A couple of days ago, my RSS feeds tracking museum news came up with a lot of uproar regarding a statement that Te Papa museum in Wellington had made regarding pregnant/menstruating women accessing collections. Naturally it has been misunderstood and blown out of proportion - so i'd like to talk a little bit about what it all means. Apologies if it gets a bit cumbersome, but I just want to get this out and I don't really have time to fine tune it right now.
This AFP article is pretty representative of a lot of the other news around, so i'm going to quote from it (but you can read more here, here & here, for a variety of samples).
To begin with, the AFP's article lead is extremely misleading:
New Zealand's national museum on Tuesday warned pregnant or menstruating women to stay away from some of its exhibits or risk an encounter with angry Maori spirits.
I guess it's a bit sensational with the "angry Maori spirits" part, and definitely just wrong when it says people had been warned away from exhibits. It sets people up to be angry and misinformed from the get-go. If they do read on, they'd at least see the following:
Te Papa spokeswoman Jane Keig said the policy was not an outright ban, rather it was strong advice designed to protect pregnant and menstruating woman from exhibits which Maori, New Zealand's indigenous people, believed could hurt them.
"Pregnant women are sacred and the policy is in place to protect women from these objects," she said.
Regardless, most people see this as "pregnant or menstruating women are not wanted at this museum because of Maori cultural beliefs". One quote the AFP article uses shows how knee-jerk the reactions can be:
"I don't understand why a secular institution, funded by public money in a secular state, is imposing religious and cultural values on people," she told the New Zealand Herald newspaper.
Miscommunication leads to this sort of thing - it's not necessarily the museum's fault, nor those reacting, but it is the fault of those misrepresenting the issue (ie. much of the media). When you look at what Te Papa actually have to say on the nature of the issue it becomes clear this is not about imposing rules or banning any member of the public from visiting the museum.
Statement regarding guidelines of access to Māori collections at Te Papa clarifies a lot of what was misrepresented and caused so much trouble. Firstly, the areas that were to be visited were collection areas, never accessible to the general public, and definitely not 'exhibits'. It may come as a surprise to many people, but the material on display in public galleries is usually a small percentage of any museum's collection.
Next of all is the "cultural imposition" - which is actually just a consideration, sort of a formality. If you will read these quotes from the statement:
One of these cultural considerations is that hapu (pregnant) or menstruating women (mate wahine) should consider entering the taonga Māori collection stores at another time...
‘While we inform visitors to the collection stores of cultural considerations, no visitor would be stopped from continuing the tour if they wished to.’
Again, this is in regard to collection areas and no general display in the museum itself. Secondly, this is a cultural consideration and it's not a blanket rule that because the items are Māori then everyone must take on Māori cultural rules when visiting the museum. This is called cultural relativism (or sensitivity, I suppose) - taking a step back from your own cultural norms and perceptions to understand that everyone's life and the objects within them can have different meaning and prescribe different behaviour. Even if you don't identify with that culture, you can still take a step back and see what might be respectful even if you don't share the belief. There is no reason to see this as that culture "imposing their beliefs" on you at all.
‘Te Papa, as the kaitiaki (caretaker) of taonga Māori and a bicultural museum, embraces Māori tikanga and kawa when caring for those collections’, Ms Hippolite said.
I wanted to end with this quote as representative of Te Papa's policy and action - although the statement goes into it further and is worth reading, too. Te Papa, more than any museum I know of and have visited, has gone out of their way from the beginning to have a strong contribution from Māori communities when it comes to caring for collections, and displaying those collections, amongst everything else that Te Papa care for and exhibit. It's a mark of a responsible and forward curation and management team to see a museum do this. When you see so many museums throughout history and now have imposed their cultural beliefs and norms, it's nice to get the balance back a little.
I have worked in museums that have 'sensitive' areas of the collection which have been limited in who can access and care for them because of cultural respect and relativism - as my personal choice I didn't buck that trend, and let others who fit the bill interact with those particular items. There is no one truth, there is no one culture that deserves to be respected more than another, and there is always balance in what is appropriate for you and what is appropriate when accessing and viewing things that are important to other cultures. This is what Te Papa try to do, not to prescribe importance over Māori culture more than anyone else's.
People need to step back from their privilege and see that Te Papa's policies are reasonable and responsible, and appreciate them for all they do not just for Māori communities, but New Zealand's communities as a whole.
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Cultural Relativism, Ethnocentrism and Museum Collections: Te Papa Controversy
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Deaccessioning in museums - a link that inspired a ramble
I update this blog so sporadically now that it's almost a farce. But today is International Museums Day, so i've been kickstarted. I also found this link i'd been meaning to write about for, ooh, months now: What should museums throw out?
