https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8427-1198
![Sample our Museum and Heritage Studies journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5945/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Museum-Heritage-Studies.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper examines ongoing challenges facing Indigenous peoples and their heritage, the consequences of inadequate heritage protection, and new initiatives that counter this. Indigenous scholars, tribal leaders, and others have done much to educate outsiders as to their heritage values and ways of life. My goal is to identify areas where governments, industry, the public, and even academic researchers have failed to understand this. I first examine seven significant challenges: 1) heritage site destruction and disturbance; 2) repatriation of ancestral remains; 3) unauthorised study of ancestral remains; 4) restrictions on access to or protection of sacred places; 5) dismissal of oral histories and traditional knowledge; 6) cultural appropriation and commodification; and 7) limited consultation or participation in heritage management. I then review six areas where informed and innovative actions are providing effective, respectful, and responsible heritage protection therein: 1) Indigenous participation, decision making and benefits flow; 2) Indigenous intellectual property; 3) research ethics; 4) new applications of archaeological methods; 5) policy development and implementation; and 6) corporate responsibility, public outreach and education.
Acknowledgments
I thank Hirofumi Kato and Joe Watkins for their contributions, two anonymous reviewers and Laurajane Smith for detailed comments and suggestions, and Larry Zimmerman for continuing to show me the way
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes
2. For example, the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property (http://portal.unesco.org/en/ev.php-URL_ID=13637&URL_DO=DO_TOPIC&URL_SECTION=201.html).
3. Carcross-Tagish First Nation, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, Ta’an Kwach’an Council, Tr’ondek Hwech’in First Nation, S. Greer, and C. Bell (2016: 37). Yukon First Nations Heritage Values and Resource Management – Perspectives from Four Yukon First Nations: IPinCH Case Study Final Report. IPinCH Project. https://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/sites/default/files/resources/reports/yfn_ipinch_report_2016.pdf.
4. There are of course not only substantial differences between Indigenous groups, but also within them, which is especially important to recognise regarding ‘community’ engaged research (see Waterton and Smith Citation2010).
5. See Grey and Kuokkanen (Citation2020) for discussion on why co-management of Indigenous heritage is problematic.
6. In some countries, such as the United States, no protection is available for heritage sites on private property or freehold land.
7. English translation of the court proceedings in M. Levin, (1999), ‘Kayano et al. v. Hokkaido Expropriation Committee: “The Nibutani Dam Decision”’. International Legal Materials 38: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1635447.
8. E. Pearson, 2020. ‘Heartbreak in the Juukan Gorge: “Embarrassingly out of Kilter” Law Destroys 46,000-Year-Old Aboriginal Sacred Sites.’ Art Antiquity & Law 25 (2). https://go.gale.com/ps/anonymous?id=GALE%7CA633608159&sid=googleScholar&v=2.1&it=r&linkaccess=abs&issn=13622331&p=AONE&sw=w.
10. There has also been extensive destruction of non-Indigenous heritage sites due to development and resource extraction, antiquities looting, andi political action and conflict: the deliberate destruction of the Bamiyan Buddhas in 2001 was an act condemned as ‘a crime against history’. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_destroyed_heritage.
11. This is complicated when the descendants are the ones doing the digging (i.e. ‘subsistence digging’ [Hollowell Citation2006]), reaping the benefits provided by their ancestors.
12. Increasingly, it is the Indigenous partners who are not only guiding or providing the research direction, but deciding what information they want to share and want to keep private.
13. Some geneticists seem oblivious to this, as evidenced by K. Powell’s article “How a field built on data sharing became a Tower of Babel’ (Nature 590: 198–201) – see Tsosie et al’s response, ‘Genomics data: The broken promise is to Indigenous people’ (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-00758-w), and now a new problematic paper by Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al., ‘Ethics of DNA research on human remains: five globally applicable guidelines’ (Nature 599: 41–46).
14. This confirmed what Native Americans had always contended.
15. p. 11, ‘Bringing the Ancient One home: Genetic data and the case for repatriating Kennewick Man.’ In DNA and Indigeneity: The Changing Role of Genetics in Indigenous Rights, Tribal Belonging, and Repatriation, edited by A. Walker, B. Egan, and G. Nicholas. Symposium Proceedings. https://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/sites/default/files/resources/reports/dna_symposiumproceedings_2016.pdf.
16. There is also the widespread perception that the” truth” resides in science, not Indigenous thought.
17. Bruchac’s ‘On the Wampum Trail’ is an exemplary example of both historical and restorative research on the dispossession and repossession of Indigenous patrimony and its materiality: https://wampumtrail.wordpress.com.
18. This office is responsible for oversight of archaeological heritage in the province and for issuing permits for both research purposes and for site alternation (i.e. development) of protected sites.
19. This refers to information obtained from such outside sources as school books, mission schools, or even ethnographies passed off (unknowingly or otherwise) as traditional knowledge.
20. See https://theconversation.com/its-taken-thousands-of-years-but-western-science-is-finally-catching-up-to-traditional-knowledge-90291; https://theconversation.com/an-uneasy-alliance-indigenous-traditional-knowledge-enriches-western-science-109212.
