Museums and Restitution – North America

One of the key pieces of legislation which impacts upon museum activities in North America is NAGPRA, which brought the rights of Native Americans into the discussion of repatriation. Helen Robbins sees NAGPRA as landmark legislation which reconfigures widely held thoough about the objectness of object. Museums have begun to consider why they hold the collections, and whether they should be preserving certain objects.

However, law is flawed and not widely held. NAGPRA compromised legislation, nobody was happy with all of it – the repatriation achievements don’t fully meet the needs of all. Only applies to a handful of object varieties, including human remains and spiritual goods. It is also up to the museums to decide if tribes’ requests have fulfilled all parts of law. Once more the museum is holding the key to this repatriation power relationship.

Further to this, NAGPRA is a law seated in Western Culture. The framework of western law cannot begin to consider the belief system which see some objects viewed as living, or even deified. Some objects which should be repatriated may fall outside the realm of NAGPRA, whilst many of the objects which are eligable are of lesser significance.

In practice the law can see moves forward in a positive manner, with repatriation as the starting point for a dialogue based museum. The museum needs to be recast, and move away from the colonial conception of the past. A key consideration may be how can the museum conduct an exhibition about repatriation?

Laura Peers follows this interest in the relationships between museums and source communities, believing that restitution has come to be used in Europe as a term of what one nation does to/for/with the other, whereas repatriation is a process of bringing home or giving back. Most British museums experience short visits from source communities, which often aren’t long enough to create a long lasting relationship which can grow into a positive, repatriation discussion.

Direct learning from handling sessions can create a positive heritage experience for source communities, and the revival of cultural techniques and crafts from the past. The return and handling of Haida objects to North America led to the making of several canoes, the re-birth of a dormant cultural practice.

Whilst museums can conserve the physicality of objects, the removal of them from communities has led to the degradation of customs and knowledge. Further to this, headdresses and Black Foot shirts can be seen to inspire strong relational reactions, with the objects seen as living objects, and at times treated as an ancestor. With the return of the shirts, so came a return of traditions, as the giving of shirts re-entered communities.

Repatriation means more than bringing home objects, it can repatriate language, education, community services and future generations. Museums see knowledge repatriation in a totally different manner, recognising the passing of direct knowledge, yet it would appear that the relationships around the objects and the actions which they inspire are of more note.

Q – What impact can the loan of objects have? If the return of Black Foot shirts has inspired the rebirth of a culture, should the objects not be returned permanently?

Q – Has legislation opened up this field of museum practice, or would moves towards repatriation have arisen organically? NAGPRA may be seen to have forced museums to realise what they actually hold, as a process of documenting collections meant that Native American advice was essential to inventory.

Q – Are US museums actively engaging in repatriation, or just talking about it?  - Smithsonian is working on 3D repatriation, which has in some places led to tribes requesting a model of the object to be returned whilst the original is protected by the museum.

Q – Do similar western scientific constructs of curatorship dominate distinctions of objects in North America, or are museum professionals most sensitive/understanding of the belief that certain objects are in fact quite animate?

Q – What techniques of mediation are required to negotiate potentially unknown outcomes within the museum?

Museums and Restitution – Digital, Visual and Knowledge Repatriation II

 Picking up from Thursday’s session on digital repatriation, today’s discussion gave delegates a chance to consider what role digitization can play in opening up objects to source communities.

Hein Vanhee sees restitution as a process of giving back items to communities, with intangible items also forming part of this process – with access to these objects, be they photos or audio items being of key importance. Digital restitution could be seen as a solution to the physical restitution debate, by removing the need for transport and political issues. Can the creation and sharing of ‘digital objects’ solve debates, or does it remove traces of the past from the object? Can a digital copy of an object truly reproduce the object, including associated knowledge and production processes?

