APPENDIX 42
Memorandum submitted by Moira Simpson,
BA, MA, PGCE, Lecturer, University of Warwick
INTRODUCTION
The issue of repatriation is highly complex and political.
All too often media attention focuses upon the case of the Parthenon
Marbles. This narrow approach does not in any way reflect the
true complexity of the repatriation issue which involves items
in many categories and from many countries obtained in a variety
of circumstances. These include materials collected by a variety
of means during the colonial era; art works looted during World
War Two; and the on-going problem of stolen, illicitly excavated
and/or illicitly exported material. Objects may have been collected
by legal means but other issues need to be considered, not least
the status of the objects and their continuing importance to the
societies from which they were removed. Also, consideration must
be given to questions concerning legality of ownership according
to indigenous or customary laws.
Items in the collections of British museums
are of importance for many peoples all over the world, not just
the scientific and academic communities and the museum-visiting
public in the UK. The scientific, educational and artistic value
of museum collections is inestimable and I would never condone
the wholesale return of artefacts from museum collections; indeed,
few of those seeking the repatriation of particular items would
do so. However, in responding to requests for repatriation, museum
staff must consider many points and address the concerns and needs
of those making the request as well as those of the scientific
community, academia and the museum visitors, present and future.
The growing pressure upon museums to address the issue of repatriation
is part of a worldwide change of attitude—a paradigm shift—in
which the rights of indigenous people are being recognised. Repatriation
issues are linked to other developments in indigenous affairs
such as land rights, fishing and hunting rights, and intellectual
property rights. In this submission I would like to highlight
some of the more complex aspects of the repatriation debate regarding
acquisition, ownership rights and significance of the objects.
The need to rectify the situation concerning
the loss of artworks looted during the war by the Nazis has been
recognised. Art galleries and museums are now taking steps to
identify the rightful owners of these works and to address the
question of future custodianship. The same approach should be
taken to other categories of material. In particular, there is
a need to safeguard archaeological sites which are subject to
looting; to take action to halt the trade in stolen artworks,
artefacts and other items of cultural heritage; and to address
the issues associated with some categories of material in museum
collections which were acquired during the colonial era. Although
I will refer briefly to the illicit trade in artefacts and works
of art, my main focus will be upon material collected in past
centuries which is not subject to International Conventions.
In order to illustrate the powerful arguments
that exist for the repatriation of certain artefacts, this submission
draws upon examples from other countries where there has been
greater experience of handling such requests, and upon the words
of indigenous spokespeople and curatorial staff directly involved
in these issues. These examples will also serve to illustrate
the positive outcomes that have been achieved for both communities
and museums when repatriation requests have been handled sensitively
and with a desire for constructive and mutually acceptable resolution
which may or may not involve the return of the item in question.
1. ILLICIT TRADE
AND INTERNATIONAL
CONVENTIONS
Most requests for repatriation of items from
museum collections in the United Kingdom are associated with artefacts
taken in past centuries, particularly during the colonial era.
However, the continuing looting of artefacts from archaeological
sites and the illicit export and trade in these and in other stolen
artworks and artefacts will ensure that countries continue to
be robbed of their cultural heritage. Despite the best efforts
of curatorial staff to check the provenance of new acquisitions
and ensure that they are legally owned by vendors, the illicit
trafficking of stolen artefacts will continue to present challenges
to museums and collectors, and so raise questions of legality
of ownership and create future requests for repatriation.
Possible future action:
— For the protection of British cultural
heritage, and that of other countries, the British Government
should commit itself to halting this illicit trade by making every
effort to resolve its past concerns with the UNESCO and the UNIDROIT
Conventions; by acceding to both; by introducing national legislation
to support application of the Conventions; or by actively seeking
alternative means of addressing the problem of illicit trade.
2. CUSTOMARY
LAW AND
THE PRIMARY
RIGHTS OF
TRADITIONAL CUSTODIANS
The items in museum collections were acquired
under a variety of circumstances; quite probably most of these
items are legitimately owned by museums but there are some items
that were taken under questionable circumstances. Furthermore,
legal systems other than those of western cultures may apply different
interpretations to the circumstances of acquisition and the rights
of traditional owners.
Recognition of Customary Law and The Concept of
Cultural Patrimony
In some traditional societies, religious and
other cultural practices operate within a closed system of knowledge
in contrast to the open system of religious and scientific knowledge
that operates in western cultures. For example, ritual items in
many Native American communities are cared for and used by specific
individuals such as medicine men but are regarded as being communal
property which, under customary law, cannot be alienated from
the tribe. Similarly, secret/sacred materials in Australian Aboriginal
communities are intended to be seen only by those who are in the
appropriate initiated group within the community. In the past,
materials of this nature have come to be in the collections of
museums and collectors through various means including accidental
discovery and theft from tribal lands or, occasionally, by trade
with or purchase from a tribal member who had no legal authority
to conduct such a transaction. Under tribal law, the acquisition
of such material by a collector or museum, by whatever means,
would have been illegal.
Museums and governments in Australia and North
America now acknowledge the status of this type of material as
cultural patrimony and the illegality under customary law of its
alienation from the community. Recognition of the validity of
customary or tribal law and the concept of communally-owned property
is inherent in the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation
Act in the USA. It is also acknowledged in the policies of the
Canadian Museums Association and Museums Australia which take
account of the continuing interests and custodianship rights of
traditional owners (AFN/CMA, 1991; ATSIC, 1993).
PRIMARY RIGHTS
Acceptance of the concept of cultural patrimony
and recognition of the primary rights of indigenous peoples, have
formed the basis for the return of Aboriginal secret/sacred material
in Australia and, in North America, have been grounds for the
successful repatriation of certain types of artefacts of religious
or cultural importance. In Australia, the Council of Australia
Museum Associations (CAMA) (now known as Museums Australia) published
a policy document entitled "Previous Possessions, New Obligations:
Policies for Museums in Australia and Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Peoples" (1993). In this, it is stated that "custodianship
of secret/sacred material is vested in those people—the
traditional custodians or their descendants—who have rights
in and responsibilities for it under Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander customary law" (CAMA, 1993:13). The policy also
emphasises that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples
have "primary rights" with regard to their cultural
heritage and in this they included intellectual property rights.