21. Cultural appropriation is globally widespread, affecting, for example, the Saami (https://www.migranttales.net/cultural-appropriation-of-saami-in-northern-europe-make-as-much-noise-as-you-can/#jp-carousel-45695); Masaai (https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/fashion/maasai-people-cultural-appropriation-luxury-fashion-retailers-louis-vuitton-east-africa-intellectual-property-intiative-mipi-a7553701.html); Ainu (https://www.proquest.com/openview/12a59c6946c4142b5fb0da5bf0cedaa2/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=44156), Pacific Islanders (https://talanoa.com.au/what-does-cultural-appropriation-mean-for-pacific-people-2/), and many other Indigenous peoples.
22. Stewardship is Principle 1 of the Society for American Archaeology’s code of ethics: https://www.saa.org/career-practice/ethics-in-professional-archaeology.
23. See additional articles in the ‘Heritage and Community Engagement: Collaboration or Contestation?’ issue of the International Journal of Heritage Studies 16(1), 2010.
24. Although ‘consent’ is required in some jurisdictions (e.g. New Zealand and many Australian states), this may not meet the definition provided here.
25. However, outsiders have frequently served as strong advocates, advisors, and even activists for Indigenous groups (e.g. Clarke and Waterton Citation2015; Carlson Citation2019; Schmidt and Kehoe 2019).
26. ‘Dior pulls Native American-themed “Sauvage” ad after backlash for racism.’ Huffington Post,September1. https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/entry/dior-pulls-sauvage-johnny-depp_ca_5d69a14fe4b01108044f2cd0?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAGTy2ksBQpXTr2fTj0uok4Jx3u-wUEioH4aA0A6WpTdx9JBaceErz9FjigO_HrgGndKTKnAos1v8joFXKx_7DjX83bdlb4H5ixXJKsHlKP7lARV_LjkkqHmfgdxsjiUP_YtX0buIvpgOZNmkwQmDG6TDlappMxt0bo3ky3lsx0Wr.
29. This is problematic given that Australia, Canada, and the United States – countries with substantial Indigenous populations – are not signatories to the Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage.
30. That said, some view traditional knowledge and other forms of oral histories as unreliable (see Henige Citation2019; Mason Citation2006).
34. Such as the Society for American Archaeology.
36. This was the focus of the ‘Working Better Together’ Conference on Indigenous Research Ethics organised by the IPinCH Project: https://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/events/ipinch-events/working-better-together-conference-indigenous-research-ethics/.
37. A frequent model used to promote the moral obligations required of Indigenous-university partnerships is the Haudenosaunee Two-Row Wampum (Hill and Coleman Citation2019).
38. See, for example, D. Schaepe, S. Rowley, Stó:lō Xyolhmet S’olhetawtxw Sq’éq’ip (Stó:lō House of Respect Committee) Members, with D. Weston, and M. Richards. 2015. The journey home – Guiding intangible knowledge production in the analysis of ancestral remains. http://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/sites/default/files/resources/reports/the_journey_home_ver2_may2016.pdf.
40. In 2014, in response to threats to an Indigenous burial ground on Grace Islet, British Columbia, members of the IPinCH Project developed the ‘Declaration on the Safeguarding of Indigenous Ancestral Burial Grounds as Sacred Sites and Cultural Landscapes’ (2015) to influence heritage policy: https://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/sites/default/files/resources/declarations/declaration_safeguarding_indigenous_ancestral_burial_grounds.pdf.
41. https://www.mitsui.com/jp/en/sustainability/sustainabilityreport/2019/pdf/en_sustainability_2019.pdf.
42. But some are critical of such enterprises, as Horowitz (Citation2015) cautions with a New Caleddonia example.
43. Also see https://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/project-components/working-groups/cultural-tourism-working-group/.
44. See IPinCH’s Commodifications Working Group: https://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/project-components/working-groups/commodifications-cultural-heritage-working-group/; and Adrienne Keene’s Native Appropriations website: http://nativeappropriations.com.
45. https://www.sfu.ca/ipinch/resources/teaching-resources/think-before-you-appropriate/ This guide was recently translated into Japanese at the request of the Nibutani Ainu.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
George Nicholas
George Nicholas is Professor of Archaeology, Simon Fraser University; Professor, Global Institute for Collaborative Research and Education, Hokkaido University; and Senior Research Fellow, Flinders University. From 1991 to 2005 he developed and directed the premier Indigenous Archaeology program in Canada at SFU’s former campus on the Tk’e mlups te Secwepemc Reserve, Kamloops, BC. His research focuses on indigenous archaeology, intangible heritage and intellectual property, archaeological theory, and research ethics. in addition to field-based research on wetland archaeology and long-term hunter-gatherer land use. Nicholas directed the Intellectual Property Issues in Cultural Heritage (IPinCH) Project (2008-2016), a major interna¬tional research initiative that systematically explored ethical archaeological and heritage research methods and outcomes.