Welcome to the Rivers Museums. Matters of Policy podcast, this is a podcast in which we explore the museum's collections development policy,
speaking with guests from across the globe to delve into the language used and consider what really matters in this policy.
The Message of Policy podcast series is an initiative of Miranda Thompson of Lim,
who's the researcher for the Labelling Matters project at the Big Rivers Museum in Oxford.
The bid for a first is an ethnographic and anthropological museum that collects,
conserves and displaced material culture from peoples across the globe throughout human history.
Acknowledging that the bid for Everest Museum was founded within a colonial framework,
the labelling message project seeks to her and redress its problematic past and the legacies that continue to inform the presence.
The Labelling Matters project looks into the power of language and refused to ways in
which language is used in relation to the collections housed at the very first museum.
The project touches upon many different aspects of language, including textual elements such as object labels,
microsites and policy documents, as well as visual features pertaining to the museum's displays.
This political series falls into one such aspect of language.
Here we review the language used within the museum's collection development policy, or CDP, in shorts.
This document sets the legal and ethical standards for collection,
handling and services guideline for processes such as acquisition and disposal of objects.
Additionally, it touches upon topics such as future collecting, repatriation and treatment of human remains.
The CDP is refute at least once every five years. The current clip was approved by the museum's governing body in 2016 and is now due for review.
In light of the museum's commitment to a process of redress and social healing, this project explores areas of improvement within the documents.
Interviews are conducted by Alexis for Megaman, Bessie Woodhouse and myself.
Yep, or under the supervision of Marenco, Thompson, Adler.
We are interning on the Labelling Matters project, as part of which we've looked into the museum's collection development policy.
We've invited guests to talk about issues within the document in order to get a better understanding of what improvements can be made.
We speak with a wide range of people working in or with the museum to get insights relating to questions such as does policy match practise,
who is represented within the document and what role can collection development play in the future?
These conversations include artists who have commissioned works for a museum, external parties involved with collection development,
and we speak with staff members working for Typekit rivers and other museums in the fields.
These conversations will be used to guides the writing process of a renewed collection development
policy that is representative of the museum's work and mission for the following years.
Hi, I'm Betty White House, and I'm in the process of completing my NSC,
a museum studies at the University of Glasgow throughout my postgraduate research focussed
on the link between possibility and policy within cultural heritage organisations,
particularly examining how decolonial theory is reflected in daily museum practise.
This has culminated in my dissertation research,
which analyses policies and aims to create a framework for organisations to approach the historical legacies,
specifically looking at public monuments here in Scotland.
So my research has led me to my internship as part of the Labelling Matters project here.
And yeah, I'm really excited to get going and start analysing this policy.
Hi, Amy Baum.
I live in studying the Netherlands and I've worked as an intern on the Labelling Matters project of the Petroleum Museum since October 2020.
As part of this internship, I've helped analyse the language of a selection of labels on this plane and museum looked into the use
of language on the museum's microsites and written blog posts concerning the findings of this analysis.
I'm also a master's student in Glo One's comparative philosophy at Lady University,
where I'm currently researching the epistemic value of silence and imperialist history.
In the future, I hope to work with Western institutions on existential and self-reflexive
questions regarding the colonial legacies on which these institutions are built.
Hi, I'm Alexis. I'm an undergraduate student at the University of Oxford reading archaeology and Anthropology.
I began working as an intern with the Pitt Rivers Museum this year as part of my dissertation research under my dissertation supervisor,
Marenco Thompson Odium. My research focuses on the internal workings of Western museums like the Pitt Rivers Museum and advancing decolonial measures,
especially in regards to tensions between museums and university or government regulations and museums and stakeholder communities.
As part of my internship and dissertation research, I'm following the new collecting award and policy podcast series projects undertaken by
the Pitt Rivers as part of larger decolonial efforts involving both practise and policy.
So if you find this podcast interesting, stay tuned for my dissertation and I'm Megan man.
I'm currently completing my master's degree in museum studies at the University of Toronto.
I have a huge interest in decolonial theory and in particular repatriation,
as well as mediaevalism and in the ways that the mediaeval world is represented in museums.
Of course, I'm not going to do that for this podcast.
So what I'm mainly wanting to focus on is the ways that we can decolonise how we present information in museums,
which led me to my ranka, which led me to analysing this policy, which I'm really excited to do on the rest of this podcast.
Great. So now that's introductions out of the way we're going to look through some of the passages in order to familiarise
ourselves before we start having our interviews and the subsequent episodes before each of our interviews.
