01565nas a2200145   4500000000100000000000100001008004100002100001700043245015200060856015400212300001200366490000700378520101400385022002001399                                       d1 aTom Svensson00aOn Craft and Art: Some Thoughts on Repatriation and Collecting Policy-The Case of Collections at the Museum of Cultural History, University of Oslo  uhttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-84937794295&doi=10.1080%2f08949468.2015.1052319&partnerID=40&md5=93299b394c92cadb380bea217d2e562f  a324-3350 v283 aThe issue of repatriation is of increasing concern in the museum world. For many central museums it has become part of their policy-making agenda. Diverse features of intangible heritage, such as research-based knowledge and recordings as well as various photographic materials, supplement in our time what appropriately could be repatriated by way of sharing. Many indigenous cultures from which objects were collected at one time have now established their own museums, or museum-like institutions, as for example Heritage Centers. Besides the positive aspects of sharing, an additional motivation for repatriation is that a specific collection, or part thereof, may attain a better and more adequate permanent localization than the original one, both in terms of future research and of presentation through exhibitions. Referring to craft and art I will elucidate this general assertion with three ethnic cases, the Netsilik, the Sàmi, and the Hopi, based on collections at the Museum of Cultural History.  a08949468 (ISSN)