"They own their intangible cultural property, the meaning
of the items expressed through the design, the dance, the song,
the stories" (CAMA, 1993:1).
The return of an object may result in the re-awakening
of cultural pride in a community that was devastated by contact
and colonialism, and lost much of its material cultural heritage.
It may also bring about the renewal of traditional cultural or
religious practices that had almost died out. Repatriated objects
may be placed in one of the community museums which have been
established by indigenous communities in recent decades (see case
study of the Cranmer potlatch collection in section 5). The establishment
of museums run by indigenous peoples offers opportunities for
repatriated artefacts to remain in the public domain with new
forms of culturally-sensitive interpretation and conservation
adding to their interpretative value and to anthropological knowledge
of their function and modes of use. Repatriated sacred or ceremonial
materials are normally returned to the care of the traditional
custodians and are then used for the purposes for which they were
intended or placed in secure storage facilities to protect them
from theft. In rare cases, the intended religious function of
an object may involve its eventual destruction, as is the case
with Zuni ahayu:da (see case study below).
CASE STUDY:
ZUNI AHAYU:DA
Ahayu:da (or War Gods) are wooden carvings
of the twin figures of Masewi and Oyoyewi. They are believed to
protect the Zuni people and to provide stability and harmony to
the world. To the Zuni, ahayu:da are far more than mere
inanimate wooden carvings; they are believed to be living beings
and their creation is analogous to the physical development of
a human. They are carved by members of the Dear and Bear Clans
and then placed in shrines on Pueblo land where it is intended
that the elements will eventually destroy them, returning them
to the earth and so completing a natural cycle of creation and
decay.
In recent times, ahayu:da were found
by non-Zunis and removed from the shrines, ending up in the collections
of museums and private collectors. Removal of the ahayu:da
is believed by the Zuni to be the cause of extreme weather
conditions, natural disasters and other misfortunes affecting
the well-being of the Zuni people and the wider world and they
have for many years been campaigning for the return of all ahayu:da.
During the 1980s and 1990s, the Zuni were successful in achieving
the return of over sixty-five ahayu:da, representing all
those identified in the collections of American museums. In their
campaign for repatriation, they have argued that these objects
were items of cultural patrimony, communally owned by the tribe
as a whole and therefore, whatever the means of acquisition, their
removal from the Pueblo was illegal. This argument was recognised
by a US court of law considering a case in the 1980s and has since
been incorporated into US federal legislation in the form of the
Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (1990).
When ahayu:da are returned to Zuni Pueblo, they are placed
in secure outdoor shrines where wind and rain will cause their
eventual decomposition enabling them to complete the cycle and
so fulfil their intended function.
(Refs: Merrill, Ladd and Ferguson, 1993; Simpson,
1996; 195-199; 219-220).
In addition to the issue of customary law, there
are other aspects of acquisition which give rise to questions
about the ethics of museum ownership or the validity of a transaction.
Many artefacts were acquired by legitimate means; many were purchased
or received as gifts; but many others were taken as loot during
military campaigns and periods of colonial rule, or were confiscated
by European missionaries intent on wiping out indigenous religions
and replacing them with Christianity. Other sacred items were
found by European collectors, stored in caves, placed on shrines,
or secreted in other sacred places. Such items were taken without
consideration of their importance to traditional owners; indeed,
Europeans finding such items may well have thought that they had
simply been discarded.
Fourmile (1990:58) has observed that "obviously
there are a whole host of circumstances by which museums acquired
their collections of our cultural property, but virtually all
on a basis which could not be seen as constituting transactions
under fair and equal conditions for both parties". Some objects
were given as tokens of friendship and symbols of trust between
peoples of different cultures; such gestures were surely nullified
by subsequent events in which the indigenous population was subjugated
and forced or misled into complying with inequitable treaties,
or those which were later violated or revoked. Even if items were
purchased, there may be little actual evidence of transactions
when items were acquired 50, 100, or more, years ago and the circumstances
of a transaction may give rise to questions about the ethics,
if not the legality, of the sale. Objects may have been compulsorily
"purchased", looted or confiscated, thus invalidating
any earlier bilateral agreements. They may have been purchased
from individuals with no right to sell communally-owned objects,
making the sale illegal. They may have been purchased at prices
that were exploitative and mercenary, or simply purchased from
a party lacking adequate legal knowledge or linguistic skill to
fully understand the implications of their actions. The following
case study illustrates this point.
CASE STUDY:
ONONDAGA WAMPUM
BELTS
Amongst the tribes of the Iroquois confederacy
of the north-eastern United States, strings of white and purple
shell beads were strung together to create patterned belts, which
serve as tribal records of treaties, agreements and other significant
events. They are considered to be the property of the Iroquois
nations rather than any individual. In 1891, the official Onondaga
wampum-keeper sold four important belts to a collector without
sanction from the tribal government. When their loss was realised
in 1898, the Onondaga sought to recover the belts. Tribal leaders
were advised by non-Indians to appoint the New York State Board
of Regents as their authorised wampum-keeper in order that the
Board could act on their behalf in a lawsuit. Acting on this advice,
the Onondaga transferred custody of a number of wampum belts to
the Board of Regents. In total about 26 belts were transferred
to the Board of Regents and hence to the collections of the New
York State Museum, of which they were trustees. The Onondaga failed
in their attempt to recover the four belts which had been the
subject of the lawsuit and, in 1927, the belts were bequeathed
to the State Museum by the widow of the collector.
Although the Onondaga repeatedly requested that
the Board of Regents return custody of the wampum belts to the
Onondaga, it was over 90 years before the tribe regained possession
of 12 of their belts. When Martin Sullivan was appointed to the
post of director of the New York State Museum in 1983 he found
that with that position came the title of Ho-sen-na-ge-tah
or wampum-keeper. As director of the Museum, he was their
principal negotiator in the on-going repatriation negotiations.
