Archaeology and Museums: Deconstruction and examining the colonial effects on modern Canadian archaeology (Cody)
With this paper being about decolonization of Canadian anthropology it is relevant to discuss museums. Museums and anthropology have worked together to provide a glimpse into the cultures of the world. The way they have done this is by artifacts. Artifacts normally are remnants of past cultures that have died out over the centuries. Thanks to these artifacts we are given a better understanding of how life may have been for them, since most artifacts are within scientific certainty of the archaeologists’ perspective. Though the artifacts in question here would be that of a past civilization but what about a living culture? Does it not mean that living cultures ‘artifacts’ are actually important ritual items or maybe something more? Why does anthropology support these tendencies to remove these artifacts from a community that view such things as sacred?
From the beginning of anthropology and even during the time of antiquity collection of past cultures artifacts was a sign of heritage. This heritage that an individual would display would play to their advantage to help push forward their claim to something that is greater. For newly formed nations such as America, Canada and the other parts of the America’s this clinging onto need to have a strong national identity like that of their colonial parent. The difference between the colony and the parent nation is that of living people being there and already having an identity. What is needing to be noted is how the new colonies viewed the living people there already. What is evident is the need for more legal representation of Indigenous groups in the Americas and around the world.
This article will discuss the legal actions against Western museums and the legal and ethical actions towards the anthropological community. It will continue with a discussion on the federal aspects of archaeology and its shift towards decolonization. There have been great strides in reform for both Canada and the United States in its fieldwork and in its treatment towards the Indigenous population, but there is always room for improvement. I believe that this paper will reaffirm the importance of supporting both living and past cultures within archaeology. (Nelly - I've edited and condensed this paragraph)
Cultural actions towards museums and artifacts
In a society that is governed by law that all must be held to it. What about the cultural appropriation? When the time came that the colonies of the empires around the world became independent they needed to find a way to build an identity in the colony. Canada and America were doing exactly that. Though America was doing more to form an identity than Canada. This identity was formed by appropriating the Indigenous peoples’ ideas and saying that they are all one, European settlers and the Indigenous. There are many legal issues that have arisen from this and very little has been done to rectify these legal issues within the system of both Canada and America. The legal and ethical struggles that have been a constant battle between the governments and Indigenous groups is important to discuss, especially when it has to do with colonialization. Here in Canada in the early 20th century we were about the collection of Indigenous material goods and artifacts simply because assimilation was believed to happen to the Indigenous communities. While in America it was more for commodification of textiles and other types of Knick-knacks and adopting their culture to make it their own. Both methods in Canada and America are equal part colonial and national.
When exploring the legal system on repatriation, Canada itself has lagged behind in comparison to America. It was missing the idea of how the Indigenous people have been viewed and the way they view the act of ‘owning’ something. In an article written in 1979 by Bowen, he argued this idea of ownership. The idea that Indigenous people view ownership as a collective rather than as individual ownership. This ownership is nothing new here in the 20th and 21st century since these battles are still going today. Techniques of collecting material culture by anthropologists were rooted in a colonial nature of viewing Indigenous groups as a 'dying race'. (Delaney - I added this point to highlight some of the colonial influenced ideas of early archaeology in North America) An example of ownership problems comes from commodification of Indigenous items \cite{Manual2013}. This commodification of goods helped to Westernize the Indigenous items which may have been only used for ceremonies or other events and have minor profit for the Indigenous community. Another is the appropriation of sacred items or remains from communities that should stay with those Indigenous communities; like that of the Zuni and their twin war gods or even the remains of the “Kennewick man” \cite{Blair1979,Searles2017}. It is important for us to evaluate these issues to understand not just the view of the archaeologist and museums but also the view of the Indigenous people. Since archaeology aims to examine and preserve the past, it is understandable that anthropologists in the 20th century were collecting “artifacts” from Indigenous peoples that they assumed were destined to disappear (Rachael- expanded on this thought). The legal battles that have and are happening in America and Canada are challenging cases, considering they view these artifacts as both art and important religious items \cite{Blair1979}. Though work has been done to correct this by museums where they either willing gave up those items to the indigenous people or even made requirements for them to get these items \cite{Blair1979}.
