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 repatronization, 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 the advocacy by the public to give back but still not all was returned. 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 the Arctic and sparked problems with the archaeologists involved with it \cite{Searles2017}. While 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.
    With relations being important for archaeologists and museums to understand repatriation is a clear point to have when dealing with legalities of ownership. This after all, improves your exhibits and which improves the records that are being kept. This means updating or change of the archaeological ethics code in countries that have Indigenous peoples within their national borders. Relations with Indigenous groups may be different from group to group like in the Arctic Searles saying that he did not encounter the same problems that others were having due to the “Kennewick man” in the 1989.

Archaeological reforms of Canada and America.

    When speaking of reforms in archaeology it is more to do with the change ethics. This change in the ethics of allowed for more of a voice to be given to the Indigenous groups that may and are involved with the archaeological sites. Organizations such as CAA here in Canada, the SAA in America and other organizations have helped to define guidelines for archaeologists about Indigenous communities. It is a crucial step that was taken by archaeologist in the 1990’s to include the Indigenous people since they are still a living culture. The first conference of archaeologists was a global one and was the first code of ethics to be created that included Indigenous people \cite{Rosenswig1997}. While SOPA or Society of Professional Archaeologists created a code of ethics that help to support the archaeologist within a legal measure \cite{Rosenswig1997}. These conferences and societies were important to help push archaeology into the modern era.
    Archaeology has been based within a colonial framework. Removal of artifacts and items to be displayed within museums for the public to see and to promote nationality and depending on where you are in the world, modernity \cite{Kreps1998}. When speaking of modernity, it is an idea that a government wants to be like that of the West or where ever they see as modern. In Indonesia, museums were built as a display of modernism and nationalism but depending on where you were the museums felt distant from the public \cite{Kreps1998}. Museums themselves -viewed personally – are constructs of the past colonial structure and which confines the archaeological evidence within it. What is needed is the following of what some museums in Indonesia have done and hiring local people of the tribe that the museum focuses on which helps to strengthen the relationship of the institute and allow for more authentic exhibits to be performed \cite{Kreps1998}.
    These go along with the idea of inclusion of Indigenous people in-line with the creation of the codes of ethics by the archaeological society and groups. The study that was conducted though by Rosenswig (1997) shows that the reforms showed clear cut how each society focused on the Indigenous and non-Indigenous. This means that in the ethical actions of archaeologists who may work for museums and universities have protection to make sure that all parties are equally represented. With SOPA’s code of ethics the archaeologist must follow guidelines or will be discredited and also for the WAC code of ethics it highly encouraged the employment of indigenous people in the field. These code of ethics from former colonies as well helped to protect themselves and the archaeologist within legal framework because the Indigenous people were given a voice and an equal share \cite{Rosenswig1997}. The codes also differed from country to country and Canada was the only nation to use “spirit” within the CAA code of ethics while in America the SAA was for the mercantile and preservation of Indigenous artifacts \cite{Rosenswig1997}.
    Even with some of these changes happening in the 1990’s it is still relevant to acknowledge the changes that took place. These changes helped to give more of a voice to the Indigenous people on what artifacts would be displayed by museums and collected by archaeologists. Another is the change in the way the world was viewing the Indigenous people. The view that everyone had has now become a more protective society of it and that the importance of their culture must be there to preserve the Indigenous autonomy when it comes to living cultures artifacts. This legal framework also helped to build a better relationship with the nations own Indigenous people and gave also the nation their own guidelines to control how artifacts should be treated within national borders.

Reflection to the changes in museums and archaeology.

    To conclude this section, it is evident to myself that there is still much work needing to be done. Canada and America both need to be willing to relinquish the items – not artifacts since artifacts mean material remains of a past and not living culture – for the ownership of such items belongs to that of the Indigenous community. It is understandable that both parties do want to keep the items and have good claims but truly the items deserve to be with their proper owners. These items have more important symbolism than we can understand and deserve to be with people that understand them. Though this paper is not here to state that “this is the way we need to correct these problems,” it is here to shed more light on the subject. As advocates this is what needs to be done to ensure the continued trust and support of Indigenous communities which is highlighted in Searles’s article. We as the advocates for the Indigenous community it is relevant to bring to light the changes that need to be done in not just archaeology but in anthropology, as well.
    Archaeology has significant role to help people from all ethnics to be proud of their past cultures and same too does anthropology have to that of present cultures. It is important to note that museums play a big part in constructing a national identity. This national identity helps to de-construct the colonialism of the nation but also replaces it with a commodifying effect on the country. What is important is the education of people, both Indigenous and non-indigenous, for that is a start de-construct this cycle of colonialism. In the start of Donald’s article, he gives a story about how he went to a fort in Edmonton, Alberta and at this fort he realized the myth construct of the fort and the wilderness; the civilized and the primitive. The educational system needs to be this reforming and informational part to help separate the colonialism that has gripped our country and that of others \cite{Donald2009}. It is evident that even sharing our message from here in Canada to that of other places of the world is important since not all nations have this ethics code to share. It needs to be there to help improve the lives of all Indigenous people, but it will show problems too like in South Africa with the Boers \cite{Plaice2014}.
    I believe that de-colonialization of Canadian anthropology is best to be confronted by advocacy and education is going to be the best practical options. Here in Canada, we need to be the advocates of this change and be at the frontlines to protect Indigenous items from the environment and ourselves. This model of taking or looting as they would see it needs to be changed to end this colonial cycle and in-turn means the need of a new model. When Plaice went to South Africa and explained their thesis to South African anthropologists it sent a ripple that surprised them since they were dealing with a unique type of Indigeneity \cite{Plaice2014}. This form of Indigeneity was about the Boers and how they claimed to be Indigenous to South Africa, yet they were descendants of Dutch colonialists \cite{Plaice2014}. This posed a problem where the Indigenous majority where surprised to see a small group having such power over a government \cite{Plaice2014}.
 
