repatriation and special collections

Repatriation of Cultural Property

Research with Respect:Ethical Approaches to Native American Cultural Research and Archival Practices

Susan A. BarrettSchool of Information Resources and Library ScienceUniversity of Arizona

November 2, 2010

repatriaterepatriate vtvt \( )r - p -tr - t, - pa-\ˌ ē ˈ ā ē ˌā ˈ \( )r - p -tr - t, - pa-\ˌ ē ˈ ā ē ˌā ˈ

: to restore or return to the country of origin, allegiance, or citizenship

— re·pa·tri·ate noun

— re·pa·tri·a·tion noun

Origin of REPATRIATE

Late Latin repatriatus, past participle of repatriare to go home again

First Known Use: 1611

~ Merriam-Webster, 2010

Cultural PropertyCultural Property

Cultural property : Objects that have artistic, ethnographic, archaeological, or historical value.

~ John Henry Merryman, Professor Emeritus, Stanford Law School

Merryman, J. (1985). Two ways of thinking about cultural property. The American Journal of International Law, 80, 831.

Photograph, SIL7-058-015, “Haida Slate Carvings” Pre-1930, North American Indian Photography of Edward Curtis, Smithsonian Institution


“…the removal of cultural goods from their places of origin leads to the loss of identity, a loss of roots and, as a consequence, a loss of friendship among peoples…Furthermore, it should be stressed that, when cultural goods are removed from their context, they lose their ‘soul’, both objectively and in the eyes of viewers.”

~ Paolo Giorgio Ferri, Prosecutor for the Republic of Italy

Ferri, P. (2009). New types of cooperation between museums and countries of origin. Museum International, 61(1-2), 91.


“…where choices have to be made between the two ways of thinking, then the values of cultural internationalism – preservation, integrity and distribution/access – seem to carry greater weight. The firm, Insistent presentation of those values in discussions about trade in and repatriation of cultural property will in the longer run serve the interests of all mankind.”

~ John Henry Merryman, Professor Emeritus, Stanford Law School



“…as a rich and uniquely diverse collection representing the history of human cultural achievement, the British Museum, and other museums like it, at their best embody the Enlightenment belief that we can all talk about, and to, one another across our cultural boundries – that we need to find new, and better, ways of doing so than hitherto; and that if we do, we shall discover how much unites us.”

~ Neil MacGregor, director, British Museum

MacGregor, N. (2005). The encyclopaedic museum: enlightenment ideals, contemporary realities. Public Archaeology, 4(1), 57.


“To ignore this is to be blinded by a kind of artefact-fetishism into caring more about the collection of objects than about the dissemination of knowledge concerning their significance.”

~ Constantine Sandis, Professor of Philosophy, Oxford Brookes University

Sandis, C. (2008). Two tales of one city: cultural understanding and the Parthenon sculptures. Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(1), 5.

Photograph No. 3358410, “Hamasaka in Tlu Wulahu costume with speaker’s staff, Qagyuhl, British Columbia, circa 1914, Edward S. Curtis, Library and Archives Canada, C-020826

Legal ConsiderationsLegal Considerations

The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 1954, provides a framework for national courts to prosecute individuals for the destruction of cultural property.

Photograph, “Depiction of Justice at the Peace Palace in The Hague”, 1984,

Netherlands, c.Sudhakaran, United Nations

UNESCO, 1954. Convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict – 1954. Retrieved Nov. 23, 2010, from http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=35744&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.

http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=35744&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html


The 1970 UNESCO convention set the stage for nations to pursue repatriation efforts, and the language used in 1970 solidified the notion that originating peoples have international support in their efforts to regain cultural property that was taken illegally, by coercion or through colonial power.


Photograph, “The New UNESCO House in Paris”, 1958, Paris, c. LF, United Nations


Under the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT) Convention of 1995, an individual or nation may apply for repatriation of an object, even if the current owner legally purchased the property, or was unaware of its illicit background.

Lenzner, N. (1995) The illicit international trade in cultural property: does the UNIDROIT convention provide an effective remedy for the shortcomings of the UNESCO convention. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Business Law, 15(3), 469.


