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.
Hi, I'm Alexis, and I'm Betsy, and I joined Alexis today as we spoke to Julian Eden.
Sure, Julian. Eden Shore is a Haida artist who has participated in several excursions of Haida elders and artists to the Pitt Rivers Museum,
including participating in the Great Books Project.
He is here today to talk about his experience with the Pitt Rivers Museum and to give his perspective on the policy.
Before we begin the episode, we would like to provide a content warning throughout the second half of that episode.
Withdrawn. There are a number of mentions of residential schools.
The first question that we have? Can you tell us a bit about your experience working with the Pitt Rivers Museum?
I first went there with sort highly delegation, and what we were doing was we were going back for repatriation of one of our ancestors.
It was also we got to study all of our pieces that are in the museum there,
and it was probably the best experience I've had with the museum going around, working with other museums.
And a lot of times, you know, you're going in and you're looking at the Haida or northwest coast pieces and they're sort of dark shells and you know,
you're trying to flashlight into them where, you know,
they get to pull out one or two or sometimes you pull out lots, but you know, it feels rushed and everything.
And actually, at the Pitt Rivers Museum, the staff pulled everything out.
Everything that we would want to see had it all laid out on tables. And essentially, we could spend as long or as little time with any of that stuff.
It was all well lit. They were definitely considerate of some of the sort of ceremonial and spiritual pieces that they had that, you know,
affected us and affected some of the elders in some pretty powerful ways,
you know, and definitely you could see like the conservators and stuff, you know,
their their job is to look after these pieces and then, you know, we go in and, you know,
we recognise something from a dance or something and put it on and you have all of a sudden
someone sort of dancing with a mask and you could see the conservators a little bit too wary,
but they allowed it all to happen.
I think probably they learnt a lot about the pieces that they had, you know, because for them, you know, these are just objects,
not much information recorded on them, and they're dealing with them at a pretty intimate level,
cleaning them or whatever, you know, they never seen them dance to. They've never heard the story that goes with them or whatnot.
So I think sort of brought some life to it for them, but also for us, it allowed us to study these objects.
And then the next time that we dealt with Pitt, Rivers was with me and my brother.
There is a wooden box in particular that was in the collection, just a masterpiece with just absolute beauty.
And there is so many things within the design that, you know, almost felt like it was a contemporary artists,
you know, sort of pushing the boundaries of the rules of our art, and we wanted to learn more.
As so we mentioned Laura Pierce, who was heading things up at the time that we, you know,
we really wanted to study this piece more, and only way to really learn was to do a recreation of it.
So took several years, but we came up with some money and the museum came up with money and brought us out.
And so in total, I think we spent about three months working on the on the chest.
We had to spend one month in the museum carving again with the museum rules.
We were never allowed to be left with the just by ourselves.
So we had museum staff actually sit with us for 14 hour days as we carved and no,
never really complained about the late hours or for anything and for that experience, you know, I'm quite grateful.
It's always sort of a love-hate relationship with museums just because of the history.
But, you know, with where things stand and how we were welcomed and treated, I, they appreciated that quite a bit.
That was really nice to answer. Thank you. When you were reading the collections development policy,
how much did you feel that your experience with the museum working there, I mean, the people that was reflected in the policy?
Well, I think museums are sort of slow to change, you know, and I think the policy reflects that.
I think it's, you know, using a lot of old.
Wording and old ideologies that were and are held by museums, but the is probably the last to change where,
you know, the staff are a little more aware of some of those issues like,
for instance, like with the repatriation that we did do 10 years before that trip,
where we did receive the remains are two sort of repatriation champions.
Mikakos and Lucy met with Pitt Rivers and at the end of the meeting,
whoever was in charge at the time essentially said there is no way that we'll ever give back any human remains.
You know, these are our collection that's pretty hard to take.
But rather than fighting and dealing with it like that, those people, they built their relationship over a decade.
And, you know, 10 years later, they welcomed us with open arms and at least with the human remains that gave it back.