After examining the circumstances of the acquisition, Sullivan
pointed out that the Onondaga signatories of an 1898 bill of sale
"had very little command of the English language or of Anglo-American
legal practices and were not likely to have given the informed
consent to the transaction that modern legal standards would require"
(Sullivan, 1992:12). The wampum belts were repatriated to the
Onondaga in 1989 and, once more in the care of the Onondaga, are
now kept in a bank vault but withdrawn for use on ceremonial occasions.
(Refs: Gonyea, 1993; Simpson, 1996: 193, 199,
216-218; Sullivan, 1992).
Possible future action:
— Recognition should be given to traditional
legal systems and customary law within indigenous communities
and the concept of inalienable cultural patrimony accepted and
acted upon.
— Museum staff should be encouraged and
enabled through financial assistance from government to research
the circumstances regarding the acquisition of items in their
collections and to generate inventories of their collections.
3. RELIGIOUS
AND CULTURAL
SIGNIFICANCE
There is no question that the items in museum
collections are valuable as objects which are of artistic, scientific,
cultural and educational significance within the context of the
museum collection and the culture in which they are located today.
However, some of these objects are, in the eyes of their traditional
owners, far more than mere artefacts and involve concepts or beliefs
that over-ride their educational and artistic importance. The
cultural significance of such items needs to be considered, also
the impact that the return of these items would have upon the
societies of the traditional owners.
Ray Gonyea, an Onondaga Indian and a museum
curator, points out that "the museum community must realise
that sacred objects are of even greater value to Native Americans
than they are to museum professionals... returned sacred objects
will be used. That is how they fulfil their intended purpose in
the Native American community to which they belong" (Gonyea,
1993:7).
However, it must also be noted that communities,
although wishing to reclaim sacred materials, may be unable to
provide suitable secure storage. For example, for thousands of
years, traditional custodians in remote Aboriginal communities,
stored sacred objects in secret caches in the desert. Settlement
by Europeans led to relocation and the establishment of missions
and larger settlements with the result that traditional custodians
today may find it difficult to provide appropriate and secure
storage for repatriated secret/sacred objects. In these circumstances,
museums should be prepared to accept the on-going responsibility
for their care and appropriate storage, even though the nature
of such objects means that they can no longer be displayed and
cannot be made accessible to researchers without the consent of
the traditional custodians. The CAMA policy document takes account
of this, noting that "secret/sacred material may be retained
by a museum as custodian if requested by the traditional custodians"
(CAMA, 1993:13).
CASE STUDIES:
ABORIGINAL COLLECTIONS
IN THE
SOUTH AUSTRALIAN
MUSEUM, ADELAIDE,
AUSTRALIA, AND
THE AUSTRALIAN
MUSEUM, SYDNEY,
AUSTRALIA
In the early 1980s, the South Australian Museum
began working with senior Aboriginal men to identify sacred objects
in the collections. Some of these were secret/sacred objects to
which access was restricted and they had been removed from display
during the 1960s and 70s. As a result of these early meetings,
the museum developed a Custodianship of Sacred Objects Project,
designed to apprise Aboriginal peoples about the museum's collection
of restricted material, such as tjurunga and sacred boards.
They also wanted to obtain the views of traditional custodians
concerning storage arrangements and the possibility of repatriation.
The Project involved the re-organisation of the storage facilities
to create a separate Restricted Collection storage area, the computerisation
of all data in the collection and the production of photographs
of every item in the Restricted Collection. Museum anthropologists
undertook a series of field trips to Aboriginal communities in
South Australia and the Northern Territory, including Yuendumu,
Walungurru, Papunya, Ernabella, Marree, and Oodnadatta using these
photographic records to initiate discussions concerning the custodianship
of the collections. Groups of senior Aboriginal men visited the
Museum on a number of occasions to view the storage facilities
and discuss the restricted material. This consultative process
resulted in approximately 300 secret/sacred objects being returned
to the custodianship of these communities.
Anthropologists in the Australian Museum in
Sydney have also developed close working relationships with a
number of Aboriginal communities, undertaking community consultation
as a natural feature of their work. They found Aboriginal elders
to be satisfied with the current level of care that the objects
receive, and happy to see the objects remain in the museum, although
some have expressed the desire to see them returned to the community
if and when they establish their own Keeping Place. Paul Tacon,
a Scientific Officer in the Division of Anthropology, has visited
a number of Aboriginal communities in Central and Northern Australia
and shown them photographs of the museum, members of staff, the
offices, display areas and the main ethnographic stores. He described
to them the secret/sacred storage area, the methods used by staff
to handle and store the secret /sacred material, explained the
restrictions imposed upon access and arrangements made for viewing
by authorised individuals. Although some secret sacred objects
have been repatriated, for the most part, they remain in the collections
of the Museum with the consent of the Aboriginal communities.
(Refs: Anderson, 1990a, 1991; Clarke and Anderson,
1997; Simpson, M 1996: 221-22; Tacon: 1993).
Recommended future action:
— Recognition should be given to the
primary rights of indigenous peoples in their cultural heritage
and the ongoing links and needs associated with particular categories
of objects.
— Museum staff should take steps to identify
sacred items or other items of a sensitive nature and to seek
advice regarding appropriate storage and display which is sensitive
to the wishes of originating communities.
— If requested by the appropriate religious
leaders or traditional custodians, museums should be prepared
to return sacred objects and objects which were communally owned
and so acquired in a manner which did not accord with customary
or traditional law. However, if a community wishes to take items
back but is prevented from doing so by circumstances such as lack
of appropriate secure storage or a keeping place, the museum authorities
should accept the continuing responsibility for the storage and
care of the objects until such time as the community can accept
the items.
— In responding to enquiries concerning
possible repatriation, consideration should be given to the many
and varied circumstances of acquisition, the significance and
function of the items to the community of origin making the request,
and the other considerations outlined in the MGC's Guidelines
on Restitution and Repatriation.
