Protecting Indigenous Cultural Property in the Biotech Age–Announcement

Protecting Indigenous Cultural Property in the Biotech Age
Online Course through Tribal Communities Program at UCLA
Instructor: Dr. Debra Harry
         This course will address ways in which Indigenous Peoples can protect their cultural property, Indigenous knowledge, or human and non-human genetic material. A particular focus will be on exercise of tribal sovereignty over research. The course provides an overview of the problems posed by biocolonialism.
         International Repatriation Note: This course is particularly relevant because it discusses the human genome project, which, along with other types of scientific studies, has been posed by international entities as a reason to preclude international repatriation or delay repatriations in order to perform these invasive studies before the human remains or human tissues are repatriated. Also, this course discusses consent–both individual and community consent of indigenous peoples within the context of intellectual property issues.
Course link: https://www.uclaextension.edu/r/search.aspx?c=V7880
SCHOLARSHIPS AVAILABLE!

World War II and How It Impacts International Repatriation

    Adding another layer of complexity onto the issue of International Repatriation is World War II, the Nazis and the Soviets. Even though it occurred almost seventy years ago, World War II still impacts Native American communities today.

Many of us grew up hearing stories about the War from family and members of our communities who are now elderly or have since passed on. The Code Talkers of World Wars I and II from the Cherokee, Choctaw, Comanche and Navajo tribes (among others) have become respected around the world for their bravery and ingenuity during these wars. Today, we honor, respect and remember all members of our community who served and have since come home or were laid to rest. 

Unbeknownst to us, World War II initiated a practice of looting that severely impacted our tribal communities. With long and detailed lists, the Nazis swept across Europe and looted international museums and private collections. Among these collections were Native American human remains and cultural objects.

After the War, when Germany was divided into East and West, the Red Army (Soviets) looted 2.3 million objects from East Germany’s Museums. Although some of the collections were returned in 1957 and more were returned in following years, the majority of these objects are still thought to be in Russia’s possession. In 1998, a Russian law was passed naming all museum collections the property of Russia. This law makes it more difficult for individual museums in Russia to make the choice to repatriate and, instead, involves the decision of Russian government officials. 

Yet, some precedent in German law currently exists regarding the return of stolen art by the Nazis to survivors of the Holocaust and their families. However, this does not pertain to Native American collections, which does not seem like a far leap to make.   

What does exist may be helpful to efforts in international repatriation–records. Detailed records were kept by the Germans on many of their museum collections and it could be possible to set up a means of tracking missing human remains and cultural objects. 

German museums have seen the return of some of their collections through private donors, bequests, and sellers that have obtained these objects in the illicit trade market. This means that some percentage of the collections that went to Russia have entered into the black market. Since Native American collections were among those collections looted, this also means that Native American human remains and cultural objects potentially eligible for repatriation are among these. Can it get any more complicated?

So, I am closing this post with more than a few questions to think about:

Could a law in Germany be passed to repatriate Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects, and objects of cultural patrimony?

Will Russia return collections to Germany? Can repatriation occur from Russian museums?

How might we track Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony in the illicit trade market?

What will we do when these come up at auction around the world or are potentially donated or sold to museums?

Should museums adopt accession policies that reflect opposition to acquiring Native American human remains, funerary objects, sacred objects and objects of cultural patrimony?  

Berlin, Germany

I will be in Berlin, Germany, for the next week viewing the Museum of Ethnography’s collection and recording data. Today, I met with Dr. Peter Bolz and we discussed how hobbyists of American Indian culture emerged in Germany.

The exhibit that Dr. Bolz has put together of the perception of Native American peoples by Europeans is incredibly interesting. He traces what he believes is the genesis of the hobbyists through early lithographs and photography in the 1830s-1890s. Works by these artists have been placed side-by-side to show that certain props were used to make the photograph more pleasing to the photographer’s audience. This early photography has been used by present-day hobbyists to replicate regalia.

