歸還館藏原住民文物的問題在1970年代受到國際與聯合國的重視，最終並對博物館產生了革命性的影響。本文旨在認識國外相關議題涉及的意涵與理念或不同價值，如對於死者遺骨的態度與科學及教育的需求之間的抵觸，以及其解決的策略。 本文指出其產生的背景緣於當時的民權運動與多元文化主義所導致的文化民主化，對原住民而言則具有去殖民化的政治意涵與訴求，並已然成為國際上原住民權利主張的一部分。其導致博物館與學界接納原住民的想法或世界觀，發展新的博物館行事規章，如承認原住民在精神層面上對於文物的擁有與權利，形成一種文物共有的關係，並與原住民建立新的合作夥伴關係。 本文並以美國1990年通過的《原住民墓葬保護與歸還法》為例，呈現其判斷何者應該歸還與否的原則與理念，以及文物歸還與成立原住民或社群博物館、維繫與復興社群認同的關係。並指出考量無形文化資產的保存與延續，國際上關於博物館新的定義已擴展了博物館的概念，即不限於典藏、保存文物，也協助傳統與文化習俗的保存，使博物館有了新的角色與型態。 最後並經由國內相關案例，反思國內館藏的經營管理對於館藏文物使用的思維。如何讓館外專業、業餘或相關人士以及地方民眾近用或參與的機制，公共性與隱私性二者之間的權衡與取捨等，是有待解決的課題。

The issue of returning indigenous objects from museum collections drew much attention from the international community and the United Nations in the 1970s, and had a profound impact on museums. The aims of this paper are to understand the implications or values related to this issue, such as conflicts between the attitude toward human remains and the needs of science and education, as well as the strategies to address them. As museums and academia accept ideas or world views of the indigenous people, they develop new guidelines for museum practices, such as the recognition of indigenous people’s spiritual ownership and rights over artifacts in museum collections, which have led to a cooperative partnership with indigenous peoples. This paper takes the case of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act 1990 as an example to illustrate the principles and concepts behind decisions of what should be returned in the United States, as well as the relation between the returned artifacts and the establishment of indigenous or community museums, and the preservation or revival of community identity. To safeguard intangible cultural heritage, the definition of museum has to be extended. It cannot be limited to the preservation of its collection, but must also include the safeguarding of traditional and cultural practices, which provides museums with new roles. Finally, through domestic cases, the thinking regarding access to museum collections in Taiwan is discussed. The topics that are addressed include the establishment of a mechanism that allows access to and participation by not only academics but also amateur researchers and local people and the balancing of public interests and privacy.