4. HUMAN REMAINS
In most cultures, the remains of the dead are
treated with respect and the bodies are buried, cremated, or otherwise
disposed of, with ceremony and respect. In many cultures burial
grounds remain potent memorials and sanctified sites for many
generations. The continued well-being and approval of the deceased
is sometimes believed to be essential for the well-being of the
living, and desecration of burial sites may disturb the spirits
of the deceased. Disturbance of the dead is offensive to religious
beliefs and, in times of war, grave desecration is often used
as a means of demoralising a population. Yet western museums house
the skeletal remains of hundreds of thousands of peoples.
Walter R Echo-Hawk, in his testimony to the
US Senate Select Committee on Indian Affairs (1988:11-12) argued
that: "Humanity has always buried its dead with varying degrees
of religion, ritual, reverence, and respect. Sanctity of the dead
and their final resting place are not the exception to the rule
. . . On the contrary these values are deeply ingrained in western
civilisation and social mores . . . Because these same fundamental
values are deeply held by Native Americans, past and present,
injury to those values caused by the withholding of Native dead
must surely be self-evident to any informed observers. Yet somehow
these real feelings of Native people have simply been ignored
and disregarded as federal, state and private parties have worked
historically and presently to disturb and remove as many Indian
burials as possible".
Museum holdings of skeletal remains include
substantial collections obtained from archaeological sites representing
a range of time periods and regions of the world. These have provided
much of the material for research in the fields of paleo-pathology
and osteology, giving evidence of the health and lifestyles of
ancient peoples as well as enlightening knowledge of trends affecting
more recent cultures. There are also large holdings of human remains
in natural history museums and in associated collecting institutions
such as medical colleges which were collected in order to provide
data for scientific research, particularly in the fields of medicine,
cultural evolution, human development and phrenology. These were
collected in Europe, the Americas, Africa, Asia, and the Pacific
as recently as the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Non-European
peoples were of particular interest to nineteenth century researchers
seeking evidence of cultural evolution and theories of racial
variation. Collecting activities were undertaken without regard
for the spiritual beliefs of relatives or descendants and the
records of collectors document their methods which include the
use of theft and deception, removal from burial sites and graves,
as well as from battle fields. Furthermore, evidence suggests
that human remains found in archaeological excavations have often
received differing treatment according to their ethnic origins.
While the remains of Native Americans, Australian Aborigines,
and other indigenous peoples have been held in long-term collections
as materials for archaeological and scientific research, skeletal
remains of European origin have usually been reburied with appropriate
religious ceremonies.
Human remains are often found in collections
of ethnography in the form of artefacts and "curiosities"
such as Egyptian mummies, Maori tattooed heads, decorated skulls
from Melanesia, shrunken heads from South America, Tibetan skull
drums, and other miscellaneous items. These are made, or include
components derived, from human remains. In some instances they
may be ceremonial or sacred artefacts but there are also many
examples of items which were made for trade.
Major difficulties have arisen when repatriation
requests have been addressed to institutions holding larger, more
significant research collections such as those held in the Natural
History Museum and the Royal College of Surgeons in London: these
institutions have so far refused to hand over contested human
remains. Indeed, even bonafide researchers seeking access only
to the related documentation have been refused. Opponents of repatriation
argue that the repatriation and reburial of human remains is an
immeasurable loss to science for the study of mankind, and contend
that the knowledge gained from research would be of particular
benefit to the descendants. They have also argued that most human
remains in museum collections are too old to have any traceable
relationship for today's claimants. Robin Cocks (1993), Keeper
of Palaeontology at the Natural History Museum, has explained
that: "the significance of our human remains collection for
scientific research varies immensely and includes past and present
disease patterns, the deformation of bones by a variety of occupations,
ageing patterns and differences and many other such studies. One
of the chief reasons for retaining the collection is the unpredictability
of future research needs." Yet, native peoples today may
perceive a "spiritual tie, symbolic identification, or psychological
relationship" with their unknown ancestors (Davidson, 1990,
7).
Recent Australian and US legislative changes
now give the indigenous populations ownership rights over the
remains of deceased ancestors. The policy of the National Museum
of the American Indian (NMAI) now exceeds the legal requirements
stipulated by NAGPRA, stating that "All Native American materials
that have been duly identified for repatriation, including human
remains, funerary materials, ceremonial and religious materials,
and communally owned property, together with all culturally specific
information, must be treated as the sole property of the affected
Native American culturally affiliated group and with the utmost
respect by scholars and interpreters of those cultures, whether
in collections research, scientific study, exhibitions, publications,
or educational programs" (NMAI, 1992:1).
In the United States, the Native American Graves
Protection and Repatriation Act required all federally-funded
museums to compile inventories of human remains and associated
grave goods, and within three years to compile summaries of unassociated
grave goods, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony.
They were also required to inform tribes of these holdings and
to facilitate returns when requested by descendants or tribes,
subject to the tribal claimants producing the necessary evidence
to comply with the requirements of the legislation. The South
Australian Museum in Adelaide, Australia has adopted a proactive
approach with regard to the repatriation of both sacred objects
and human remains. In 1992, the Museum extended this work to include
the human remains collection, employing a curator of physical
anthropology to survey and inventory the collection, and initiate
consultations with Aboriginal communities with a view to repatriation
in appropriate circumstances.
The debate over the return of human remains
is a delicate issue requiring sensitive dialogue and flexibility
in reaching a resolution with which both the descendants and the
museum staff are satisfied. As with sacred objects, human remains
should only be returned to a community that has sought the return
of their ancestors remains; they should not be sent back regardless
of indigenous views. In some communities the return of human remains
may present problems, as the funeral or burial rites have previously
been performed and there are no cultural guidelines regarding
how to deal with reburial. Problems of accurate cultural identification
may also create difficulties; for example, even though a burial
is identified as that of a Native American, tribal identification
may be impossible to prove and they might, for instance, be the
remains of enemies killed in battle. As a result, some of the
Indian groups would prefer to have human remains stay in the museums,
as their return would present problems. Furthermore, in some communities
there is an abhorrence of remains from which the spirit has departed
and handling of human remains will pose particular difficulties.
In such instances, it may be preferable to the community if the
remains are left in the museum perhaps with changes to storage
conditions, access and research arrangements.