The link itself goes to a small gallery highlighting some items that were on display in an exhibition at University College London called "Disposal" - one I would've really loved to have checked out. None of the images themselves are particularly striking, but the little slideshow gives a bit of fodder for thought and discussion.
The process of accessioning objects into a museum collection is not that difficult - it comes in, you document it, you store it, you give it a place where it should belong. It is part of the order-making that I love so much about collection management. Deaccessioning, on the other hand, is a much trickier process.
At the surface of it all is the question, how? How can someone (or even a group of someones) decide what stays and what goes from any collection, big or small? Someone had to make the decision to take the object on in the first place - in many museums this was a decision made long ago by a person who no longer works for the same museum (or who has passed away long ago, if your museum's collection goes back far enough - which many do!).
This is where museum collecting rides along the fine lines of fetishism and hoarding. Everything seemed like a good idea when it was brought into the collection - and indeed much of it is a great idea to have in there - but how does a curator or museum board weigh up one object's usefulness as part of a museum collection over another?
One object may have amazing research potential, the other may be not necessarily unique but an excellent piece to display. One object could be kept "just in case" it's needed for either, its potential being the key. Some objects may indeed still be part of museum collections simply due to the fact that some important person many years ago felt that it should be. Why have a box full of pottery sherds when one as a representative sample is enough? Who needs 30 different tapas cloths when one can illustrate the type of textile that it is?
Every object has a story. In and of themselves, and then a story as a museum object. While two boomerangs may look superficially alike, when you look at their histories you may find that both are equally relevant to have in your museum collection.
To say, "yes, that piece is something we need for our museum collections and/or displays" is easy. To say no is usually very hard. There's a reason why policy on this from museum to museum is tricky in its wording. There's a reason why deaccessioning happens so very rarely. Saying no is hard to do.
Monday, April 16, 2007
Public Inquiries, helping visitors.
It's a difficult position working in a museum as a white Australian talking to visitors about Australian Aboriginal culture. There are so many opportunities for miscommunication, misunderstanding and outright bigotry that it can be a real minefield to walk into. I've come out of Uni with an anthropology degree, but I do not profess in any way to be an expert on Australian Aboriginal culture; however, I know a little and can often point people in the right direction more than provide them with expertise I don't have.
This afternoon I had a basic query here from someone at the front counter in the Inquiry Centre. To begin with, he was asking about websites that gave general information about Aboriginal history; this then led to him wanting somewhere he could look at old photos or snapshots of art. I suggested checking out State Library or State Art Gallery websites in Australia, and asked a little further about what he was looking for. It turned out he had some photos of rock art. So I then confirmed a state library or art gallery would be a good way to go - perhaps even if he wanted general identification one of the curators here could look at it. Was he just after an identification, I asked, or general information on rock art?
Eventually he said that he'd gotten some photos of rock art from a NSW site. I then directed him toward the Australian Museum - more relevant, with a large(ish) Anthropology department. Further prodding gave up the information that the site was on his brother's property. Bingo. He wanted information and (of course) he 'respected their culture' but they were all afraid their property would be taken away from them. I assured him that native title was an incredibly misunderstood issue in this country, and it was his duty to (or at least his brother's duty to) report a finding of an Aboriginal heritage place/artefact as it's covered in legislation (National Parks and Wildlife act down there I believe, and the QM Act up here); reporting it did certainly not mean their property would be whisked away. He got very very cagey about all of it after that and ended up thanking me and leaving.
In this circumstance, there are a lot of things I feel in the wake of an inquiry like this. I feel like it definitely is my responsibility to make white Australian visitors aware of the law regarding Australian Aboriginal culture in Australia and their responsibilities in relation to that. I feel like I might have pushed a little hard. I feel frustrated the guy wasn't up front about what he was really trying to find out. I am sad that a lot of his attitude was "i'm not racist, but..." - simply because of the history of this country and its current politics. I hope something positive comes out of the exchange, at any rate..
The entomologists have it way easier, you know.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
Article repost and comment - British Museum returns aboriginal ashes to Tasmania
British Museum returns aboriginal ashes to Tasmania.
British Museum returns aboriginal ashes to Tasmania
The British Museum says it will repatriate two bundles of aboriginal human remains back to Australia after they were taken more than 160 years ago.
"It will be a very joyous occasion when we've got two stolen remains back to Tasmania,” said Trudy Maluga of the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre. "These two bundles are the only two known to exist today so it's very special to us."
Maluga said aboriginal representatives will travel to Britain soon to arrange for the return of the remains. She wasn't sure exactly when that would be.
