Sir, – Fintan O’Toole’s article (“Never mind the Nazis. What about our own stolen treasures?”, Culture Shock, November 9th) raises questions around the ethnographical collections in the National Museum of Ireland in the context of the discovery of a collection of paintings amassed by the German dealer and collector, Hildebrand Gurlitt in a Munich apartment, much of which is suspected to have been illegally confiscated.
O’Toole compares the two, stating the National Museum’s collection “has been out of sight for a very long time”. While he is correct in saying the museum’s collection has not been on public display since 1979, unlike the Munich hoard, this was not in an attempt to conceal or deny its existence, but rather was to make space available to re-display the museum’s Irish archaeological treasures.
He is right in highlighting the need for a full survey of the collection. Between 2003 and 2007 the museum engaged an ethnographer to produce an inventory of the material in question as a first step. As a result, we now have a clearer picture of its range and extent, but only in outline. It was intended, at that time, that the museum’s world-class collections would form one of the key displays in a new central block to be built as part of an expansion of facilities at Collins Barracks. Unfortunately, funding for this development never materialised and the necessary resources to fully catalogue the collections are as yet unavailable.
O’Toole’s second point is “that at least a significant amount of it [ie the museum’s ethnographical collection] is loot, pure and simple.” He cites cases in which some objects were clearly acquired as war trophies and as the result of punitive raids by colonial military men and civil servants. However, the number of such instances and the precise circumstances pertaining in each case remains to be established. Further research does need to be undertaken on the collections, particularly around provenance; only then can the question of legal possession be addressed.
The article raises the wider question of the presence of ethnographic objects in Western museums, and the existence of “ethnographic” museums, both of which issues have involved much soul-searching and reflection in the last several decades. These are complex matters which also need to acknowledge that this material forms part of Ireland’s history and its relations with the wider world.
The repatriation of these objects also forms part of this on-going debate, as does engagement with indigenous communities. The return of such cultural property is something which the museum has been responsive to over the years and requests have been dealt with on a case-by-case basis. In this regard, the museum has entered into formal negotiations with representatives of the Maori and of the Native Americans. In 1990, for example, the museum permanently repatriated two toi moko (tattooed Maori heads) to Te Papa (Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa) and agreement was reached on the retention of the Maori holdings by the museum. This followed formal discussions with representatives of the Maori in the context of a special exhibition Te Ao Maori in Kildare St which was opened in accordance with Maori ritual. In other cases, requests for the temporary loan of material have been granted.
Ethnographic museums in Europe are changing and evolving (an example is Paris’s Musée de l’Homme which has become the Musée du quai Branly) in ways that reflect changed understandings of what constitutes the ethnographic in museum terms. Some are reconstituting themselves as museums of world cultures.
This is a debate that is open-ended and one which the National Museum of Ireland welcomes. Indeed, the museum hosted, participated in and part- funded a conference in 2007 on the subject of ethnographic collections in Irish museums, the proceedings of which were published in 2012 under the title Exhibit Ireland, to which Fintan O’Toole refers in his article. – Yours, etc,
RAGHNALL Ó FLOINN,
Director,
National Museum of Ireland,
Collins Barracks,
Benburb Street,
Dublin 7.