The guests were given specific passages to look at, as well as the CDP or Collections Department policy as a whole,
to provide some unique insight into the policy and how it could be changed or altered or interpreted differently,
depending on what their background and research interests were. In order for you, the listeners to gain a little bit more insight into the policy,
we're just going to discuss specific passages that we found important in our research.
A lot of this has come off the back of a workshop that we did do with the Pitt Rivers Museum staff,
which looked at a lot of these hostages and discussed them wider,
which will kind of talk out about a little bit at the end of this introductory episode.
First of all, we're going to look at the mission statement. It's important to note that the mission statement is not the current mission
statement that is available as part of the museum's strategic plan that was updated.
This one is from 2015 and is reflected in the collection department policy.
But as the policy is a public document, it's difficult to kind of.
Differentiate between this being online and being accessible and then not being
kind of caveat involved that it doesn't reflect the museum's current statement.
So we'll look at it, but we'll look at it maybe with a pinch. So first we'll we'll just have a brief reading of the mission statement itself.
One point one The Museum Statement of Purpose Mission Statement The Pitt Rivers Museum
aspires to be the best university museum of Anthropology and Archaeology in the world,
using its unique galleries as the focus for exemplary teaching and research,
and as an inspirational forum for the sharing of cultural knowledge amongst the widest possible public.
According to the University of Oxford Statute, the purpose of the Pitt Rivers Museum is to assemble,
preserve and exhibit the Petrov's Collection and to promote the public understanding of anthropology
and world archaeology and their teaching and research based on the museum's collections.
The purpose of this policy is to ensure that the museum accepts and disposes of material according to a recognised
strategy that is in compliance with national standards and to act as a guide for curatorial decision making.
In doing so, it will encourage public confidence in the museum as a suitable repository for collections and their future stewardship.
So I think best to hand over to Megan, who was looking a little bit more in detail about the mission statement.
Great. Thanks so much, Betty. So the first thing we really wanted to zero in on is this definition of Best University Museum.
While it is important to recognise that this mission statement isn't in fact the museum's current one,
it's equally important to note that this is a public document,
which means that anybody who was looking up the collections development policy would see this mission statement as the museum's guiding light.
And since we don't believe that this really reflects the rivers is true intentions anymore,
it's just as important to change this one as it is to remember that they have already shifted their mission statement in other documents.
So the word best when it comes to any sort of academic or museum purpose is at the same time as it is heavily loaded,
it doesn't really say that much about what the museum actually wants to do.
We all know that there is amongst museums. Of course, there's an edge of heavy competition,
but the word best for this doesn't seem to actually reflect what the Pitt Rivers is trying to do with their new direction,
which is decolonised and share multiple stories from different cultures and make sure
that the museum is a safe place for everybody in light of a very deep colonial past.
So when we say the word best, I think it's important to define what we mean by that, is it the most forward thinking?
Is it the most academic? Is it the most inclusive? It's important to define these things.
Another thing that we wanted to explore today was the definition of the word public.
So this word shows up nine times in this document and a lot in the mission statement
without any clear definition or indication as to what the word public actually means.
All it says is the sharing of knowledge amongst the widest possible public.
And of course, I think that's quite common amongst museum policies,
particularly in institutions like the Pitt Rivers, where the range of collections is so vast.
However, I do think it is important to expand on this definition of public.
But the rest of the interns and I are really getting at with this is who is this museum for?
What is its purpose and how is that purpose reflected or not reflected in this policy?
I'm sure that everybody agrees. I'm sure that the staff of the Pitt Rivers would agree that museums should be for everyone.
I'm sure that's what the sign in the mission statement means. However,
if it's not explicitly stated that the museum is also intended to be a space of healing and partnership for those whose
artefacts the museum has in its possession and the tone of the collection development policy will imply otherwise,
especially since it is a museum that is deeply rooted in colonialism. As we know, this really isn't congruent with the river's actions and intentions,
as their new mission statement is all about exploring ways to decolonise and create new partnerships with communities all around the world.
However, if we don't define what public we actually mean,
then this river's collections development policy statement will imply that it means a British public, an OX40 in public,
a public that is interested in seeing and preserving these works,
but is not necessarily interested in creating partnerships with those who actually made them.
Great, thank you, Meghan, for that discussion about the first part of the mission statement.
The idea of the public is something that we all reflect on and not just in the museum world,
but in wider society and what the public really means in terms of accessibility and moving things into an institution where one
public is represented and another might not be is something that needs to be at the heart of an institution like the paper,
it need to recognise that. Next, we're over Typekit. He's going to give a little bit more about the second half.
Thanks, Betty. So moving on to the final paragraph of the old mission statement,
which to recap states that policy ensures that the museum accepts and disposes
of material according to recognised strategy in line with national standards.