She declared the move a “historic victory” after battling for 20 years to get the ashes back. She said new laws passed last year in Britain allowed public museums to return ancestral remains.
"We do know that one other public museum over in Britain has Tasmanian remains and so we've started the process to try and get those remains back to our country,” noted Maluga.
She said another eight British institutions, including the British Natural History Museum, have aboriginal items that interest her centre.
Museum officials said the bundles were taken from Australia in 1838 by George Augustus Robinson, the chief protector of aborigines in the Port Phillip district of Tasmania.
The ashes, wrapped in animal skin, had been used as talismans to ward off sickness.
“Robinson took these from sick aborigines when they were close to death. They were effectively stolen,” Maluga told The Age newspaper in Australia.
Maluga said the bundles were to be buried with their owners and so, by taking the items, Robinson interrupted the process of the two people being laid to rest.
The London museum, which acquired the remains in 1882 from the Royal College of Surgeons, said on Friday that the aborigines’ claim “outweighed any other public benefit.”
“The museum looks forward to continuing to work with indigenous Australian communities in furthering the worldwide public understanding of Australian aboriginal culture, both past and present,” said Helena Kennedy, a British Museum trustee.
The museum is creating an Australian and Pacific Gallery slated to open in 2008.
It's good to hear that the BM have made the positive move toward repatriating human remains, especially considering it's difficult for Tasmanian descendants to pull together much material regarding their history on the island. I wonder if they'll make the effort for any more (non-Tasmanian stuff) they hold in their collections? It's a pitfall of so many Ethnographic museum collections that their histories are peppered with less-than honest acquisition methods. While a lot of collecting done for Australian museums was slightly dubious, and often paid for in trade goods, there's little (that I know of) of this outright stealing, especially of such sacred stuff. It'd be interesting to know what policies the BM and other museums in the UK have for repatriation to colonies, and whether it's limited to human remains - considering their reluctance to allow the Dja Dja to retain the bark paintings loaned to Museum Victoria in 2004. And, y'know, there's their whole Elgin Marbles problem. I suppose when you have a museum with so much history it tends to manifest as authority - and while museums are definitely keeping places and stewards of cultural heritage, there's a point where they have to consider those cultures and their wants and needs.
Wednesday, March 15, 2006
Article repost - Museums in legal bind as terror victims sue
Museums in legal bind as terror victims sue - article and comment after jump:
By Ron Grossman
Published March 13, 2006
From: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0603130157mar13,1,3559584.story?coll=chi-newsnationworld-hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
A Rhode Island lawyer has pioneered a new legal front in the war on terrorism, turning to the collections of major American museums to seek compensation for victims of Middle East suicide bombers.
Among the museums and institutions being pursued by David Strachman is the University of Chicago. He wants the university to surrender a treasure trove of ancient Persian artifacts to survivors of an attack staged by Hamas, the militant group that won the recent Palestinian elections.
The request was recently sustained by a federal magistrate in Chicago.
The reasoning was as straightforward as the implications are far-reaching: Supporters of terrorism should be punished. Hamas is partially financed by Iran. Therefore, Hamas' victims should be compensated by confiscating Iranian property, making Persian artifacts in American museums, such as the U. of C.'s Oriental Institute, fair game for federal marshals and a moving truck.
Should that logic hold up on appeal, it would further complicate life for an American museum world already under pressure to acknowledge that some artworks and artifacts got to their collections via shady circumstances. Floodgates could be opened for myriad similar lawsuits, said Joe Brennan, general counsel and vice president of Chicago's Field Museum, where the Persian collection is also at risk in the lawsuit.
"If you can impose modern standards on acquisition methods of a hundred years ago," he said, "I'm going to be in the business of litigating permanently."
The University of Chicago has several lines of defense before having to turn over its Persian artifacts.
Several institutions threatened
But behind the courtroom maneuvers lies a tangled tale, and the maneuver has put several American cultural institutions under a legal gun: the U. of C., the Field Museum, Harvard University, the University of Michigan, the Detroit Institute of Arts and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston.
U. of C. officials and their attorneys have declined to comment on the case--Jenny Rubin, et al vs. The Islamic Republic of Iran, et al--except to express their confidence in prevailing.
"We are sympathetic with the victims of the terrorists, but the law does not allow recovery under these circumstances," said Beth Harris, the U. of C.'s vice president and general counsel.
In making that argument, the university has been put into the position of defending Iran's legal rights, pleading poverty for the country's fundamentalist rulers, who aren't contesting the case. In its court papers, the U. of C. states, "Iran faces numerous `practical barriers' to [the] suit in the form of extensive defense costs."
