in-person museum visit, using specifically the theories of embodied experience and examples from my own lived experience. Embodied cognition theories indicate that we think as embodied agents, and depend on sensorial input to support our understanding, formation and retention of concepts. Embodied cognition in the museum context can help us better understand and appreciate the spectrum and complexity of our perception processes, the meaning of an impactful event and the richness of our living experience.