Well, even if this is no longer mentioned as part of the new vision,
this still seems reality to which the museum has to avoid, and thus it's important to bring this up nonetheless,
because the problem is that there is now lots of disagreement on a regional,
but also a national and even an international level on what's important and proper when we talk about acquisition and disposal.
So it will be interesting to find out what room there is for museums like the bid refers
to get involved in setting the national standards that essentially has to follow.
Great. Thanks. Yep. Now we're going to move on to some more specific aspects of the collections development policy.
First of all, we're going to look in section three, which is an overview of the current collections.
First, we'll look at three point one point one, which is the size, coverage and significance of the kind of collections.
The museum's collections comprise artefacts from all parts of the world,
from prehistoric times to the present day, along with major manuscript photographs, sound and film collections.
In 2015, the collections numbered over five hundred and fifty thousand artefacts,
including objects, photographs and sound recordings, and 81 collections of manuscripts.
All collections are designated as of national or international significance,
reflecting the fact that the museum has one of the most significant archaeological and ethnographic collections in the world.
Collections are used for research and teaching in the University of Oxford and by scholars and students nationally and internationally,
as well as in the museum's award winning programme of public outreach and educational activities.
The museum is committed to making its collections accessible to the widest possible audience, as detailed in the museum's access policy.
Displays are open to the general public daily.
The collections are managed, documented and displayed according to the museum's documentation policy and procedural manual collections.
Care and conservation policy and access policy. Backlogs and documentation are being addressed, according to the museum's documentation backlog plan.
Great. So I'm just going to pass over to yet he has been looking a little bit more in depth.
About 3.1. Thanks, Betty.
Section three point one enumerates the number of objects, photographs and manuscripts that make up the collection of the museum.
And what caught our attention is that it is this information regarding quantity,
which is then linked to the idea that the museum holds one of the most significant collections in the world.
And one thing to be discussed here is this relationship between quantity and quality.
For teams, that quantity of collections is only ever meaningful if its quality can be ensured.
So what has come up in some of the recent conversations around care for objects?
And I'm thinking there are already many of the bids rivers museum webinars organised during lockdown, for instance.
So one thing that came up is that a quality of collection needs to take many boxes, basically.
It should, for instance, ensure a balance between preservation care and cultural care for objects.
It should also fairly represent the different modes of being, knowing and understanding linked to these objects.
And on top of that, it should be easily accessible to Fister as well as stakeholder communities.
So I guess in this series of interviews will be very interested in hearing from our guests what they see as markers of the quality of collection,
and we want to try and discover what the challenges are in safeguarding a quality of collection.
And I hope that will give us a clearer idea of debt, which is still missing and what can be improved within the current clip.
Great. Thanks. Yep. And just moving on to a different part of Section three,
which looks a little bit more at the ethnographic collections and also part of Section four, which looks at complimentary contemporary artefacts.
So McIndoe discussed these a little bit further. But first,
let's just read out three point two point one ethnographic collections on Page five and four point two point one complimentary contemporary
artefacts on Page seven three point two point one Ethnographic Collections Selective highlights of the ethnographic collections include the forced,
a collection of Pacific artefacts from Captain Cook Second Voyage 1772 to 1775,
one of the great collections of 18th century Pacific art and material culture.
Rich collections from Central Australia, donated by Pioneer Ethnographic,
WB Spencer and MJ given great depth of 19th and 20th century collections from South Sudan, including those of eminent anthropologists.
Edward Evans-Pritchard The Hopkins collection made by the governor of the Hudson's Bay Company in 1841 to 1842,
containing rare examples of painted and quilt northern plains war shirts, which have become benchmark references for scholars.
European music collections, including of a general by Marco Godhra,
dated 15 fifty to the oldest keyboard instrument in Oxford, as well as musical boxes and mechanical musical instruments.
The collection made in 1825 to 1828 by F.W. Beachie and E. Belcher,
officers on the Sloop HMS Blossom amongst the earliest Inuit collections in the world.
The contents of the private museum at the second drawers of Sarawak donated to the museum in 1923 Exceptional Naga Holdings.
More than 6000 objects, many collected by JH Houghton and JP Mills between 1915 and 1945,
and constituting one of the best documented collections in the world. The collection of European firearms general rivers original interest,
which includes many early and type examples of great significance to firearms specialists 4.2.1 complementary and contemporary artefacts.
The museum continues to acquire contemporary artefacts through anthropological fieldwork
and collaborative research with source communities when relevant opportunities arise.