Heritage means communal inheritance, but what does that mean to the cultural groups; whose heritage is being preserved by an object? Pictorial material held by the Royal Museum for Central Africa in Belgium can be seen as a site of shared heritage – photographs of African life are at once objects of this source community, yet are also a part of Belgian cultures as they also represent the producer – the Belgian colonial photographer.

Looking at the RMCA archive, there is evidence of ethnographic photo shoots, with specific stereotypes sought out so as to capture these ‘scenes.’ These staged images are recreations of tradition, yet are classified as documentary evidence of the act they represent – and indeed have been used as such by scholars.

Critical evaluation of the digital data which is made available by museums does not really exist at the moment, with photographs presented as self-sufficient, stand alone objects. Little or no consideration is given to the visual stories which are created by archives, with meta data often excluded. Further to this, the act of searching using an engine online removes the ability of the casual visitor (rather than researcher) to engage with the collection.

Digital technology in fact is not a democratising process, it is another way in which the authority of the curator is transmitted, and once again highlights notions of ownership – you must go to the digital collection, and then produce your own thoughts regarding it. The new website and archive of the RMCA seeks to break down this boundary, and also represent the shared heritage of the collection – whilst also inviting the visitor to add their own comments and become part of this collaborative cultural object.

Following on from this discussion of how the digital object represents community heritage, Astrid Knight presented The Reciprocal Research Network based on relationship building, restitution and access to material heritage between museums and source communities. This project is based on both the sharing of knowledge and values – by considering the renegotiation of authority.

The RRN acts as a research resource, discussion space and cultural search engine, allowing users to develop collections of objects into ‘Projects,’ as well as the ability to upload other documents. Different participants have independent roles within the development of the network, leading to a shared community and heritage.

Access is seen as a question of value, and at the heart of opening up museum objects to divergent communities. Certain museums and/or groups had to reconsider their views towards what access represents, and whether access for all should be a universal right.

This singular research resource provides an agile approach, as different museums brough their collections together into a unified and continually developing website – rather than merely providing links out to a number of different databases and differing museum web spaces.

If access if to be seen as central to restitution, this egalitarian project can be viewed as a step towards digital repatriation providing a successful means of crossing differing perceptions of value and values.

Bringing this discussion together, Friedrike Krishnabhakdi-Vasilakis brought a further viewpoint, which results in the Virtual Museum of the Pacific. Online presences of museums collections are recognised as a means of bringing source communities into a dialogue with the collection, and offering both visual and knowledge repatriation. The VMP is a model of a social media platform which engages with the collections of the Australian Museum, through tagging, perceptions and interaction.

Cultural heritage research and rediscovery of potentially forgotten objects from the Pacific Collection is enable through the ‘tagging’ of the objects, providing an interactive means of exploring the collection – and adds a more active means of engaging with the collection. 1200 tags are used throughout the VMP, with a tag cloud producing a unique means of exploring this digital museum which could not be experienced in the physical space.

The VMP engages with many aspects of Web2.0, including object tagging, user interaction, geotagging of objects into GoogleMaps and Vimeo/YouTube. This platform for interaction allows an opportunity for the 95% of Australian’s museum and galleries’ undisplayed collection to come into the view of visitors and researchers, and creates a new means in which to engage with them.

Whilst this access and interaction must be seen as a positive step, common repatriation issues such as source community interaction and perceptions must be included. If a source community does not believe that a certain object should be available for open access, should it be included in this virtual museum?

A number of interesting points were raised in the proceeding discussion about what digital restitution actually is, and whether it is achievable in all institutions.

Q – All of these projects seem quite capital intensive, is there a worry that they may  be unsustainable? A more economically viable

Q – Are these actually restitution projects? Is this in fact a project of access, which is what the museum is meant to be do anyway?

Q – Is there a manageable solution to digitisation? How many photos need to be taken of an object for social history, and is this same approach to be applied to anatomical and natural history collections? The number of images required to identify a species of beetle will not map in the same way as a digitised photograph of images of a comb or bowl.