Replevin actions can be pursued if the person who currently owns the artifact did not know that it was illegally removed from its original owner, and they are a bona fide because they did not break any laws when purchasing the item.

Eisen, L. (1991). The missing piece: a discussion of theft, statues of limitations, and title disputes in the art world. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81(4), 1067.


“…the Director-General’s ‘Plea’ of 1978 declared that states must possess at least a representative collection of their own cultural heritage in order to teach and inspire the descendants of their makers, so that they can continue to develop their unique contribution to humanity’s art and knowledge. Faced with those kinds of concerns, disputes on the law and quibbles over its interpretation and its application seem out of place.”

~ Lyndel Vivien Prott, Professor of Cultural Heritage Law, University of Sydney, former Director of UNESCO’s Division of Cultural Heritage

Prott, L. (2009) The ethics and law of returns. Museum International, 61(1-2), 101.


Essential Propinquity provides a standard by which to evaluate the retention or repatriation of cultural objects.

1. Living descendents must still exist from the culture that created the objects.

2. The object will be used in ceremonies or community purposes for which it was originally created.



“NAGPRA establishes a legal framework for repatriating human remains and ritual objects to Indian tribes that request them, provided that claimants can substantiate direct descent or, in the case of objects, prior ownership.”

~ Michael F. Brown, James N. Lambert Professor of Anthropology and Latin American Studies, Williams College

Brown, M. (1998). Can culture be copyrighted? Current Anthropology, 39(2), 193.


“Indigenous resistance to the promiscuous dissemination of knowledge, sacred and otherwise, lies behind emerging conflicts over secrecy. The vast majority of native peoples face so many challenges to their economic and political sovereignty that they have little time to fret about the information-management policies of public archives or museums.”


Photograph No. SIL7-058-19, “Kotsuis and Hohhuq – Nakoaktok”, North American Indian Photography of Edward Curtis, Smithsonian Institution


Repatriation of Cultural Property

Research with Respect:Ethical Approaches to Native American Cultural Research and Archival Practices

Susan A. BarrettSchool of Information Resources and Library ScienceUniversity of Arizona

November 2, 2010


Legislation and legal statutes are the result of a community’s evolving attitudes, and often take a very long time to reflect the changing moral code of a society; therefore, the legal courts are not always the appropriate avenue for dispensation of cultural properties.

~ Lyndel Vivien Prott, Professor of Cultural Heritage Law, University of Sydney, former Director of UNESCO’s Division of Cultural Heritage

Prott, L. (2009) The ethics and law of returns. Museum International, 61(1-2), 101.

Ethical ConsiderationsEthical Considerations

“Ethical realism holds that each case is unique and therefore subject to careful retrospective review. If significant violations of the norms of the time took place, with lasting, negative impacts on a particular people or community, then it may be appropriate to quarantine the offending research in some way.”




“For thinking on indigenous cultural and intellectual property to be effective for policy-making purposes, it must be not only ethically sound but also thoroughly grounded in the practical realities of cultural creativity, information storage and transfer, the fluidity of ethnic boundaries, and the limitations of judicial process in developed and developing nations alike.”




“The return of cultural goods to their country of origin – or prior to that, the prevention of their illicit exportation – not only benefits the community by recuperating and/or preserving part of its personal memory and identity but also represents a contribution towards the furthering of dialogue between cultures.”

~ Paolo Giorgio Ferri, Prosecutor for the Republic of Italy


Ethical Considerations: Audio-Visual MaterialsEthical Considerations: Audio-Visual Materials

Archivists must not only attempt to collect a representative collection, but to explore their own personal bias, and the effects that their own cultural lens has on their work with Native Americans.

~ Dominique Daniel, Assistant Professor, Kresge Library, Oakland University

Daniel, D. (2010). Documenting the immigrant and ethnic experience in American archives. American Archivist, 73(1).

Photograph, “Tichkematse (Cherokee) demonstrating Plains sign language for Frank Hamilton Cushing. The wig he is wearing for this photograph was apparently intended to make Tichkematse look ‘authentic.’” Smithsonian Institution National Anthropological Archives, Photo Lot 24. Neg. 46,601.