The aim is to build on existing historic collections by adding contemporary artefacts that provide insights into current practise,
as well as different perspectives on early collections. Recent examples of this are the purchase of Nyaga Textiles through an anthropologist
working in Nagaland and a collection of quill work made by a Blackfoot artist over time.
And wonderful thanks, Betty. The section three point to point one on ethnographic collections names 14 different
colonial administrators who collected the museum's holdings at the same time,
only for cultural groups are mentioned, and no specific artist or creator is actually mentioned by name,
which is a little bit silly considering that the Rivers has longstanding relationships with a lot of these groups,
like the Naga and the Blackfoot, and have created multiple culture workshops to deepen their relationships with these communities.
So even though the ubiquitous public is not specifically designated,
the language and focus of the collections development policy make it clear that this museum is intended to benefit a public that is white,
British and proud of their colonial history, which is obviously never specifically said.
That can be pretty well inferred from the language of the document,
which is very much focussed towards the colonial collections and not so much the people who actually made them.
And then the relationships that the Pitt Rivers has since struck up with these people.
And as we all know that it isn't actually the river's true mission,
the other interns and I think it would be great to formally define the public as not only visitors,
but those whose belongings the museum holds, and in fact,
everyone who's been affected by the Pitt rivers possession of these artefacts, which is in fact a lot of people,
as the previous collections are so vast, there's absolutely no way that they can get away in this policy.
With mentioning only colonial administrators and not those whose artefacts the museum hold,
each of the different colonial administrators are named and called distinguished.
But it's a little bit silly that original creators not a little bit silly.
It's disgraceful that the original creators aren't actually named when the Pitt Rivers has expended such effort in recent years in cultivating
relationships with these groups to better their relationships with the people who made the artefacts that they hold in their museum.
Great. Thanks, Nick. And I mean, of course, a lot of the time when it comes to historical objects, you know, we might not have the records,
but there needs to be, as Meghan said, some acknowledgement of equal footing between those who created and those who collected.
Next, we've got a little bit more from point four and a little bit more from point three.
So first we look at three point three, which is material not accepted for permanent collection, the handling collection.
And then we'll look at four point one, which is general collecting principles.
And Alexis will look at both of these and discuss how they interact.
Three point three Material not accepted for permanent collection handling collection The museum
may occasionally and with the written agreement of the donor or person transferring the material,
acquire items that are not intended to be retained for the permanent collection.
These items may be used as part of the educational or school handling activities to supplement student teaching or for destructive research.
These acquisitions will be recorded separately outside the main accession record
of the museum and shall not be treated as part of the permanent collection.
Since their intended use implies that preservation cannot be guaranteed, a record will be kept of how and when any material is disposed of.
4.1 General collecting principles The museum will in principle and subject to the qualifications set out below,
acquire any material which falls within its areas of interest and merits.
Preservation material will be acquired primarily for its ethnographic, archaeological or historical importance.
Rail duplication and acquisition is avoided, but material that shows the extension over time or space of a technique or style is acquired.
A favoured method of acquisition is to finance,
collecting or photographing in the field by graduate students or others doing ethnographic and archaeological fieldwork.
This is economical, and the resulting collections are thoroughly and expertly documented.
Material is also accepted by donation bequest or purchased at auction or from dealers and private sources as funds allow.
With the exception of short term loans for temporary. Submissions.
The museum does not normally now acquire specimens online in exceptional circumstances,
such as where it is legally impossible for title to be transferred from the present owner of a
specimen to the museum and taking into account the safeguards under Section one and Section nine.
A loan may be accepted for a specified period. If that specimen is of particular relevance to the museum's collection,
the main constraints relating to collections development or the lack of space for storage,
which also suffers from being dispersed at a number of off site locations and the
availability of staff to carry out both cataloguing and deaccessioning procedures.
A joint University of Oxford Museums Offsite facility for collections is in the early stages of planning.
This, we hope, will provide high quality storage for the museum's reserve collections, as well as facilities for research staff and visitors.
The museum is continually seeking external funding to expand the scope of its stewardship work,
also providing opportunities for volunteers to assist with such work as specified in its volunteering policy.
Volunteers are engaged to manage through the Oxford University Museum's volunteer service.
Great. We'll just pass over to Alexis, who will talk a little bit more about these two sections.
So these two passages for me, I think, really express this prioritisation of preservation that is so prevalent throughout the rest of the CDP.
In three point three, for example, if preservation cannot be guaranteed, then the object cannot be considered part of the permanent collection.
Preservation in this instance, is a necessary condition for an object that the paint rivers faces light in for one material,
which preservation not only reveal this underlying Western notion that preservation
is the gold also reads as though the museum is the sole arbitrator of what marriage,
what is worthy of this treatment. I want to clarify it's not, of course,
that the preservation of objects is inherently wrong if and this is the key if that is in line with the objects,
respective cultures, conceptualisation of objects and agency and preservation.