Q – Is there a worry that these online collections remove all sense of narrative? An exhibition provide a means of engagement thorough narrative, whereas a search engine only provides a means to find objects.

Museums and Restitution – Authority and the power of place

Piotr Bienkowski – Expolring the legitimacy of authorised and alternative voices in the restitution discourse

 Cultural property is most important to those who created it or for whom it was created – not those of the group who hold it. Yet at this time the search for knowledge is in the ascendancy, with an assumption that cultural heritage belongs to the nation state. Current restitution debates are an adversarial process; rights and claims are framed by the current owner, voiced in their terms, placing the claimant in a position of apparent weakness.

Heritage objects have differing values to differing groups, can be characterised on a scale of tensions between the utilitarian value (including measurable value, preservation and universal knowledge) and social value (based more around notions of individual identity, notions of decay and more difficult concepts of value such as function and spirituality).

Museums remain at heart scientific and utilitarian institutions, preserving and identifying  knowledge. Notions of proximity and inclusivity of communities to objects have been fore fronted, though a middle ground of rooted cosmopolitanism could be suggested as an idealistic view which recognises the source community, yet provides access and knowledge for all. Whilst this seems to be a strong and agreeable notion, it remains difficult to approach in anything beyond rhetorical terms.

Some institutions ignore the conversation of right, including accusations of invented traditions. The fact that a group recreates their traditions can be seen to invalidate restitution claims, though this short sighted view skews the power relationship massively. For example British Pagan groups have been seen as un-legitimate in recent restitution claims, yet their requests share many qualities with other contested claims. Does this distinction exist on grounds of spirituality, most importantly in reference to those religious groups which are seen as ‘other,’ within the restitution debate? If so, how can cultural legitimacy be earnt?

Assumptions that the nation state owns cultural property places the state as the apex of cultural identity, thus removing rights from any groups within the state. Why should we presume that the state is legitimate? If cultural groups have been actively excluded by the state, how can it then assume legitimacy of their objects and cultural heritage when it seeks to ignore their presence in the debate? Yet the Australian Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act (1976) can be seen to establish both tangible and intangible rights of place, and as such the peoples associated with that place – so can objects really be removed from their ‘place’?

Key role of museums is to foster understanding between cultures and communities? Need to seek to create understanding, not conflict. Museums must relinquish rights of ownership, becoming a loci of deliberative democracy – the recognition of the rights to equal participation between conversation partners. This deliberative view contrast with the afore mentioned adversarial processes, shifting from assumed authority and legitimacy debates towards inclusion, multiple voices and neutrality. The museum can challenge the ownership of the conversation, and change the rules by seeking to balance the debate and remove power plays within the restitution conversation.

This deliberative democracy offers a chance to recognise and apply cultural equity, creating a framework and model of facilitated dialogue and fostering understanding between individuals and cultures.

Museums and Restitution – Local and National Power Relations

Much of the discussion about restitution and repatriation relates to international claims and issues, yet there are growing calls for indigenous and identity-based return of objects and remains within nations. This is likely to become a more prominent topic, and this panel offered a chance to engage with the subject through contemporary experiences.

Bryan Sitch dealt with an issue of repatriation which means a lot to Manchester, the as yet unsuccessful campaign to return Lindow Man from the British Museum to the North West. Lindow Man was discovered in 1984 at Lindow Moss, just outside Manchester, and was excavated with the help of Manchester Museum. The Coroner ruled that the body should move to the British Museum, where forensic information such as his last meal and the apparent ‘triple death’ was discovered.

Claims for control over the body ranged from the local police to Manchester Museum, and eventually the British Museum. A campaign for the return of Lindow Man to the North West was sparked in the late 1980s, including the Lindow School Choir. This campaign eventually came to naught, though Lindow Man has returned to Manchester Museum three times. Within the 12,500 visitor comment cards collected in the most recent exhibition in Manchester the debate around repatriation was still visible, though to a far lesser extent.