There's issues with the rest of the collection, but but you know, that was an important thing to do.
I think one thing that really struck us when we were reading it was that
disjointed ness between the practicality on the ground and what's in the policy.
And you know, the stories that you said about going into the museum and having somebody there with you while you're working on the box.
Ideally, the policy would lead the way, but often it is the people on the ground who are doing the work to a leader.
Just looking specifically at certain passages in the policy for point two point one
talks about complementary contemporary artefacts and also a Passage 3.2.1 as well.
And I think one of the things that we really noticed was how the creators of the art in the museum are very rarely mentioned while the collectors
are prioritised and named and sometimes using questionable language to revere the collectors who went out and and took some of these objects.
Do you feel that this affects your relationship with the museum having that power imbalance in the policy in there?
It's mentioning the collectors and then it says object by a black foot artist.
And I think what happens there and I seen it again when they're collecting New
Materials Museum continues to acquire contemporary artefacts through anthropology,
field work, collaborative research with source communities with relevant opportunities, blah blah.
Just sort of the idea of source communities and stuff.
It's, you know, it's still we're the subject, you know, being sort of examined scientifically and the museum where the institution is like, you know,
this sort of higher entity as opposed to just recognising the relationship and recognising that there's an interest
from those who visit the museum to see what our culture is today and what it was before with the names and stuff,
I think I might get into this a little later.
But you know, that's one of my biggest issues with museums is just how little information was ever gathered with any of the material.
So you when you're looking at a piece, you know, there's maybe the town of where it's gathered is collected,
but the name of the artist never is the owner of the piece.
Rarely is. And then, like you said, the collector is sort of held up on this pedestal,
even though many of these collectors, you know, were essentially participating in the genocide of our people.
So they're, yeah, they're they're being held up. Well, we're sort of the curio.
You touched also on the terminology used as well source communities,
which is something that our colleague has worked on and something that she discusses quite well.
How do you think that the policy, the terminology used in it can be better amended?
I think museums have to. I think in general, a lot of museums are trying to make create not just a better relationship,
but like a reciprocal relationship where you know the communities are benefiting as as are the museum.
What suggestions might you make to sort of change aspects of the policy or some of the words used or some of the things that emphasises or focuses on?
Well, I think a lot of the wording almost dehumanises the, you know,
indigenous communities or the communities where they come from and by not naming names and by calling it source community and stuff like it.
Sort of. It's that whole academic idea of like sort of looking at or pretending that you can look at things without a biased or whatever.
So they're like sort of using this terminology, but in doing so creates a biased essentially.
So, you know, I think the wording like, you know, creating reciprocal relationships or, you know,
partnering communities or or just communities just rather than rather than throwing the source in there sort of thing,
you know, just recognising the people as people, not just not something to be mined sort of sounds like it's like you're.
To mine something and and bring it back, which essentially that's what museums have done,
right, it's sort of part of that colonial process going out and gathering and bringing back.
Yeah, completely. And it's difficult because obviously that is the legacy we have to deal with working in the museum,
but it's also a legacy that we don't need to reinforce moving forward.
And, you know, some of the language, and this definitely does reinforce it.
I think my favourite with clients is they're describing somebody as a distinguished colonial officer in 3.2.2,
which I think is just it's just completely pointless and doesn't need to be there.
So one of the questions that you said sort of was about like, how does it acknowledge its sort of colonial past?
And it doesn't accept that it does all over the place in stating these people and the term you just mentioned there.
It's sort of unwittingly acknowledging the colonial past,
but not doing it in a in a way where they're accepting it and putting it out there that this is what happened.
It's almost like they're acknowledging it as a good thing.
How do you think the policy can better address, then, in the way that we want to,
you know, also sort of condemn, not praise the colonial roots of the museum?
I don't know, because again, I'm not really a big policy guy.
And I know, you know, the reason they're writing it is to protect what they have.