Instead, it's about the wording of the policy does not seem to allow for other avenues of treating
and caring for collections and thus for other views of the world and of material objects.
Ultimately, preservation is not always a necessary condition for cultural care, and the CDP should reflect this.
Thank you, Alexis. I think this idea of preservation really comes up a lot in both the workshop that we did with
the museum staff and also in some of the later discussions that we have with our interviewees.
It's very interesting. And yeah, we hope to kind of stimulate some really good discussion on that.
Finally, we have another maybe very contentious issue, which is the repatriation and restitution of objects and human remains in the policy document.
So yep, we'll discuss a little bit more on this. We're looking at point fifteen,
so that includes fifteen point one and fifteen point two under the heading repatriation
and restitution of restructuring and the restitution made objects and human remains.
Fifteen point one The Council of the University of Oxford, acting on the advice of the museum's professional staff and its governing body,
may take a decision to return human remains unless covered by the guidance for the care of human remains in museums issued by DCMS in 2005.
Objects or specimens to a country or people of origin council will take such decisions on a case by case
basis within its legal position and taking into account all ethical implications and available guidance.
This means that the procedures described in sixteen point one to sixteen point five will be followed,
but the remaining procedures are not appropriate. Fifteen point two The disposal of human remains for museums in England,
Northern Ireland and Wales will follow the procedures in the guidance for the care of human remains in
museums and adhere to the policy on human remains held by the University of Oxford to Museums 2006.
Over to you yet? Thanks, Bessie. So the current repatriation section, the first thing one notices is that it's extremely sparse.
And this is partly because the museum pleads for a case to case approach,
which we think is necessary since each request is different and brings together different histories, contextual circumstances and also desires.
But nevertheless, it could be more specific as to provide more information on barriers and solutions to challenges that come about during the process.
One such challenge is, for instance,
debt repatriation is quite often the cost for repatriation are often covered by the indigenous nation to whom the artefacts is being returned.
This is something we, as interns have been discussing, and in addition, we thought the repatriation section could specify.
FIE on what responsibilities the museum sets to commit to.
So we want to ask our guests, especially from other museums,
what they added in their repatriation section and what they would like to see in the Pitt Rivers repatriation section.
Great. Thanks so much yet. And that concludes our deep dive into the collections development policy.
Hopefully, this will provide you with a really good foundation and insight into some of the work that we've been doing,
so that we can kind of take this forward looking at these passages with the interviews that we're doing in future episodes with our interviewees,
as we kind of mentioned at the beginning of the episode, this.
Discussion of the policy in the passages that we've just done has come from a workshop that we did with Rivers staff early on in the summer.
One of the things that really came across in that discussion in the kind of open table discussion that we did
following a presentation of the research we've looked into in the passages was this idea around accreditation.
The reason that we are looking at the collections bill and policy is because the policy and the museum are up for RE accreditation,
that this is something that happens every five years.
And basically, you have a collection of different policies that you send off to the Arts Council and the museum will receive accreditation.
This basically make sure that museums are aligned in ensuring that the collections that they look after are looked after in similar ways,
adhering to local international guidelines, and it does affect the funding that the museum receives as well.
The collection development policy is a really cool part of that.
And because of this, it does need to tick a number of boxes which are provided by the Arts Council in order for it to be re accredited.
This is something that we really would like to look at a little bit further in
our interviews a little bit further in our own research from this podcast.
And hopefully this will stimulate a little bit of discussion around the accreditation process and
thinking about whether accreditation needs to change and the guidelines for coordination need to change,
as well as the policies because. If the policy has to adhere to accreditation, but the process of accreditation is maybe less flexible and less.
Up to date, then it could be and that, you know, museum theory has kind of moved on that maybe that needs to be something that's looked at and that's,
you know, we'll discuss a little bit more and future episodes. Great.
Thank you guys so much. In this episode, we've given your listeners a good background on the finances of the current CDP.
In the following episodes, we go in depth screen perspectives from indigenous knowledge holders, artists,
museum professionals, curators and directors from other museums and accreditation professionals.
Finally, a special thanks to the Knowledge Exchange Fund for their support in making this podcast possible.
That was the Rivers Museum's Matters of Policy podcast produced by Betty Woodhouse,
yet Boom Snake and Man Alexis Boyer and Bobble Hat Sound Music by Jack Forcett,
voiceover by who let a special thank you to Muranga Thompson Offline and the Knowledge Exchange.