However, the local resonance articulated through the campaign displayed the views of the community, which was communicated in the power politics of the North/South divide. Yet it may be the case that local voices on their own are insufficient to bring about restitution on their own, and that they are ultimately placed within a framework containing politics, para-archaeological ephemeral material (which reflect part of an object’s cultural biography), and the social impact of the debates surrounding the objects.

Moving outside the UK, Demelza Van der Maas offered a view on the restitution of human remains in Dutch museum collections. Similarities between restitution claims are often centred around notions of identity, and representations of the past. ‘The Return to Things’ where the object offers a means of re-establishing contact with reality; under this schema the collection of human remains offers a

The Island of Urk was seen by Dutch anthropologists as a pure people, with Van Hengel and Harting tricking Irk’s gravedigger to steal three skulls, which eventually found their way into the collection of the Museum of Utrech. In July 2008 a claim was made for the return of six Urk skulls, based on the Dutch Museums Code of Ethics. Amongst the arguments for repatriation were genealogy, cultural and religious grounds, wrongful appropriation and as retribution against the research community.

The skulls gained a performative quality, as the other of the human being, rather than as the object themselves. The Urk Skulls gained a psedo-religious quality, and the campaign was couched in this rhetoric. Counter to this, the University Museum claimed legal ownership of the skulls, and represented a significant part of an ensemble collection and the history of science.

Here an argument of local identity was faced off against the history of science. A decision was made to return the skulls to Urk, on the grounds that they were to be re-buried, thus being transferred from status as objects of cultural heritage to markers of local identity, and finally became skulls – without no performative quality other than as bones.

To discuss local restitution, the voices of indigenous communities must be heard, which is true of this conference too. Eava-Kristiina Harlin and Anne May Olli presented a chance to consider the voice of the Sami culture. Vast proportions of Sami cultural objects lie outside of the Sami areas, including the ‘collection’ of oesteological material up to the 1950s.

Following WWII the Sami began a process of collecting and presenting their material collection. The establishment of Sami museums led to a project of ‘Recalling Ancestral Voices’ which sought to gain an overview of where and what collections of Sami objects were held, and whether this cultural heritage could/should be relocated.

Museum collections were seen as important in the formation and continuation of identity, with material culture expressing ethnicity through objects such as clothing. The Norwegian Folk Museum and Swedish Museums have expressed a willingness to open a process of repatriation.

One issue around the repatriation is that the Sami Museum do not currently have the resources with which to carry out conservation of their collections, and are thus reliant on the institutions currently holding the objects. In this instance, the Sami people are seeking to protect their culture both at home, and in other representations of their material culture.

Some interesting points were raised in discussion after these three fascinating papers. Feel free to add your own and continue the discussion of what restitution means in localised terms by commenting on this page.

Q – Issues of authority and ownership exist through all these papers. It is interesting to note that reburial ‘on the surface’  was seen in the Urk case, is this anything more than storage within the source community? In this light, does the authority still lay with the institution, even if the ownership has been transferred?

Q – If DNA samples and 3D model are taken from an object, has the original object lost its value? The Museum would appear to have retained the authority on the object, as this data was what they wanted anyway. Does the object become little more than a blank cassette?

Q – Does the reliance of Sami Museums on other institutions place them in a difficult position in terms of repatriation? A power imbalance appears to exist, even if there is willingness on both sides to return objects to the source community.

Q – Can kinship truly be considered as part of repatriation if the community is no longer connected to either the object, or the local? A feeling of connection can be just as important. Was Lindow Man even from the North West?

Q – Should Human Remains be treated in a different manner to other repatriation issues? Some evidence that certain material objects are treated ‘as human.’ A number of British researchers see human remains as objects of research, though now a shift is occuring to see them as ‘once human.’

Museums and Restitution – Digital, Visual and Knowledge Repatriation I

This session saw two interesting papers discussing Digital Repatriation, a subject which at times is far more difficult to consider than the physical return of objects due to its conceptual nature.