And you know, for me, like one of the issues that came up when we were there was when we went there,
we went in and we were like, OK, here's highly treasures.
Here's here's our things. And then, you know, a lot of the people from around the museum, they're like, Well, these are things, right?
So they're sort of head to head on that a little bit. But everyone was good.
We, you know, it's good to have these discussions because we can't change what happened in the past.
The reality is that we have tens of thousands of pieces all over the world of our old pieces.
But you know, we have very little at home like we do have a museum now and it's a good museum, but we have maybe one percent of the stuff home and,
you know, pieces that were used for ceremony and used for, you know, owned by families and individuals.
You know, all that has been taken in, you know, with the mask, with a box, with a spoon.
The story is gone too, right?
I don't know how you would acknowledge this in policy, but I think for us and sort of having the acknowledgement of how these pieces were acquired,
there is one passage in there that sort of talked about.
And I think they were talking about sort of acquiring new things, but they were saying, make sure that we have legal title to the piece.
And in actuality, probably a large chunk of the whole debt collection was gathered either under duress or straight up illegally.
So that's still a question for us, right? Do these museums have legal title to these objects?
You know, like definitely, some things were traded and sold to collectors.
And, you know, other things were straight up stolen back in the 1880s in Canada, all the way up to the 1950s.
The government put a ban on Potlatch and sort of cultural gatherings.
And during that time, you know, all these things were confiscated.
And, you know, I don't know directly of Pitt. Rivers has any, but they ended up all over the world, you know,
at museums and private collections of, you know, the Indian agents and people from the church.
We're all financially benefiting from the laws they were putting in place to stop us from continuing their culture,
you know, so I think there is a question about the legal right of these museums to hold some of these pieces.
You know, I acknowledge that it's definitely not straightforward, right?
Like, it's it's hard to know what exactly was and wasn't stolen, but we know other stolen pieces in there.
Know again, rather than sort of holding these collectors up as the founders of the museum to acknowledge that question at least.
And you know how to address that, how to make some redress.
I think the idea of retroactively examining the collections,
I know that a lot of things are into collections under different names that you can locate things now and all the kind of logistical elements to it.
But one thing that we have kind of considered as part of our research into the policy, the policy does talk about this speculation.
As Point fourteen, there's the Holocaust Act, which kind of looks retroactively looking at the collections in multiple museums and saying,
OK, if it was taken during a certain period by certain cultural groups and under duress and then sold.
And all museums have to adhere to this in the U.K. and they know that there's a similar one in the United States as well.
And one thing that we were considering was the need for a similar.
Act that museums would have to adhere to to kind of retroactively look at the collections that they have examined it and present it in the same way.
Yeah, I noticed like in in Canada here in the news recently, they've been finding the graves of children at residential schools and so far,
you know, over a thousand unmarked graves and they still have, you know, hundreds of schools to look at.
We've heard those stories before at my chimney, the dug graves radius, and he's a student there.
And, you know, a little bit bigger. And so they had him digging the graves. It's not new and it's it's crazy that it's just coming out now.
So often, you know, we speak of what happened to our people as genocide.
You know, we have stories of smallpox being spread intentionally.
You know, government officials purposely not vaccinating, you know, before the smallpox epidemic broke out, things like that.
But I think that most Canadian officials and staff really don't want to see those words.
And I think because it opens up these issues, right? And so they're trying to stay away from saying it.
But, you know, I think it's important to recognise for these issues, right?
We can address some of it like this. You know, this isn't ancient stuff like this.
The last residential school closed in 1996. You know, my my father's old grandmother, his great grandmother, who he grew up with for some time.
You know, she was born in a long house in the 1850s or so and came in to spend your time living quote, you know, traditionally.
And then, you know, by the end of her life was living in the town and things were modern bothering her own,
you know, so the bones at the museum's house came from people she probably knew.
And it's not. This is an ancient past. This is, you know, within one memory.
