My name is Abigail Egwunyenga, and I am a third-year PhD researcher at Loughborough University. I am also a recipient of the £300 bursary from the Museum Ethnographers Group (MEG) that assisted with my attendance of the 16th annual MEG conference, at the Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford, in April 2026.

While my research on West African textiles does not directly address ongoing debates concerning their display as archival collections, it strongly intersects with the issues of interpretation and ethical framing of living/existing African cultural artefacts that were addressed at this year’s conference. A significant number of textiles held in museum collections today are not simply historical objects, but part of living traditions with ongoing cultural, social, and spiritual connotations. Accordingly, it was my view that the conference’s headliner project, Rethinking Relationships, and theme, Equitable collaboration: what is collaboration able to do and undo, spoke directly to the methodology of ethnographic studies that reflect indigenous perspectives, a practice that has been instrumental in my current line of academic enquiry aimed at cultural continuity through hybridity.

Given the opportunity to attend and network with intellectuals interested in work that acknowledge the cultural stories and origins associated with archival objects acquired through colonial means, I left not only affirming my assertion on the complexities of decolonial research enquiries but also with renewed clarity about the ethical approach adopted in my own research.

For curators who, through research, have engaged in difficult dialogues to better understand some of these living cultural indigenous objects, the 16th M.E.G conference offered a space to interrogate Western-led stories or assumptions imposed on such items, which seem quite detached from their original roles as cultural signifiers. The conference sought to understand the people behind these objects/artefacts and the journeys that led to their current status as archival materials.

Although Western Museum holdings of these cultural pieces were questioned, museum experts and delegates from cultures with a shared history of colonialism looked towards a deconstructed and decolonised approach aimed at cultural continuity, while emphasising the importance of amplifying the voices connected to these artefacts. The conference acknowledged the long-standing effects of colonialism on current decolonial efforts in African, Native and Latin American regions. This led to conversations that alluded to hybridity as a means of reconciliation towards proper deconstruction of colonial frameworks and decoloniality.

Presentations, particularly by Olly DeHerrera and Santiago Valencia Parra, were very effective in explaining how many of these items archived in some Western-led museums were still active, despite their detachment from their cultural context. DeHerrera’s focus on North American pottery held at the Pitt Rivers Museum revealed the functionality and autonomy of indigenous objects, as well as their newfound role as ambassadors. DeHerrera argues that the hierarchy positioning ancient artefacts in museums above their souvenir replicas, with the former deemed more authentic, is flawed, particularly when these living objects are sourced from the same living traditions and localities.

Valencia Parra’s presentation addressed co-creation efforts aimed at the cultural continuity of Chontal masks, archived at the British Museum from Mexico, using 3D printing technology as an enabler. Given that the craft of making Chontal Masks is still practiced, the collaboration between researchers and indigenous knowledge holders of the craft, who are contemporary in their own right, was central to achieving continuity.

From a personal perspective, this highlights the debate on the assumed “primitivism” of non-Western cultural objects and calls the definition of modernity into question. It prompted the question in my mind, Is modernism a form of Western developed contemporality or is modernism also a type of indigenousness with a continuous form of practice? Museums must acknowledge alternative knowledge systems and understand that the antiquity of historically archived cultural objects doesn’t mean that the functionality attached to them is obsolete to current ways of being or becoming, nor does it disturb contemporary cultural practices.

The conference was clear in its recommendations for adopting alternative forms of research through co-authorship and collaboration with either objects or community members, including work that examines their origins. This approach not only offers a sense of belonging and understanding but also corrects the assumption on who has the right to tell a particular story, dismantling the bias that Western institutional frameworks are the default lens for understanding non-Western cultural artefacts.

Glynn Alard, in his presentation titled Shadows of shade: counter archival silhouettes, illustrated the concept of co-creating with South African indigenous epistemology and artistry for decolonial educational purposes and introductions to Iziko museums’ items. Aimed at addressing how coloniality affects perception, Glynn pushes for transformation rather than reduction by adopting San rock art silhouettes that return indigenous individuals depicted in brutalised colonial photography to an indigenous visual language. This becomes a methodology that recognises and activates a cultural system of communication through indigenous design. As a result, the indigenous epistemology became the authorising framework for the museum. This not only presents a kind of continuity within research through decoloniality but also offers a practical approach to incorporating indigenous visual principles into design practice. It also demonstrates the importance of knowledge exchange, which, in my opinion, could be applicable to broader design solutions that draw inspiration from indigenousness.

However, there are barriers to be considered when applying alternative epistemology as an authorising framework within Western-built institutions. Aside from applied practices for collaboration and amplifying muted indigenous voices as a result of coloniality, the conference also examined the limitations on access pathways to working with indigenous knowledge keepers in conjunction with colonial-shaped institutions.

Johanna Zetterström-Sharp and Heba Abd el Gawad, in their presentation Museum Collaboration Can Never Be Equitable: Confronting the Limitations of Good Intentions in Museum Collaboration tackle the concept of the insider/outsider positionality that embodies what is termed the “provocateur”, a research ally that represents a form of resistance to these institutions and “weaseler”, a strategic negotiator and collaborator that operates within colonial shaped institutions creating space for indigenous voices without directly challenging structures of power. This acknowledgement of limitations, coupled with prior practice in collaborative indigenous research, helps assert positionality while acknowledging the biases and power dynamics at play. Together, this improves research outcomes and moves us closer to achieving decoloniality.

Attending the 16^th annual M.E.G conference was inspiring, and as a cultural researcher with design roots, I view the complexity demonstrated across these presentations on navigating decoloniality in museum practice as setting the tone for other affiliated contemporary items associated with indigenousness. In my own research, for example, the resurgence of West African textiles, particularly Kente and Akwete, in their hybrid contemporary reinterpretation has inspired my investigation not only into the epistemology of these cultural materials but also into an alternative application of functional materiality that could align with these epistemological properties, a parallel endeavour that sits within the broader decolonial conversation held at the conference.

My ethnographic fieldwork, now in its analytical phase therefore requires decentring preconceived assumptions to amplify the craft practitioners and knowledge holders of indigenous weaving in West African textiles. As Fernanda Quadros rightly said at the conference, ‘ephemeral initiatives do not necessarily equal structural change.’ The primitivist labelling of knowledge generated outside Western-framed institutions has impacted the continuity narrative of connected communities, and it is through these collaborative efforts that the limiting narrative begins to be challenged.