Sophia Sambono is responsible for repatriation and restitution of audio and visual objects to source communities in her work with the National Film and Sound Archive, Australia. The National Film Archive sees repatriation as the return of digital copies of ‘objects’ to communities, in a back to country style. This raises an interesting debate about whether this return of copies is the same as the actual object – it is certainly not the same as physical return of human remains.

Screenings of the films to be returned are used as a chance to gauge local reaction, and whether any of the material contained within them should not be shown. Where appropriate these screenings were also filmed; knowledge was not being transmitted solely from the screen, filming of ‘physical memory’ was carried out so that the current community could produce a mimetic response to the archive.

In 2008 the Indigenous Collection Branch brought in source communities on repatriation a project from Arnhaem Land, Yirrkala. This area has its own digital archive (The Mulkala Project) ready for collections, which is where these objects were returned to. Sophia screened an interesting film of the objects, including a film from 1949, being returned to and experienced by the source community – who engaged with the subject and material.

The aims of this digital repatriation project includes the empowerment of indigenous custodians, facilitate cultural maintenance in communities, encourage a sense of history into these groups. The return of the sound and video archives can introduce a respect for the community, and their intellectual property rights.

Benefits for the institution have included the establishment of relationships, the acquisition of new material, clarification of cultural restrictions and a new layer of documentation. This virtual repatriation may seem simple in comparison with other objects, but issues of copyright, cultural restrictions and undocumented collection introduce barriers to returning this media to the source communities.

Catherine Moore of the University of Kent is currently exploring contemporary Namibian responses to the ways that a digital archive , representing localised forms of memory. This work has led to a belief that restitution doesn’t move in one direction, the viewing of an archive should also lead to questions of how and why the films were made.

The films at the heart of this paper were made in 193os in Namibia, with the main aim of meeting people on both side of the Angolan-Namibian (West Africa) border. They are examples of a technological aesthetic of the period, they were both technical and ethnography – looking at the production and use of objects. Many of the objects in the films are held in the museum, which holds both the material culture and visual representation.

A further level of interpretation can be seen when looking at the reaction of the viewing community can share a perspective on the events of the archive. A community watching the film may well react in a very similar manner to those whom they are viewing, though this must be approached with some caution.

One final point for consideration, when observing digital restitution in action is it really the reaction of the source community which is most important? By filming the return of the objects is the museum or ethnologist projecting more about themselves and perceived knowledge upon the process than they are purely recording the events? If so, is this something which the museum should value? What if you know that the community are ‘creating’ a reality for the filmmaker?

Both papers led to some interesting questions, and debates about the nature and importance of digital repatriation. I’d like to open these up to the blog, and would invite you to add your thoughts:

Q – Does the retention of the physical copy create a scope of dominance/ownership? If a museum still holds the original hard copy of a film, has it really returned the object to the community? As long as the source community know what is being talked about does it matter?

Q – Are we talking about the repatriation of digital objects, or opening it up to a contextual discussion of the original source? Should this repatriation lead to a discussion and understanding of the original context of the material on both sides – otherwise there is a fear that the films are just another experience rather than a knowledge production process?

Q – What is the real benefit of digital repatriation? Is it anything more than a mere archival sharing?

Museums and Restitution – Overviews: Power, Politics, Authority

Themes of Power, Politics and Authority dominate any discussion of repatriation, so it is only right that the first panel of the day firmly placed this conference into this context.

Maurice Davies’ paper The UK’s inconsistent policies on return- politics, power and influence considered how the British Government and museums have developed an approach for return of cultural objects, and has proposed a systemic framework based on categories of object types rather than the institutions.

The first of these tranches is Nazi looted art. The National Museum Directors Conference drew up spoiliated art principles in 1998, based on looking for gaps in ownership history. In turn this led to government funding of research by regional museums, and eventually changes in legislation. In cases of Nazi spoiliation there were swift changes, bringing in a consistent approach. This can be seen as a perfect example of policy driven approach to an issue.