CASE STUDY:
PETERBOROUGH CENTENNIAL
MUSEUM AND
CURVE LAKE
FIRST NATION
REBURIAL
Return and reburial of the ancestors' remains
is a moving experience for all concerned. This case study illustrates
the responses of community members and museum staff involved in
the repatriation and reburial of two skeletons to a band of Curve
Lake First Nation, in Ontario, Canada.
Peterborough Centennial Museum and Archives
in Ontario, Canada, initiated the de-accession and repatriation
of the skeletal remains of two Native American individuals (Doherty,
1992:1-7). In 1983, the curator responsible decided that it was
no longer appropriate for the material to be displayed. The skeletal
material was deteriorating and the display itself was no longer
effective: younger children were so frightened by the replica
burial that it even had to be covered up when primary school groups
visited the museum. By 1988 staff of the museum had decided, with
the agreement of the Board of Museum Management, that the remains
should be de-accessioned and repatriated and so they approached
the Ojibwa Curve Lake First Nations, the nearest band in the area.
After three years of discussion and negotiation,
an agreement was finally drawn up between the band council and
the Board of Museum Management. Initially the museum had intended
to de-accession and repatriate only the human remains, but they
came to recognise that the grave goods were such an integral part
of the burial that they had to be included in the agreement. The
agreement drawn up allowed the museum staff to document and photograph
the process, with a copy to be given to the Curve Lake First Nation.
They were also given permission by the Curve Lake Indians to remove
small samples for carbon dating if they wished, although this
was not deemed necessary, and were able to take casts of the grave
goods so that they would be able to have exact replicas of the
items for future interpretative use.
The band council arranged for both traditional
and Christian ceremonies to be conducted. The remains were transferred
to birch bark containers sealed with pine and spruce pitch. Traditional
sweet grass cleansing ceremonies were carried out at the museum
and at Curve Lake, and the two burial ceremonies, Medewewin and
Christian, were carried out at the grave-side: "At the grave-side,
an honour song was sung as the burial containers were lifted and
placed into their final resting place. The pipe carriers spoke
and each dropped tobacco into the grave. All who chose to were
invited to drop tobacco into the grave as well. All shared fresh
strawberries—which, as the first fruit, are a symbol of
birth—; they were also shared with the grave. The traditional
ceremony included a reading by a woman of the Medewewin, a song
by the Medewewin pipe, a Christian offering, a Christian Hymn
in Ojibwe, and concluded with a Christian prayer" (Doherty,
1992: 5).
The process of repatriation has had benefits
for both the Museum and the Curve Lake First Nation. The events
of that day have sparked a renewed interest in the cultural traditions
of the Medewewin Society who have since been asked to participate
in other funeral services. At the request of the donor, the Museum
has since repatriated other items to the Curve Lake First Nation
including a pipe and a lodge stick. Bill Ramp, Chairman of the
Museum Board, has commented that: "We, at the Museum, were
profoundly touched by the generosity with which the people of
Curve Lake responded to our overtures. For a very small and long
overdue gesture of respect, we received a hand of friendship and
gained a renewed appreciation for the vibrant and enduring culture
and aspirations of the First Nations . . . To give a little is
to receive a great deal. Perhaps if, as a society, we were to
worry a little less about the possible consequences of such giving,
we might find that respect and generosity have a way of perpetuating
themselves" (Cited in Doherty, 1992:7).
Extracts from: Simpson, M 1996. "Making
Representations: Museums in the Post-colonial Era", London:
Routledge, pp 233-34.
Possible future action:
— Museum staff should allow researchers
access to documentation relating to the collections of human remains
but should continue to limit access to the human remains themselves.
— Museum staff should actively seek the
permission of descendants with regard to future research on human
remains and their views concerning care, storage, access, and
possible repatriation. These views should be reflected in museum
policies and the actions of staff to ensure that human remains
are stored and handled with sensitivity and in a manner satisfactory
to descendants.
— Museums should be encouraged to deal
with requests for the return of human remains with extreme sensitivity
and to recognise the human rights issues associated with religious
practices and disposition of the dead.
5. ABILITY OF
MUSEUMS TO
RESPOND TO
REPATRIATION REQUESTS
At present, the response that museums in Britain
make to requests for return is, in the case of local authority
museums and independent museums, dependent upon the attitudes
of individual curators, directors, councillors, and/or trustees.
However, few British museums have received requests and consequently
few staff have experience of dealing with repatriation requests.
Similarly, very few museums have a coherent policy dealing specifically
with repatriation. The MGC Restitution and Repatriation Guidelines
which were published in March 2000 are an important step forward
in providing curatorial staff with guidance on how to handle requests.
These Guidelines will be welcomed by many, although some will
regard such a step as a threat to the future of museums and see
it as the beginning of the dissolution of collections. However,
it cannot be emphasised strongly enough that the vast majority
of repatriation claims relate to human remains or to a minority
of artefacts in museum collections and that these objects are
of special religious and/or cultural significance to the community
seeking their return.
National Museums
At present, the laws which established national
museums largely prohibit them from repatriating objects and this
position is one which has been most often used in responding to
repatriation requests concerning items in national collections.
Despite this, there have been a few past cases of return from
the collections of national museums such as the Victoria and Albert
Museum and the British Museum. The integrity of these valuable
museum collections must be maintained for the many cultural and
educational benefits that they offer to museum visitors and future
generations. Nevertheless, it must also be recognised that in
some circumstances the rights of traditional owners or the cultural
and/or religious significance of the artefacts in question over-ride
the social, scientific, and artistic interests of the museums
and their audiences.
Possible future action:
— All museums including nationals should
be required to follow the MGC guidelines if and when they receive
a request for repatriation.
— National museums should be enabled, through
legislative processes if necessary, to facilitate the return of
items in appropriate cases and in circumstances in which repatriation
would provide significant cultural and/or religious benefit to
the community from which the objects originate.
