Indigenous Peoples Fight to Reclaim Patrimonial Objects
I initially researched the conflict of Indigenous people fighting to reclaim their heritage items for my capstone project a few years ago while pursuing my MLIS. I didn’t know it would lead me to reconsider pursuing a career in the library/archives profession. The amazing history as well as the atrocities committed against Indigenous groups made me realize that many white institutions still retain cultural artifacts that don’t originally belong to them but instead to Indigenous communities who are seeking to reclaim their patrimonial objects, which are cultural items (i.e. pottery, clothes, and tools) associated with Native tribe heritage, from these institutions.
Memory institutions allow us to preserve our history, past, present, and future, but the application of antiquated ideologies has led to continuous conflicts when it comes to the intellectual property rights of tribal articles. As colonists took over America, they set the standards of designing laws that were favorable to them and less favorable to Indigenous groups. While settlers confiscated Native societies’ patrimonial articles, they also assumed the role of the proprietor, setting in motion a perpetual battle of determining who possesses ownership of cultural items, originators, or cultural institutions. Specific copyright laws view libraries and archives as the creator due to the fact they retain accepted records of cultural artifacts. These regulations disregard the rights Native inhabitants have over these items. Since First Nations may not have tangible documents, but instead use Traditional Knowledge such as storytelling, dance, and other customs to tell their history to subsequent generations, this creates an obstacle for them when trying to reclaim their heritage. Nevertheless, Indigenous groups are fighting to re-establish themselves as the owners of patrimonial objects that are in the custody of non-Indigenous institutions.
For us to understand the complex history between cultural heritage institutions and Indigenous communities as it relates to which entity possesses intellectual property rights over patrimonial objects and how colonialism contributed to the situation, it requires us to look back at our history. Libraries, archives, and museums hold a wealth of heritage articles from various societies and are usually viewed as the owners of these items. However, history indicates these institutions are not the original creators, but merely establishments that came about through colonialism, and the destruction of numerous First Nations that once inhabited all of America. As De Jesus (2014) explains, information centers do embody enlightenment values, and those enlightenment values are themselves steeped in and reinforced through the settlers’ white supremacy ideologies. To the extent that cultural institutions do represent enlightenment values, they likewise contribute to ongoing colonization and are thus reasonably seen as sites of violence and oppression.
As white colonists arrived in America, they seized control of it, and in the process, destroyed the Native American way of life, vastly changing the country’s cultural landscape. As the settlers established power, they created the infrastructure, which in turn influenced the institutional design of information centers and cultural heritage institutions. Admittedly, the colonists collected and documented the lives of Indigenous communities along with their cultural practices to an exceptional degree, and appointed themselves as the narrators of First Nations history along with creating the structures where this knowledge resides (Joffrion & Tom, 2016).
Even as the government granted sovereignty to First Nations, they still lack full control of their heritage, especially traditional objects in the custody of libraries and archives. Many originators are unaware that Western copyright laws proclaim the person administering the interview or taking the photographs as the legal “creator,” therefore taking away the intellectual property rights and minimizing the access and use Native people have to their own heritage items. Another issue Indigenous communities had to deal with was the loss of their ancestral objects to anthropologists, ethnographers, linguists, and entrepreneurs who collected vast amounts of cultural materials for fear the First Nations culture would disappear. Some of these tribal artifacts were sold on the open market to private collectors, or deposited into the storage spaces of museums and archives (Karuk Tribe, Hillman, Harling, Talley, & McLaughlin, 2017).