Karl May was a turn-of-the-century German author who created the character of Winnetou. Although presently believed to be on the decline in Germany, the popularity of Karl May’s books has lasted until just recently. From these books have emerged a cult following, the German hobbyists, who participate in special powwows put on throughout the year in Germany. These hobbyists dress up in the replicated regalia of Plains Indian style dress and camp out in tipis by the hundreds. Several hobbyists meticulously research beadwork and quillwork patterns in museums throughout Europe to ensure that they have the finest and most accurate representation of American Indian culture in the 19th century. They see themselves as self-appointed preservation officers that protect Native American culture and art from this time period and fully reject the notion of modern-day tribal culture. 

Hobbyists also exist in America. Instead of manifesting in the way it has in Germany in ”powwows with no Indians,” it has come about in a different way; through non-profit organizations that use the names of tribes and who have no ancestral connection to Native American peoples. Within American Indian circles, these groups are referred to as “wannabe’s.”

“So what?” someone asked, “they aren’t hurting anyone.” Well, the fact of the matter is that this is very harmful. Aside from the profit seeking motives that are self-evident, the representations  of American Indian people by hobbyists in both Germany and the United States is damaging to public perceptions of Native Americans. Because neither Germany nor the United States teaches Native American history and current events in the public education system, many children and influential leaders believe that 21st century Native American people either do not presently exist or exist as they did one-hundred or more years ago. Sadly, this is a failing of our education system.

Although standardized testing is extremely controversial, the incorporation of Native American history and current events would assist in addressing this failing. The states of Washington and New Mexico have incorporated Federal Indian Law as subjects in their state bar examinations. As a result, more students take Federal Indian law classes each year and have exposure to some of the most pressing issues in Indian country. This, in turn, has built awareness among attorneys in both states and helpful legislation has been passed. Similarly, the inclusion of Native American history and current events in standardized testing would force the education of students in this subject and make our country’s children and future leaders more aware of the present-day issues faced by our tribes and tribal members.    

Curation and Conservation for Tribal Collections

Free with registration
May 28th, 2010
9am-4pm

Getty Villa Museum, Malibu

See EVENTS for more details
Note: Please send information on events in repatriation and tribal collection conservation and I’ll post them on the Events page.

Brief Update- London

        Over the weekend, I visited the British Museum in London. Whereas in 2004, the British Museum was potentially interested in having me visit to study their collections, it seems that I was unsuccessful six years later when I had the chance to visit London. Throughout this past year, I sent two requests and never received a reply. 
          I am writing this because I think it is important to understand what institutions are willing to have tribes study their collections and where we might face more challenges. The museums that I have visited in Scotland have been very willing to talk and discuss cultural revitalization efforts and international repatriation. The British Museum, on the other hand, may take more work. I recorded what was on display and listened for a while to see if I could figure out what the public was learning from the displays. In the one room where Native North America was featured, somewhere between 25 nnd 50 people were there at all times. Many took photographs.
          What have been your experiences? This blog is meant to be interactive so that we have some good discussions. Please feel free to post.

Museums Glasgow: The Resource Center and Administrative Structure

Museums Glasgow in Glasgow, Scotland, has established a Resource Center that allows public access for students and researchers. It is located in Nitshill, a suburb of Glasgow, and is easily accessible by train from City Centre. With the help of technicians and research associates, individuals may view the collections, research collection provenances, and will also soon be able to access a library in the facility.

The Glasgow Museums Resource Center reminds me of the Smithsonian National Museum of the American Indian’s Cultural Resource Center in that the facility has moveable electronic shelves and maintains specific environmental conditions that preserve the collections. Both resource centers represent top-of-the-line facilities for museums, yet one museum is a national museum (the NMAI) and the other a museum owned by the city (Glasgow Museums).

Curious about how a city the size of Glasgow at less than 1 million people maintains all of its city museums, of which there are thirteen (13), I began to investigate the administrative structure of the museum. As it was explained to me, the collection is owned by the people of Glasgow and overseen by both a Board of Trustees/Board of Directors and City Council officials. Some City Council officials also appear to sit on the Board. Since 2007, when the structure changed to its present-day form, Museums Glasgow has been managed by the Department of Culture and Sport in the Glasgow city government structure. The museums are free and there is a large amount of financial support for Museums Glasgow donated annually from city residents.