Ethical Considerations: Ethical Considerations: Audio-Visual MaterialsAudio-Visual Materials


“Significantly, these technologies are allowing members of originating communities to access image of objects, audio and video recordings, and texts documenting their relatives and their material, cultural and linguistic history. “

~ Kate Hennessy, Ph.D. candidate and Trudeau Scholar, University of British Columbia

Hennessy, K. (2009, April). Virtual repatriation and digital cultural heritage. Anthropology News, pp. 5-6.

Electronic RepatriationElectronic Repatriation

“If a unique object is given back, it no longer can be in the museum that once held it. Unlike collected objects, field recordings in a tangible sense are mere carriers for traces of past events. Considered strictly as material things, original recordings seldom were actually owned by the music-makers they document, and few people aside from archivists tend to value these things as objects... their cultural value inheres in (or is constructed from) the replicable sounds they carry.”

~ Robert C. Lancefield, Manager of Museum Information Services, Davison Art Center, Wesleyan University

Lancefield, R. (1998) Musical traces’ retraceable paths: the repatriation of recorded sound. Journal of Folklore Research, 35(1), 47.

Electronic RepatriationElectronic Repatriation

“Community members more often seem content to have copies in formats more user-friendly than phonograph cylinders or fragile, half-century-old acetate tapes. So even after repatriating collections, archives usually continue to care for the original master recordings, sometimes protected by access restrictions more finely-tuned than they were before institutional dialogue with the copies' recipients.”

~ Robert C. Lancefield, Manager of Museum Information Services, Davison Art Center, Wesleyan University


Successful Repatriation EffortsSuccessful Repatriation Efforts

“We wanted communities themselves to determine the way in which the recordings would be repatriated and have total control over the dissemination events and any publicity involved in those events. In initial letters and phone calls, a Cylinder Project staff member would ask a community to designate one or more contact persons with whom we could consult about whether it would be helpful for us to visit the community, and if so, what kinds of services or activities would be desirable.”

~ Judith Gray, Archive of Folk Culture, American Folklife Center, Library of Congress

Gray, J. (1997). Returning music to the makers: the Library of Congress, American Indians, and the federal cylinder project. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 20(4), 42.

Successful Repatriation EffortsSuccessful Repatriation Efforts

“During the 1960s and 1970s, Glenbow museum staff made collecting trips to communities where they bought a variety of items, including sacred material, directly from the residents. Sometimes the reasons for selling were recorded and these range from a need for money to a concern that the sacred bundles were no longer safe, and that few people were learning the ancient traditions. [Native American] people who visit our collections sometimes express concern that some of this material was acquired inappropriately or from individuals who did not have the right to dispose of it.”

~ Gerald Conaty, director of indigenous studies, Glenbow Museum

Conaty, G. (2008). The effects of repatriation on the relationship between the Glenbow Museum and the Blackfoot people. Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(3), 245.

Developing RelationshipsDeveloping Relationships

“Our situation concerns the management and disposition of [Native American] collections in terms that, in many ways, meet [Native American’s] criteria rather than museum standards. The care of these collections is a long-term core museum function and, therefore, our relationship has endured beyond the usual three to five-year span of an exhibit project.”




“I became friends with the Weasel Moccasin family and began to understand the significance of the holy bundles to people; not to a foreign culture. They, in turn, began to see me as an individual who was beginning to understand and respect their culture and their holy bundles.”




“Artifacts from Indigenous cultures are but one more component of the intricate system that comprises culture and history. We (museum and other researchers) have focused too little attention on the knowledge that can be rediscovered when material culture is reintroduced to this matrix.”



Photograph No. 90-7266, “Centennial Exposition, Indian Exhibits”, 1876, Philadelphia, Smithsonian Institution


Knowing the community is integral to developing trusted relationships. Building trust begins with being active and involved in the community. She says that understanding what issues are sensitive to each particular council are important to developing relationships.