The Decolonization of Archaeological Practices ( In progress )
      Colonialism within the discipline of archaeology can be traced back to the Missionary Era, where explorers and missionaries encountered indigenous peoples during their travels \cite{hancock2006}. The HMS Investigator was an example of this, sailing in search of the Franklin expedition that went missing in 1845 looking for the North-West Passage.  During their voyage, they became trapped in the ice of Mercy Bay and abandoned ship in 1853.  The crew cached most of their remaining supplies onshore where tins and barrels were discovered and utilized by Inuinnait (Copper Inuit) groups from neighbouring islands.  Ethnocentric attitudes towards indigenous peoples were prevalent during this time and there was no exception within the crew members of the Investigator.  The journals of Captain Robert McClure, surgeon Alexander Armstrong, Inuktitut translator Johann Miertsching, and seaman James Nelson described the Inuit to be primitive, immoral, filthy, and simple children of nature \cite{hodgetts2012}.  
     These attitudes displaying Indigenous inferiority greatly influenced early archaeological interpretation.  Clifford Hickey, an archaeologist who studied the Inuinnait groups in the 1980s proposed that their culture underwent a significant transformation due to the influx of goods from the Investigator.  He argued that groups closest to Mercy Bay had exclusive access to these objects in which created an unfair advantage in trading and led to significant differences between the Inuinnait and other Inuit groups.  Archaeological interpretations such as these showed a unidirectional approach; a one-way flow of ideas and change from colonizers to colonized.  In the case of the HMS Investigator, we see a focus on how the goods found from the Investigator were portrayed to have ‘transformed’ Inuit culture instead of examining the ways in which those goods were incorporated into or resisted by existing cultural practices.  Today, archaeologists strive to recognize the complexities of the individual and group identities \cite{hodgetts2012} . 
      The Amateur Era was quite influential towards Iroquoian archaeology in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.  While these amateurs were largely unprofessional, they were essential towards the archaeological process in documenting sites, excavation, and the interpretation of human remains.  Unfortunately due to their lack in experience, costly mistakes were made in retrieving archaeological material from the sites.  Excavators would often fill ossuaries with stones and logs, or break bones from digging with shovels.  There were also issues with the public’s interpretation of the archaeological record, often portraying First Nations as noble savages or evil barbarians.  The media would add to this stigma by publishing articles that would place past Indigenous populations in constant warfare, thus interpreting ossuaries as a result of large battles.  Artifacts were also described through a colonial lens where the material was viewed as “rough”, “rude”, or “unfinished” \cite{hamilton2006}
     The National Museum Era brought about important figures such as Edward Sapir and Marius Barbeau.  Edward Sapir was greatly influenced by Franz Boas, an American cultural anthropologist who brought about theoretical approaches such as historical particularism and cultural relativism.  During this time, Boas was extremely concerned about the extinction of Native North American cultures and introduced salvage ethnography \cite{murphy2008}.  This method of ethnographic analysis inspired Marius Barbeau, who worked to preserve “authentic” traditional cultures.  His work mainly focused on oral traditions, songs, and genealogies from various Indigenous cultures, as well as legends, old furniture, wood carvings, and other materials from rural French Canada.  Barbeau believed that early-twentieth-century Canadian anthropologists saw themselves as “pioneers” in correcting popular misconceptions about Indigenous cultures and preserving cultural records and artifacts that would be forever lost \cite{nurse2006}.  
     Barbeau took this colonial methodology one step further and proposed a series of research tactics in recovering authentic elements of supposedly dying cultures.  The requirements for Barbeau’s fieldwork needed an approach to efficiently collect cultural traits for archives and museums, in other words, for collection not observation or understanding.  He approached this task by producing steps in acquiring material such as finding an effective research site with trustworthy informants.  These individuals had to be uneducated because he believed that educated informants failed to understand their heritage and were not authentic.  They also needed to be elders, from lower social classes, and those with little to no contact with surrounding cultures.  Barbeau made it very clear that he was not interested in the informants’ oppinions or social views, just their memories \cite{nurse2006}. He was influenced by these colonial methods in that he kept a distance between himself and his informants as he believed he devalued his research - Delaney, added this short point to highlight early anthropologists' colonial influences)