So, why is this important? Knowing the decision-making structure of international institutions is important because it reveals the people that have the most influence on making a decision about repatriating. Processes and policies for repatriation may or may not be in place in these institutions, but the ultimate decision-makers sit at the top of the administrative food chain. In Glasgow, experts make recommendations to the Board and City Officials who make the ultimate decision. However, the people of Glasgow are the ones to elect their city officials and finance the museums. From what has been conveyed to me, there was overwhelming support from the people of Glasgow in 1998 and 1999 to repatriate the Ghost Dance Shirt to the Wounded Knee Survivors Association. Other communities in Scotland also assisted in the process, with the Isle of Lewis community raising money to help bring Lakota representatives to the Kelvingrove museum. Thus, the communities themselves have played an important part in the repatriation process under this administrative structure.

While the repatriation of the Ghost Dance Shirt from the Kelvingrove Museum was one of the first international repatriations of a sacred object to an indigenous community by a museum, there have been additional repatriation requests that have since been denied or are currently pending decision. Some of these include the repatriation of additional sacred objects from the Wounded Knee Massacre in 1890, a few of which are currently on display in the Kelvingrove Museum.

While curators are able to make recommendations to repatriate in the administrative structure of Museums Glasgow, the ultimate decisions come from City Council officials and the Board. However, I also wonder if repatriation requests would benefit from direct appeals to the Glasgow community, the residents who elect their City Council officials?

All museums have their own separate administrative structures, but some similarities do exist among the different types of museums within each country. This will have to be a study in itself, but will nevertheless provide some additional help in understanding the nuances of future international repatriation negotiations.

Contacts at the Marischal Museum

The Marischal (pronounced “Marshall”) Museum is located at the University of Aberdeen in Aberdeen, Scotland. Last week, I met with Senior Curator Neil Curtis to discuss international repatriation and the roles Scottish Museums see themselves having in this process presently and in the future. While other museums in Scotland are just beginning to think about developing policies and procedures for international repatriation, the Marischal Museum and the University of Aberdeen have pushed beyond repatriating just human remains, which appears to have become the repatriation norm in international policy. They have adopted broader repatriation policies and procedures that also encompass sacred objects and could, arguably, include objects of cultural patrimony. These repatriation procedures seek to work on a community-to-community basis with indigenous peoples.

       In addition to repatriation, the Marischal Museum has already begun to assist in cultural revitalization efforts. Last year, the Cherokee Heritage Center and the Marischal Museum put together a Cherokee beadwork exhibit which brought early beadwork designs to Cherokee Nation in Oklahoma. This summer, members of Cherokee Nation will be going to Aberdeen to meet with curators, scholars and University officials as part of a cultural heritage tour.

       Neil Curtis welcomes inquiries into the collections, as well as further discussions about both repatriation and cultural revitalization efforts. His contact information, the collections database and the repatriation policy are provided below:

Neil Curtis
Senior Curator
Marischal Museum
University of Aberdeen
Marischal College
Aberdeen AB10 1YS
Scotland
T: (+44) 01224 274304
F: (+44) 01224 274302
E: neil.curtis@abdn.ac.uk

Photographed Collections: http://www.abdn.ac.uk/virtualmuseum/search.php

Full List of Collections (includes collections not photographed):
 www.abdn.ac.uk/museums

(Please be aware that human remains may be photographed in some of these databases.)

Note: Some of the collections have not been correctly identified. Therefore, I suggest searching by typing in “North America” and then limiting the search to the Marischal Museum. This can be done through the Advanced Search option.

Repatriation Policy. Please refer to Appendix I.
http://www.abdn.ac.uk/marischal_museum/museum_policies.shtml

Preliminary Results of Tribes Identified within the Collection
Apache
Alutiiq
Blackfoot
Cherokee
Creek
Choctaw
Haida
Inuit
Mi’kmaq
Passamaquoddy
Sioux
Tlingit