6. VARIETY OF
RESOLUTIONS AND
THEIR OUTCOMES
In considering the future of contested objects,
it is necessary to do more than examine their importance in the
context of the western museum. If we have a genuine interest in
their function and their anthropological history we should have
regard for the continuing importance that some of these objects
hold within the contemporary cultures and the need that these
artefacts can fulfil if they are returned.
Repatriation
There have been instances when objects have
been repatriated and then later have re-appeared on the art market,
but such examples are rare. In most instances, the items which
are the subject of repatriation requests hold particularly high
cultural and religious value for the communities from which they
originate. If returned, such items may be returned to the care
of traditional custodians, such as tribal elders or religious
leaders, who will care for them and use them for the religious
and ceremonial purposes for which they were intended.
Over the past decades, however, a substantial
number of indigenous communities in North America and Australia
have established museums and cultural centres enabling them to
interpret their own cultures to visitors and ensure that their
own young people can learn about the values, achievements and
beliefs of their ancestors.[49]
In Australia, Aboriginal communities have also begun to establish
Keeping Places to provide secure storage for secret/sacred material
and ensure that access is restricted only to those with proper
authority.
The proposal to establish a museum can be an
essential element of the fight for the return of cultural property,
sometimes being a pre-requisite of a repatriation agreement. Government
agencies and mainstream museums which have negotiated loans or
repatriation agreements for religious artefacts have sometimes
laid down the condition that tribal groups must be able to provide
suitable storage and display facilities which ensure that the
objects are secure and correctly conserved. In some cases this
has been a further motivating factor for the establishment of
a museum by those tribes wishing to once again hold and use the
treasures of their ancestors. Such was the case with the establishment
of two tribal museums in British Columbia, Canada (see case study
below).
Some communities may express the desire to have
material returned but may be unable to provide the necessary secure
storage and are happy to have the items remain in the museum under
appropriate storage conditions. In these circumstances, museums
cannot simply abrogate their responsibility for the material.
Continuing to care for the artefacts in accordance with community
wishes, even if the objects can no longer be displayed, is a responsibility
that the museum has a duty to fulfil. In some instances, items
have been returned from overseas museums to a state or other publicly-funded
museum in the country of origin which maintains close dialogue
with the community and organises access, storage and use of the
items in accordance with the requirements and religious beliefs
of traditional custodians. This has been the case with human remains
returned from overseas museums to Australia and New Zealand.
CASE STUDY:
CRANMER POTLATCH
COLLECTION AND
THE ESTABLISHMENT
OF TRIBAL
MUSEUMS
Amongst the tribes of the Northwest Coast of
North America, the potlatch was an elaborate status ceremony involving
the gifting of large quantities of goods and was an important
socio-economic practice. It was banned by the Canadian Government
in 1884. In December 1921, Dan Cranmer of the Nimkish band of
the Kwakwaka'wakw (Kwakiutl) gave a huge potlatch on Village Island
near Alert Bay. The Indian Agent, William Halliday, received information
about the potlatch and some of the participants were arrested.
Over the next few months, over 50 men and women were charged but
were offered the opportunity to avoid imprisonment if they signed
an agreement never again to participate in a potlatch. They also
had to agree to assist the authorities in ensuring that the Potlatch
Law was not violated and to surrender to the Department of Indian
Affairs all their potlatch paraphernalia including coppers, dancing
masks and costumes, head dresses and other articles used solely
for potlatch purposes. Many of those involved assented and signed
the agreement in order to avoid imprisonment and further prosecutions.
Several hundred ceremonial items were surrendered to Halliday,
and the Department of Indian Affairs paid token compensation of
$1,495, well below the true value. Halliday sold 33 items to George
Heye for the Museum of the American Indian/Heye Foundation in
New York City. The remainder of the collection was shipped to
Ottawa and distributed between the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM)
in Toronto and the Victoria Memorial Museum in Ottawa (later the
National Museum of Man and now the Canadian Museum of Civilisation).
Efforts to obtain the return of the potlatch
collection began almost immediately after their confiscation.
In 1951, the Canadian Government revised the Indian Act and revoked
the potlatch ban; since then, potlatches have once again been
held without fear of persecution and prosecution. In 1974, the
Kwakwaka'wakw finally succeeded in securing agreement from the
board of trustees of the National Museums of Canada for the return
of the collection held in the National Museum of Man. The Museum
insisted upon the collection being held in trust by tribal societies
on behalf of the families who had surrendered the items in 1922.
They also specified that the items could not be sold and were
to be accommodated in conditions which met museum standards.
U'mista Cultural Centre in Alert Bay on Cormorant
Island, and the Kwagiulth Museum in Cape Mudge, on Quadra Island,
were both established to meet these conditions and the collection
was shared between the two museums. The return of the collection
from the National Museum of Man progressed smoothly and the Kwagiulth
Museum at Cape Mudge opened in 1979, and U'mista Cultural Centre
in 1980. However, negotiations with the Royal Ontario Museum were
more difficult and it was not until 1987 that the Kwakwaka'wakw
people succeeded in obtaining the repatriation of the ROM potlatch
collection.
The Kwagiulth Museum at Cape Mudge has a very
localised profile. The story of the loss and return of the regalia
is not prominent. The displays clearly assert the family ownership
rights and explain that "all the masks and regalia, the histories
of their acquisition and the songs and dances associated with
them are owned as property by individual families. Only a limited
number of families amongst the Kwakwaka'wakw are acknowledged
as having the hereditary right to this wealth conveyed to them
by illustrious ancestors. Family right to the possession of these
treasures is asserted at the potlatch gathering."