Looted antiquities removed from source countries from in the 18^th Century, have come under the UNESCO conventions and the MA Code of Ethics alongside government legislation. However, many museums appear to have ignored these ethics, deciding that objects offered on the art market were NOT elicit/looted artefacts. By 2005 UK museums had ceased to acquire illicit objects, but showed no appetite for considering the situation of currently held objects.

A third category is represented by Human Remains where leadership on restitution was led by smaller, local museum, coming from this part of the sector rather than the national museums. Growing international demand for returns led to government support for restitution in.

Davies final category is Significant artefacts including sacred and high religious or cultural significant artefacts which have been returned. Returns in this category have been based around individual decisions though, rather than representing government decisions; no joined up policy for restitution exist, leading to bewilderment for both claimants and museums.

An interesting closing point considered whether a ‘hierarchy of sympathy for past suffering’ exists in museums. This point provoked much conversation and debate through the session, questioning whether there is a need to understand the pain associated to an object when making spoiliation decision.

The British Museum’s Keeper of Anthropology, Jonathan King spoke about the efforts of the BM to try to understand other cultures and make this sustainable into the future with a goal of making the unfamiliar familiar, and the familiar unfamiliar.

A key example of this is the current Kingdom of Ife: Sculptures of West Africa. As part of a training exercise this exhibition has led to a knowledge flow from the UK to Nigeria, and visa-versa. At present there are eight curators working on the return of material to Nigeria. Ife exhibition discusses a little known group of antiquities, which were still in Nigeria so unknown in Europe. As part of this exhibition process the British Museum has been seeking the ‘train the trainer’ whilst setting up a flow of knowledge both way, objects to Europe, knowledge and practice to Africa.

From my perspective the take away point of this paper was that black and white interpretation of objects, and more importantly disputed history, renders the development of ideas null and void. Short sighted, mono-narrative interpretation must be avoided, with museums seeking to redefine their position around these pivotal objects.

Conal McCarthy raised a number of interesting points regarding how former colonial museums, particularly in New Zealand, take account of the legacy of their objects. Where many regarded the establishment of Te Papa as a landmark in recognising Maori material culture, conversation are now about taking objects ‘home.’ Cultural redress and repatriation forms a key part of agreements; for example the Te Haku ki Turanga house is under negotiation to return to community.

However, a non-repatriation voice must be recognised, with some members of this source community believing that the ‘repatriation of knowledge’ is more important that the physical object itself. Worries about the facilities, and other more abstract issues should also be brought into focus when considering repatriation of objects. Alongside this approach museums with more pragmatic approaches, such as Taiarawhitia Museum who look at voluntary repatriation where it is available, must also be cited.

Central to this process once more is a move away from black and white views of repatriation, with dialogue and the inclusion of indigenous tribes key to this. The Treaty of Waitangi can be seen to act as a framework for cultural redress, seeking a bi-national approach, and bi-cultural conversations. Collections managers should be seen as guardians or stewards of the objects they are working with; professionals should have a long term point of view of where the object will eventually sit, whether in a museum institution or move elsewhere.

Closing this overview discussion of restitution, Eleni Korka located the morning’s conversations into the context of potential international consensus on the issue. The original context of certain objects can be seen to give them their importance and significance, and indeed these objects may only be relevant when viewed as such.

In an idealistic view repatriation would be initiated by the country of origin being approached independently, and as the subject of restitution becomes more common as a part of cultural life there. There appears to be some movement towards dealing with the big issues of illicit trade and protection/aid of countries of origin at UNESCO, EU and G8 level, though when will this filter down to make a strong ethical framework?

Goodwill does not appear to exist across the global museums sector, which could possibly be aided by placing restitution claims and objects returns in a paradigm of cultural package deals package deal? Further to this there must movement from museums to reconsider their records of provenance, which could lead to a greater recognition of cultural rights, and ultimately safeguard cultures of the ‘other’ for the good of all.