With many regulations deeming libraries, archives, and museums as the rightful owners, it is challenging for Indigenous groups to prove their ownership since they lack concrete evidence to assert their claims. By only possessing Traditional Knowledge, which consists of storytelling, folklore, and other customs passed down from one generation to the next, such seemingly ephemeral evidence leaves Indigenous communities at a disadvantage. For instance, a member of the Karuk Nation visited the Hearst Museum, where they discovered a traditional item formerly belonging to their tribe. The constituent was familiar with the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA),which provides aid in the repatriation of cultural artifacts of Indigenous groups. Due to the sacred nature of the object, the Karuk members believed it would be returned. However, the Hearst Museum did not view the revered tribal item in the same manner as the Karuk Tribe, nor did they comply with the procedures of the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (Karuk et al., 2017). The callousness non-Indigenous organizations exhibit when it comes to not returning patrimonial items to Native peoples demonstrates their self-determined superiority, reinforcing the Western institutional framework. Meanwhile, Indigenous groups continue to have their entitlements disregarded and their cultural materials held captive even though they are the originators.
Aside from the challenge of reclaiming intellectual property rights, the difficulties of accessing and using cultural materials create yet another hurdle to overcome. For instance, a Karuk tribe member visited the Smithsonian Institution and requested copies of photographs featuring the Karuk people; a staffer informed them of a $7 fee for each reproduction along with crediting the Smithsonian with the copyright (Karuk et al., 2017). The manner in how the Smithsonian interacted with the Karuk member demonstrates the struggle Native people encounter when trying to access and use their own tribal items and the power non-Indigenous institutions have over them.
However, there are changes being established to reduce harm and move toward collaborations. As Nakata, M., Bryne, A., and Nakata, V. (2005) state, Indigenous Knowledge systems are distinct systems that should stay outside the purview of Western and library information science systems of knowledge management. The truth is that secret and sacred aspects of Indigenous Knowledge have no place in the public domain and should remain outside of library information science systems. Nevertheless, a significant amount of Indigenous Knowledge, including secret and sacred knowledge, is already contained and managed within non-Indigenous organizations. Over time cultural heritage institutions realized their collection of Indigenous material suffered from insufficient information due to the lack of Traditional Knowledge possessed by the creators. As libraries, archives, and museums develop relationships with Native peoples, the need to establish policies that emphasize appropriate interactions, ownership, and the stewardship of tribal artifacts became apparent. To address the matter, information professionals and Indigenous communities gathered together to identify best practices to handle cultural knowledge and objects.
In April of 2006, Protocols for Native American Archival Materials was introduced after several meetings between Indigenous groups and information professionals. The conference consisted of nineteen Native American and non-Native American archivists, librarians, museum curators, historians, and anthropologists with representatives from fifteen Native American, First Nation, and Aboriginal communities. The group identified and addressed several critical areas related to the care of patrimonial items in the hands of non-Indigenous organizations (Protocols for Native American Archival Materials, n.d.). The Protocols focus on the core issues affecting Indigenous groups, including accessing, using, and reclaiming ancestral items held in cultural heritage institutions. Having both information professionals and Indigenous groups come together to establish guidelines illustrates that both libraries and archives acknowledge their social responsibility to thoughtful intentional engagement with First Nations along with their heritage. Memory institutions are moving away from seeing Native peoples as mere patrons, and viewing them as revered agents of Traditional Knowledge entitled to having their voices heard and their rights recognized.
However, in 2008, when the Protocols for Native American Archival Materials were initially introduced to the Society of American Archivists (SAA) Council, instead of promptly accepting them, the committee declined the guidelines due to the language used surrounding cultural insensitivity and white supremacy. After addressing the concerns, the procedures were presented for a second time to the SAA Council and were once again rejected. On August 13, 2018, the board finally endorsed the Protocols and issued an apology for not implementing them sooner (Society of American Archivists [SAA], 2018). With the Society of American Archivists not immediately accepting the Protocols, Indigenous communities’ patrimonial objects remained misrepresented; therefore, delaying changes, and maintaining the Western standards of care for these items. The actions of SAA speak volumes when it comes to the many challenges Native peoples encounter when seeking acknowledgment and equal treatment.
Thanks to colonialism, the once rich cultural history of Indigenous communities has and still faces the struggles of consideration and accuracy while remaining relevant. With information centers and memory institutions possessing tribal articles, it is difficult for Native peoples to maintain their heritage. However, with the help of technology, creators may access their history digitally due in part to online archives such as Mukurtu.org and share their culture with non-Indigenous institutions and people.