U'mista has developed into a strongly community-based
museum which seeks to preserve and exhibit artefacts of value
to the Kwakwala-speaking people. It also seeks to recover artefacts
and records held in the collections of other institutions or by
individuals, and staff undertake activities designed to disseminate
information to a wider population in Canada and overseas. Central
to the creation and function of the museum, is the history of
the prohibition of the potlatch, the confiscation and return,
many years later, of the Cranmer potlatch collection, and the
continuing potlatch tradition in modern form. In the display of
the potlatch collection references to the arrests and the confiscation
of the regalia feature prominently, telling a story of tribal
loss and of repatriation. The views and feelings of the individuals
involved are illuminated through letters, reports, petitions,
newspaper articles and other documentation, which vividly carry
their message to us across the intervening years. U'mista also
promotes cultural and artistic activities such as carving, dancing
and ceremonials, and collects, records and teaches the history
and language of the Kwakwaka'wakw. Visitors to U'mista may well
find themselves sharing the Big House with children from the tribal
school practising traditional Kwakwaka'wakw dances and songs;
for, as well as housing the potlatch collection, the museum functions
as a venue for practice sessions by children from the tribal school,
and for performances by them and other artists. It also provides
a venue for potlatches and other ceremonies, for potlatches are
once again being held as they were in the past. The return of
the Cranmer potlatch collection was the catalyst for these important
cultural developments.
(For further details see: Simpson, 1996: 153-157).
Sympathetic handling of repatriation requests
does not necessarily result in the repatriation of the item(s).
In some museums, changes to storage and display methods and limitations
upon display of and access to sacred materials have satisfied
those making the request that the items will be cared for in a
manner appropriate to their religious and cultural beliefs.
Museums have also negotiated alternative arrangements
such as the lending of items back to communities so that ownership
is retained by the museum but custodianship is with the traditional
custodians who are able to use religious artefacts in ceremonies
according to their intended function. Other resolutions have involved
the exchange of old, culturally-significant objects in exchange
for new examples with museum staff observing and documenting the
manufacture and use.
7. THE BENEFITS
OF REPATRIATION
NEGOTIATIONS[50]
The process of discussion and negotiation that
results from responding to a repatriation request can provide
new opportunities for dialogue, co-operative projects and new
insights for all concerned. There are many categories of objects
in museum collections which have been the subject of repatriation
requests; their significance, and the reasons why their return
is sought, are varied.
Community Benefits
It is indisputable that certain objects in museum
collections are required for the practice and perpetuation of
religious traditions and their return would be an event of great
importance to the community. Amongst North American Indian communities,
for example, much traditional knowledge has already been lost,
and that which has endured remains under threat: as elders and
religious leaders grow older and less numerous, the knowledge
that they hold is in danger of dying with them. Yet that knowledge
is vital to ensuring that the cultural revitalisation, which is
occurring in many native communities, should continue to flourish.
Native American commentators such as Gonyea (1993) and Hill (1993)
have noted a substantial loss of knowledgeable elders and religious
leaders over recent years. They have also spoken of the tremendous
value gained from the return of precious, religious artefacts
and the contribution that this has made to "the restoration
of ancient cycles of spirituality" (Hill, 1993: 10).
Ray Gonyea (Onondaga ) and Rill Hill (Tuscarora)
are members of tribes of the League of Iroquois, which have recently
received wampum and other materials repatriated by Canadian and
American museums. Both Gonyea and Hill maintain that the repatriation
of sacred artefacts has contributed to an increase in spiritual
teaching within their communities. According to Hill, assistant
director for public programmes at the National Museum of the American
Indian, "the first impact of repatriation has been the true
preservation of knowledge about sacred ways in those communities
where objects have been restored" (1993: 10). Hill was shocked,
recently, to realise that only two of his people's elders remained.
As Hill has recounted, the return of the sacred materials has
been timely: "Those two elders were able to take the sacred
objects that we restored to our people and teach them what they
could. They have worked tirelessly to teach, to record what they
know, and to bring this generation back in touch with the power
that used to be our birthright" (Ibid, 9-10). Gonyea has
noted that there has been renewed interest in traditional ceremonies
associated with the installation of new chiefs, an increase in
the number of tribal members attending language and culture classes,
and positive changes in the attitudes of women and their status
within the Onondaga community.
Gonyea and Hill attribute these changes to the
constructive impact that the repatriation of sacred material has
had upon community pride and self-esteem. According to Hill, repatriation
has created "a new sense of community . . . the objects themselves
confirm the stories that have been heard by native people over
the years" (1993: 10). His comments are reinforced by the
fundamental principles upon which museums are based: the importance
of the object as a tool for research and learning. Education in
museums is based upon the premise that the object facilitates
learning in a way that secondary source materials cannot. Hill
(Ibid: 10) explains that: "since the majority of the cultural
patrimony of the Indian nations exists in museums located far
from their communities, many young Indians find it hard to understand
the beliefs affiliated with the objects . . . without the object,
such ritual knowledge had become mere stories told around the
community."
Museum Benefits
Museum staff have also found that the process
of entering into repatriation negotiations has rewards, disproving
those who fear that museums can only lose from repatriation. The
consequences of the repatriation process extend far beyond the
future of the skeletal remains and sacred objects themselves.
The value of such a spirit of collaboration is demonstrated by
the experiences of anthropologists and curators who are working
closely with communities, accepting the validity of alternative
world views and co-operating over sensitive issues such as repatriation.
The outcomes demonstrate that, whether or not repatriation takes
place, flexibility and sympathetic treatment of handling of the
requests can pay dividends in other areas of museum work.
Some curators have found that involvement in
the repatriation process has resulted in new discoveries about
the collections, greater understanding of cultures, and improved
relationships leading to collaborative projects. Inviting tribal
delegations to examine and comment upon reserve collections or
having skeletal remains examined and documented in detail by a
physical anthropologist can provide staff with previously unknown
information about the collections in their care. Paul Tacon, of
the Australian Museum in Sydney, has found that the process of
repatriation has led to greater confidence in the museum amongst
the Aboriginal communities concerned. This has sometimes resulted
in further material being given to the museum and often to improved
working relationships, collaborative research and other projects.
"Instead of closing doors, or losing things, you actually
gain and you open doors." (Tacon, 1993).
Chris Anderson, formerly Curator of Anthropology
in the South Australian Museum, was involved with pro-active custodianship
negotiations between the South Australian Museum and Aboriginal
communities from 1985. He found that these discussions led to
"true social interaction" resulting in joint projects,
such as exhibitions; greater understanding and knowledge of material
in the collections with detailed cultural histories provided by
senior Aboriginal men; and the acquisition of additional material,
similar to that returned, given by communities who have developed
more trust and respect for the museum. He argues that "repatriation,
under certain circumstances, can represent an import use of collections"
(Anderson, 1990b:31).