Another thing that was touched on sort of in these conversations of objects that are
taken by the museum and that are part of the museum's collections now is that the
policy is very sparse on repatriation to think about what are the implications of
having very little consideration or sort of official recognition for repatriation.
How important do you think also in our conversations about the government of Canada officially recognising genocide?
How important do you think it is to have these official recognitions for the
importance of repatriation and the acknowledgement of colonial roots and of genocide?
I think it is very important to be represented in the policy.
I know Laura had to advocate for us in Beirut with us to make the repatriation happen that we got,
and I'm not sure how much other human remains that the museum has.
But, you know, in that regard with our ancestors, it worked out for us.
You know, again, it was a decade of waiting for it and creating those relationships.
But I think there should be clear policy on it that allows that to happen, you know,
and even within the policy and again, the dehumanising language to get it out of the museum,
they talk about the disposal of human remains when they're talking about repatriating, you know, our ancestors back, just the language.
And it's it's it's the language you use to take out the trash, you know,
and they were using that language for talking about if they ever sort of sell or get rid of objects as well.
But it just seemed quite disrespectful to use that within. We're talking about people's ancestors.
That language used throughout is such a juxtaposition to why I might go to a museum,
why somebody might go to museums to get that idea of how people lived and feel the connexion and understanding.
And it's the human aspect that you look for when you go to the space,
no matter what organisation you're working and the language of policy is always going to be clinical,
maybe adding that humanity to it is human, so you know that you're talking about.
So I think also the clinical language is sort of an attempt or sort of a way to
distance them from these really emotional and human and often terrible things.
Acknowledging colonial roots and everything that comes with that is difficult and is something that not everyone wants to do.
And using the clinical language is a sort of it's a way of making everything clean and washing your hands of it and saying, Well, that's not me.
This is all very straightforward and logical, but the reality is you just can't avoid it and you shouldn't.
Is the repatriation policy here? Is that talking also about cultural items, or is it mostly just on human remains?
It's not clear from my understanding. It does kind of mainly speak about human remains.
Maybe that the. And to kind of a final question, which is talking a little bit about objects that are held within the collection,
which have agency maybe in the policy and in your own experience with the museum,
do you think that museums and the Pitt rivers deal sufficiently with objects that have agency?
I think sort of the nature of museums. They don't.
With Haida art, so much of it was usable objects and almost the nature of our art.
These pieces are not standalone. They come with the story.
They come with the song come with a performance and now is one of the big losses for us when the collectors went out essentially during that period.
Pitt Rivers was sort of almost early in the collecting period, you know, sort of mid eighteen hundreds to early nineteen hundreds.
It was a frenzy. You know, there is collectors, museums wanting to fill their storehouse of the best totem pole.
Have the best, whatever, you know, sort of competition with the neighbouring museums and collectors.
And none of that was recorded until there's sort of an idea that the museum is like a sort of a scientific institution.
But it's not really. It's just a storehouse of colonial plunder, really.
At its core, it is, I think, become more scientific over the years.
But when collecting was happening, there was very little information gathered.
So coupled with, you know, taking our children, you know,
forcibly taking them to residential school and enacting laws that would stop us from
performing and telling their stories and teaching the lessons that came with these objects.
And then at the same time, having those objects removed from community. A lot of those stories were lost.
A lot of the lessons that came with these and the songs were just gone.
Whereas if we were able to keep some of that within our community, it would have that memory with it.
The mask would have a story. There's actually a mass in the Pitt Rivers Museum,
one of the elders and I was a little kid told me a story about a creature that would come out and had red, glowing eyes.
Pretty much that was all she said. She had a little story about it. You know, I'd never seen it or heard it anywhere else.
And then when I left the museum there, there's a mask and it had red fabric eyes.
And then in behind, you could see where you'd hold make some calls or a torch so that eyes would actually glow.
And you know, there is that little fragment of the story that's been collected to that, you know, so we're able to sort of piecing it together.
And you know, I did I did a mask, you know, representing that character now and until we can bring that dance back a bit.