The next round of U. of C.'s legal entanglement is scheduled for a federal court in Chicago this week.
Attack that launched suit
The suit's origins date to Sept. 4, 1997, when three suicide bombers set off explosives studded with nails, screws and broken glass at the Ben Yehuda pedestrian mall in Jerusalem, a popular tourist destination. Hamas claimed responsibility for the attack, which killed five bystanders and wounded 192.
Several survivors, Americans visiting Israel at the time, filed a federal suit against Iran and Iranian officials in the District of Columbia. When the defendants didn't show up in court, the plaintiffs won by default.
Judge Ricardo Urbina ruled that the victims and their relatives were due $423.5 million in damages.
In his opinion, Urbina noted that Iran has a ministry for terrorism that "spends between $50 million and $100 million a year sponsoring terrorist activities of various organizations such as Hamas."
The decision was a victory for Strachman, the plaintiffs' lawyer.
"This case is about inflicting economic damage and punishment on the terrorists," he said after winning a similar suit.
Strachman declined to comment on the current proceedings, and Daniel Miller said he and other plaintiffs have been counseled not to speak about the matter while litigation is in process. But the judge found that the bombing left Miller, who had just graduated from high school, with glass in his eye, with bolts and nuts in his ankles and unable to walk for more than short periods.
Like other winners of damage suits, Strachman set out to collect his clients' awards from among the losers' assets.
Strachman saw deep pockets in museums housing Iranian objects, among them U. of C.'s. Its archeologists excavated Persepolis, the fabled capital of ancient Persia, between the two World Wars. Among the collections of the university's Oriental Institute are thousands of clay fragments with cuneiform writing, priceless records of a vanished civilization.
When a process server showed up at the U. of C., university officials didn't deny having Iranian property.
U. of C. invokes principle
"These antiquities are undeniably owned by Iran," U. of C. said in court papers. But the university's lawyers invoked a legal principle known as sovereign immunity, which holds that governments can't be hauled into court like the rest of us.
Though Iran hadn't asserted that right, the university wanted to do so for the government.
"You can sue the sovereign nation, you can get a judgment, but you can't collect it against any of their property unless they agree, right?"
Magistrate Martin Ashman asked during a hearing last November at the Dirksen Federal Building in Chicago.
He answered his own question by rejecting the university's argument in a decision rendered in December. It is under appeal.
The United States has sided with the museums, although it insists it is not "defending Iran's behavior."
Strachman's case against Harvard University and the Museum of Fine Arts, Boston is working its way through another federal court.
Officials at those institutions declined to comment, except to express sympathy for the terrorists' victims.
In parallel proceedings against the Field Museum, both sides have exhibited fancier legal footwork.
The museum has ancient Persian artifacts, known as the Herzfeld Collection because they were purchased in 1945 from Ernst Herzfeld, the U. of C. archeologist who excavated Persepolis.
Strachman alleges Herzfeld doubled as a dealer in stolen and smuggled antiquities.
If the museum's artifacts were among his loot, then they really belong to Iran--and thus his clients have a claim to them, Strachman argues.
Thomas Cunningham, the Field Museum's lawyer, dismisses that theory.
Against U. of C., Strachman argued that someone else can't argue Iran's rights in court, but in the case of the Field Museum, he has done just that
"We take the position that the plaintiffs don't have standing to bring a claim of Iran's right to the property," Cunningham said. "Only Iran can."
Like others involved, he predicts that the story has many chapters to come.
"There'll be a lot more technical stuff before we get to the meat of it," Cunningham said. "The juicy part, the public loves."
Just a couple of thoughts on the issues this article brings up - it's very interesting, and obviously very touchy stuff. This is my initial reaction to it.
This is a case that's going to be very tricky, and i'll be interested to see what the outcome is. What the tricky thing is, is that much of the cultural material has been acquired by less-than-honest means at a time when it was commonplace for visiting scholars in other countries to bring items home with them to donate/sell to museum collections. Some museums are starting repatriation processes which is kinda cool - and I guess it can only really work with things that have decent documentation of their provenance, and have a cultural institution to be kept in in their country of origin. The majority of material will stay where it is, as property of the Museums they've been taken in by.
Legally, this means they can only be deaccessioned by museum management/museum boards. Lawyers can not walk in on behalf of their clients and take cultural material from museum collections as means of compensation. It just doesn't work that way. It makes me boggle a little that anyone could think this could happen. While the pieces have originated from the Middle East, they are owned by museums, and the museums have the control over what happens to them. The circumstances here are not that the American museums are "keeping places" for cultural material, they aren't custodians for what they have. By whatever means, they've come to own the material - so I figure it's out of reach for victims wanting compensation.