The legal system in the Americas’ was one sided. Settlers would be allowed to claim land that they land on and that the Indigenous people had no claim to it since they were not a recognized sovereign nation \cite{Ferris2003}. This was changed though after the British won the Seven-year war with France and claimed New France where a new deal was struck that allowed the Indigenous people to have their own lands and deny the access to private groups \cite{Ferris2003}. Despite this new deal, Indigenous people have still struggled to assert their land rights. Private companies and government policies to this day continue to act as an antagonist to Indigenous groups (Kevin. I added this to avoid draw attention to the fact that land rights are still violated). In Canada, during the early 20th century museums were more to show off the exploits of individuals and the greatness of the parent nation where only the rich would be able to see the museums \cite{Buchanan2014}. This meaning that our system was colonial and viewing the Indigenous people as a culture that will die out due to the technology of the West \cite{Buchanan2014}, thankfully this was not true. What happened was the growth – much like that of America – in using museums as nation builders. The differences of America and Canada was the path they used to get to nation building as highlighted by Willmott. America used a democratic styled where everything within their sovereign borders was American; while in Canada it was a more assimilation or colonial style, displaying the items of primitive cultures to compare the advances by technology and the majesty of the Western ideology \cite{Willmott2014,Manual2013}. This method helped to affirm the legal rights of the government in Canada to collect the items of a dying culture as in Buchanan’s article explained about the three individuals and their views on how Canada should treat the Indigenous communities.
These legal actions have had important impacts on the archaeology field within anthropology. These legal actions helped to pave the way for current archaeology where building of stronger relations and reforms were important to ensure all parties are under fair legal certainty. Unfortunately, not all these legal cases ended well for the Indigenous community. Many legal actions in both Canada and America were in favour of the museums or government due to issues of proper housing for the items. In America, many times the museums would only allow the release of the demanded artifacts if they were housed in proper museums on the Indigenous communities’ land, this was virtually impossible for that to happen \cite{Blair1979}. While in Canada, the paying of individuals to buy Indigenous artifacts to be displayed in museums was a common thing and even the purchasing of totem poles to be displayed in the museums \cite{Willmott2014}. What this caused though is the steps towards a better start for archaeology for the public rallied to help Indigenous people to reclaim their artifacts and seen the reforms to the field.
Relations with Indigenous Communities.
When exploring the relations that museums and archaeologists have had with Indigenous communities they have not always been the best. Indigenous groups saw the museums and archaeologists as looters, the vary people they were trying to prevent from stealing artifacts \cite{Ferris2003}. While legal actions were taken to prevent looters, it seemed to not stop archaeologists from coming in to claim the artifacts which by law saw them as the owners of the artifacts \cite{Blair1979}. This gave rise to public advocacy groups that sought the repatriation of artifacts, such as a petition started in Saskatchewan that called for the return of Louis Riel's walking stick that is held at the Manitoba Museum, but many attempts are unsuccessful and are met with resistence (Breanna- reworded and expanded to clarify, and added an example.). Advocacy is an amazing tool that archaeologists use to support their claims and reasoning behind removing artifacts of past cultures, but this does have harm on the living descendants of still living cultures. Relations with these living Indigenous cultures is documented more in Canada rather than America. America does have cases but there is more extensive knowledge from the Canadian anthropologist and archaeologist.
As we know of archaeology today, we view ourselves as protectors and advocates to material goods left behind by past cultures. This has not changed. Archaeologists saw themselves as doing the same thing back in the 20th century as well. It is important to remember that many human remains are the cultural property of living groups. When remains make up a significant percentage of the exhibits within a museum, this can become problematic, especially if they had been collected many years ago and without permission (Rachael: split one sentence into two and added details). The museums of America and Canada have had their fair share of such issues. In Canada, the conflict was with the finding of the “Kennewick man” which was a 9,400 year-old skeleton found in Kennewick, Washington and sparked problems with the archaeologists involved with it and here in Canada \cite{Searles2017}. In America the NAGPRA was created to help control these conflicts with museums and archaeologists (Sullivan, Abraham, & Griffin, 2000). This act helped museums to build a better relationship with Indigenous people and in turn helped the museums get a more authentic exhibit from their knowledge that they knew about artifacts within the museum.