In 2017 archaeological evidence was published which indicates that modern humans first arrived in Australia around 65,000 years ago. Through the countless generations since, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples built deep connections to the landscape, developed rich material culture infused with story and myth, and used oral and ceremonial traditions to transmit knowledge over thousands of years. Yet, since European invasion at the end of the eighteenth century, the provenance of ethnographic and institutional collections has largely been documented with reference to white collectors and colonial institutions. Attitudes are starting to change. Recent decades have seen significant moves away from the idea of the authoritative institution toward relational museums and the co-creation of knowledge. But the structure and content of much museum documentation continues to lag behind contemporary attitudes. This paper looks at the documentation of Australian ethnographic and anthropological collections through the lens of changing perspectives on provenance, including archival notions of parallel and societal provenance. When placed in the context of recent developments in material culture theory, these collections help to highlight the limitations of existing documentation. The paper concludes with a call for community involvement and a more relational approach to documentation which better encompasses the complexities of provenance and the entangled institutional, archival, oral, and community perspectives that accumulate around artefacts in museums.Heritage 2019, 2 885 artefacts in particular, documented provenance often starts with collection by Australian, European, or American anthropologists and expeditions rather than with the names or stories of those who designed, manufactured, or used the item. This paper explores the broad concept of provenance in the context of museum collections and archival records, drawing on archival theory, museological and curatorial investigations into the 'relational museum,' and case studes from the history of collecting in Australia. 'Provenance' is here viewed as one element in an expanded relational field [3] of description which can (and should) contain other possibilities for the theory and practice of museum documentation. In doing so, museums can better reflect complex, entangled histories, and the multiple contexts and knowledge systems that surround artefacts and other collection items.As a white academic I do not write on behalf of Indigenous Australia. With hundreds of communities speaking more than 250 langauges, the Australian continent contains a huge diversity of cultures and perspectives, including many different attitudes towards museums, archives, and other cultural heritage institutions. Here I argue that those of us embedded in European institutions must not assume we have the experience, or the right, to make decisions regarding provenance, knowledge, and the representation of First Nations artefacts and ideas. Instead, we must critique existing practi...