But there is also objects that, you know, even our most knowledgeable elders on the trip looked at and they're like, We have no idea what this is for.
And those things are gone. I don't think that the objects, you know, should be open for people to dance or anything at the museum.
And that's the nature of a museum.
But removing that agency from these pieces has cost our people a lot, and I'm sure it's the same with other people around the world.
I don't know how the policy would address that,
maybe acknowledging that sort of juxtaposition with what a mask is when it's sitting behind glass and what the whole package was when it was in use.
I think it's quite a difficult one because so much of collections,
policy and the accreditation standards that museums must uphold are so focussed around the idea of preservation.
It's such a conundrum what to do with the objects that require preservation that don't fit into this kind of neat little box.
If you know, if I try to preserve a glass, I've got my cupboard.
It's straightforward.
It's an issue with how the museum is formed, how the policy has been formed and what maybe what we prioritise within the museum space.
You know, having conversations and slowly changing attitudes and changing policies could help a little bit.
And I, I think building the relationship with the people whose pieces these are is so important to,
you know, we're not the museum not going to give us all our things back tomorrow.
So, you know, we got to live with that. You know, our deal with it and address it.
But in the meantime, we got to create these relationships where we can both learn from each other.
Like when we went to the museum, we learnt so much, you know, as artists, but also we went there with elders and singers.
And, you know, so having that trip actually is a really good example of how communities can work with museums because these things are preserved.
And, you know, we were able to go. I imagine the cost was quite expensive.
And you know, that's that is a limiting factor.
But, you know, creating that relationship and having a large chunk of our community come in and learn from these pieces and bring the chest home.
And we've, you know, taught people using it in our chest has been used in ceremony and Paul latches.
And so it has a life now. You know, again, it's questionable.
How the museums obtain these things, but today the museum has them so through policy, acknowledging us as stakeholders in all of this for us.
These pieces mean a lot more individually to us than than they do to any, you know, passing passing customers through the museum.
You know, I think just if we're able to go there and be part of it, then everybody learns from that.
We learn. But you know, we shared with all the staff and ended up mingling with a lot of the people going through.
And most people don't know any of these issues. You know, they're just going to the museum to look at some cool things.
So, you know, having that conversation is a start great and having us go there.
It's hard to change institutions and, you know, it's amazing the steps that has been done, you know, but I think there's a long way to go as well.
We may be kind of building a kind of stipulation about trips with open access,
with some kind of language around not stopping people coming to have those experience that is mutually beneficial for the people involved.
This is, I'm sure, too much of a leap for the institution.
But you know, if there was an acknowledgement through the relationship with the communities for us,
for the high tech community, if there is an acknowledgement of some type of ownership of these pieces, they do belong to us.
You know, they're not just tied to objects that are owned by the museum.
You know, and it's not even like we have the capacity at home, right?
This instance to start taking things from all these museums.
I think that's what museums are scared of is all of a sudden we're going to take everything back.
You know, you guys can hold on to it for us, recognise that it belongs to us, and then we could lend it to you guys.
So I know that has happened and at least one institution I'm aware of in Scotland, and it's remained in the museum, but the ownership has changed.
I think you sort of very nicely answered the question I was thinking of.
And really, I think what this episode is getting, which is what you would like to see be done by the museum,
an acknowledgement of ownership of history and an emphasis on building relationships.
Yeah, I think sums it up.
Thank you so much for taking the time to have a chat with us and provide some insight into the possibility that we could take moving forward.
But we look at this. Thanks. Thanks for your guidance.
Bit in looking at this,
I think keeping the conversation going right and keeping these relationships with museums and with our people is very important.
And it's good that you do this. That was the Rivers Museums Matters of Policy podcast produced by Darcy Woodhouse.
Yet Boom, Mega Man Alexis Boyer and Bobble Hat Sound Music by Jack Fawcett,
voiceover Baiju who let a special thank you to Muranga Thompson Offline and the Knowledge Exchange.