Another element enabling originators to retain their cultural authority is Traditional Knowledge (TK) licenses and labels. The authorizations and tags were born within the Mukurtu content management software and are now used by Indigenous communities, non-Indigenous peoples, and third parties. The Traditional Knowledge license and labels employ distinct symbols to indicate who may access specific information (Traditional Knowledge Labels, n.d.). By using emblems, it helps establish sets of internal best practices of cultural norms and responsible behavior to those non-tribal members (Anderson & Christen, 2013). When it comes to ownership, the Traditional knowledge licenses and labels offer new options to access and control cultural expressions documented but still in the custody of heritage institutions. However, the TK licenses and labels are used for knowledge made into a tangible form through recording and documenting both currently and in the future as well (TK-Labels, n.d.). Of course, this does not apply to all aspects of Indigenous knowledge, especially sacred ancestral information, which is only shared amongst the tribe community members. With the usage of TK licenses and labels, Indigenous societies can address the historical legacies of copyright exclusion that has plagued them for centuries and continues today. Additionally, the TK licenses and labels provide legal permission and non-legal educative classification options for proper management of Indigenous knowledge and cultural expressions. The structure of the TK licenses and labels help both Native groups and non-Indigenous people understand the legal and cultural measures of regulating the access and use of heritage materials (Anderson & Christen, 2013).
Since the repatriation of patrimonial items is not always tangible but instead virtual, Native peoples are collecting digital returns and using Mukurtu or similar software to create online archives where they can store and maintain items related to their history. The virtual returns of heritage materials can never match the physical objects. However, Indigenous communities are utilizing digital versions as an opportunity to reconnect to their heritage, maintain it, and restore their intellectual property rights while controlling how non-Indigenous individuals and third parties access cultural knowledge.
Bibliography
Anderson, J., & Christen, K. (2013). Chuck a Copyright on it: A Dilemmas of Digital Return and the Possibilities for Traditional Knowledge Licenses and Labels. Museum Anthropology Review 7(1/2), 104-126. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/mar/article/view/2169
De Jesus, N. (2014). “Locating the Library in Institutional Oppression.” In the Library with the Lead Pipe. http://www.inthelibrarywiththeleadpipe.org/2014/locating-the-library-in-institutional-oppression/
Joffrion, E., & Tom, L. (2016). Broken promises: A Case Study in Reconciliation. Archival Issues: Journal of the Midwest Archives Conference, 37(2), 7-22. http://search.ebscohost.com.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu/login.aspx?
Karuk Tribe, Hillman, L., Hillman, L., McLaughlin, A., Harling, A. R. S., & Talley, B. (2017). Building Sipnuuk: A Digital Library, Archives, and Museum for Indigenous Peoples. Collection Management, 42(3/4), 294-316. https://doi-org.proxy-um.researchport.umd.edu10.1080/01462679.2017.1331870
Nakata, M., Bryne, A., & Nakata, V. (2005). Indigenous Knowledge, the Library and Information Service Sector, and Protocols. Australian Academic & Research Libraries, 36(2), 9-24. http://search.ebscohost.com.proxyum.researchport.umd.edu/login.aspx
The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) October 05, 2019, https://www.nps.gov/archeology/tools/laws/nagpra.htm
Protocols for Native American Archival Materials. (April 09, 2007). http://www2.nau.edu/libnap-p/protocols.html
Society of American Archivists. (September 14, 2018). https://www2.archivists.org/statements/saa-council-endorsement-of-protocols-for-native-american-archival
Traditional Knowledge (TK) Labels. Accessed October 08, 2019. http://localcontexts.org/tk-labels/
Erica T. GreshaM
identifies as a Black woman, and received her Master of Library Information Science two years ago. She works as a federal contractor and is making efforts in the ever-growing cannabis industry.
To learn more about her, check out her Linktree.