If museums are to demonstrate that they have
shaken off the colonial mantle, they must address fully the issue
of repatriation. There is no doubt that the situation is more
complex for British museums than it is for many of those in countries
such as Australia, Canada and the USA. Whereas museums in those
countries have been dealing primarily with repatriation requests
from the indigenous peoples in their own countries, British museums
have collections representing many countries reflecting the size
and scope of the British Empire's former colonial interests. Nevertheless,
communication technology, data management, and image storage and
retrieval technology create opportunities for museums to make
collections and data available to researchers or communities through
electronic and digital means, and provide tremendous potential
for museums to communicate and work with communities in any part
of the world.
A blanket "no returns" policy reflects
a failure to recognise or acknowledge the validity of the concepts
of spiritual ownership, cultural patrimony, and the cultural importance
of certain objects to cultures that did not die out in the nineteenth
century, as was expected at that time. One of the reasons for
acquiring some of the material was to document dying cultures,
to preserve for posterity the last remains of the material evidence
of dying races. But the cultures did not die: they live and thrive
today and their people seek the return of objects which are sources
of community pride, symbols of cultural identity and survival,
potent and necessary ceremonial items, and resources for teaching
the young and ensuring cultural continuity. Their concerns and
interests must be addressed and the processes associated with
the consideration of repatriation requests recognised offering
constructive and culturally significant outcomes for all those
involved.
8. CULTURAL PROPERTY
INFORMATION RESOURCES
Research conducted on behalf of the Museums
Association and published in "Museums and Repatriation"
(Simpson, 1997) showed that there is great need for further information
to enable those dealing with repatriation requests to become familiar
with the complexities of the issues. This need could be satisfied
through the establishment of an archive of material including
case studies relating the experiences of other museums and communities;
identification of sources of expert advice within museums, academic
institutions and indigenous communities; and the establishment
of an advisory body to handle, advise on, or assist with repatriation
negotiations (Recommendations 2, 3 and 4 of "Museums and
Repatriation"; see Appendix 2[51])
Possible future action
— It is recommended that the Government
allocate funding for: the establishment of an archive of material
including case studies relating the experiences of other museums
and communities; identification of sources of expert advice within
museums, academic institutions and indigenous communities; and
the establishment of an advisory body to handle, advise on, or
assist with repatriation negotiations.
REFERENCES
AFN/CMA, 1991. "Turning The Page: Forging
New Relationships between Museums and First Peoples". Task
Force Report on Museums and First Peoples. Published by the Assembly
of First Nations and the Canadian Museums Association.
ATSIC. 1993. "Policy development and Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander cultural property"; Canberra:
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission, Issues Paper
No 3, October 1993.
Anderson, C 1990. "Repatriation, custodianship
and the policies of the South Australian Museum", COMA
Bulletin of the Conference of Museum Anthropologists 23: 112-15.
Anderson, C 1990b "The Economics of Sacred
Art: The economics of a secret/sacred collection in the South
Australian Museum", COMA Bulletin of the Conference of
Museum Anthropologists 23: 31-41.
Anderson, 1991b. "The Custodianship of
Sacred Objects Project: an overview". Records of the South
Australian Museum 25(1): 111-12.
CAMA, 1993. "Previous Possessions, New
Obligations: Policies for Museums in Australia and Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Peoples" The Council of Australian
Museum Associations (CAMA), now known as Museums Australia.
Clarke, P A and Anderson, C 1997. "A Brief
History of Aboriginal Men's Secret Sacred Objects in Australian
Museums" in Unlocking Museums, the proceedings of
the 4th National Conference of Museums Australia Inc: 172-176.
Cocks, R 1993. Letter from Dr Robin Cocks, Keeper
of Palaeontology to Maurice Davies, Editor of the Museums Journal,
23 November.
Conaty, G T 1996. Personal correspondence to
the author from Dr G T Conaty, Senior Ethnologist, Glenbow Museum,
Alberta, Canada.
Davidson, G W 1990. "The Human Remains
Controversies", The Dodge Magazine, 82(4): 407, 24-5.
Doherty, K 1992. "The Peterborough Precedent",
a presentation at Queen's University Conservation Training Programme,
9 May.
Fagan, B 1991. Editorial, Antiquity,
65 (247): 188-90.
Fourmile, H 1990a. "Possession is nine-tenths
of the law—and don't Aboriginal people know it!" COMA
Bulletin of the Conference of Museum Anthropologists 23: 31-41.
Gonyea, R W (1993) "Give me that old time
religion". History News 48(2): 4-7.
Ladd, E (1991) "Repatriation—Zuni
Sensitive Material: A Case Study", a paper presented, and
answers to questions, at the session Communities in Collaboration,
Part 2, at the AAM Annual Meeting in Denver, Colorado on May 1991.
Merrill, W L, Ladd, E J and Ferguson, T J 1993.
"The Return of the Ahayu:da: Lessons for repatriation from
Zuni Pueblo and the Smithsonian Institution", Current
Anthropology 34(5): 523-567.
Simpson, M G 1996. Making Representations: Museums
in the Post-Colonial Era, London: Routledge.
NMAI, 1992: Collections Policy, Washington DC:
National Museum of the American Indian, Smithsonian Institution.
Sullivan R 1992. "Return of the sacred
wampun belts of the Iroquois", The History Teacher
26(1): 7-14.
Tacon, P 1993. Research Scientist, Anthropology,
Australian Museum, Sydney: interview with the author, 9 July.
April 2000
49 For a discussion of the development of
indigenous museums see Simpson M "Making Representations:
Museums in the Post-Colonial Era", London: Routledge, October
1996, chapters 4 and 5; Doxtator, 1985; and Eoe and Swadling,
1991. Back
50 Excerpts
from Simpson, M 1996. "Making Representations: Museums in
the Post-colonial Era", London: Routledge, pp 244-46. Back
51 Not
printed. Back
|