~ Jackie McColum, tribal librarian, Fort McDowell Tribal Library


“If Indigenous peoples are to invest in LIS services then the LIS sector must invest in Indigenous knowledge and peoples.”

~ Martin Nakata, Professor and Director, Indigenous Academie Development Unit, Jumbtinna Indigenous House of Learning and UTS Library, University of Technology, Sydney

Nakata, M., Byrne, A., Nakata, V. & Gardiner, G. (2005) Libraries, Indigenous Australians and a Developing Protocols Strategy for the Library and Information Sector. In Australian indigenous knowledge and libraries (195-210). Canberra: Australian Academic & Research Libraries.


“Glenbow’s approach to repatriation has not always been in agreement with that taken by other institutions. We have never agreed with the paradigm that views sacred material as objects for scientific study that must be retained for reference by future curators. As well, we have always tried to understand requests from First Nations [Native American’s] within their frame of reference and to accept First Nations oral histories of the events that led to the alienation of sacred material.”


Conaty, G. (2008). The effects of repatriation on the relationship between the Glenbow Museum and the Blackfoot people. Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(3), 245

ReferencesReferences

Appleford, R. (1995). Coming out from behind the rocks: constructs of the Indian in recent U.S. and Canadian cinema. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 19(1).



Curtis, N. (2006). Universal museums, museum objects and repatriation: the tangled stories of things. Museum Management and Curatorship, 21, 117.

Daniel, D. (2010). Documenting the immigrant and ethnic experience in American archives. American Archivist, 73(1).

De Montigny, S. (2008). Chiefs, churches, and “old industries”: photographic representations of Alabama-Coushatta and Coushatta culture and identity. American Indian Culture and Research Journal, 32(4).

DuBoff, L., Burr, S., & Murray, M. (2004). Art Law Cases and Materials. Buffalo, N.Y.: William S. Hein & Company.

Eisen, L. (1991). The missing piece: a discussion of theft, statues of limitations, and title disputes in the art world. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81(4), 1067.


Gray, J. (1997). Returning music to the makers: the Library of Congress, American Indians, and the federal cylinder project. Cultural Survival Quarterly, 20(4), 42.

Hennessay, K. (2009, April). Virtual repatriation and digital cultural heritage. Anthropology News, pp. 5-6


Lenzner, N. (1995). The illicit international trade in cultural property: does the UNIDROIT convention provide an effective remedy for the shortcomings of the UNESCO convention. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Business Law, 15(3), 469.

Lynch, C. (2008). Repatriation, reconstruction, and cultural diplomacy in the digital world. Educause, 43(1), 70.

MacGregor, N. (2005). The encyclopaedic museum: enlightenment ideals, contemporary realities. Public Archaeology, 4(1), 57.

Merriam-Webster (2010). Retrieved October 23, 2010, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repatriation.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/repatriation

Merryman, J. (2005). Thinking about the Elgin Marbles. Michigan Law Review, 83(8), 1880.

Nakata, M., Byrne, A., Nakata, V. & Gardiner, G. (2005) Libraries, Indigenous Australians and a Developing Protocols Strategy for the Library and Information Sector. In Australian indigenous knowledge and libraries (195-210). Canberra: Australian Academic & Research Libraries.

Prott, L. (2009). The ethics and law of returns. Museum International, 61(1-2), 101.

Sandis, C. (2008). Two tales of one city: cultural understanding and the Parthenon sculptures. Museum Management and Curatorship, 23(1), 5.

UNESCO, 1954. Convention for the protection of cultural property in the event of armed conflict – 1954. Retrieved October 23, 2010, from http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=35744&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.

UNESCO, 1970. Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property. Retrieved October 23, 2010, from http://portal.unesco.org/culture/en/ev.php-URL_ID=36193&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html.

UNIDROIT, 1995. Convention on stolen or illegally exported cultural objects. Retrieved October 23, 2010, from http://www.unidroit.org/english/conventions/1995culturalproperty/main.htm.



http://www.unidroit.org/english/conventions/1995culturalproperty/main.htm

repatriation and special collections

Leadership & Management