On Friday, September 30, 2011, Glenbow Museum curator Gerry Conaty appeared on the CBC Radio 1 program "As It Happens" to defend and explain concerns over a recent auction of First Nations artifacts. As with many museums around the world, the Glenbow is strapped for both space and cash. In order to curate its 'core' collection, selected artifacts are being auctions off. The proceeds for this will go back into the museum to help curate existing collections. As curation is extremely expensive, this is one of the ways that Glenbow can circumvent the effects of decades of funding cuts at the provincial and federal level.
However, several First Nations leaders have complained that they were not consulted by Glenbow officials. They also accuse the museum of selling sacred objects such as tobacco pipe bags and eagle feathers (the latter cannot be sold or even collected under provincial law). In response, Conaty has explained that the consultation guidelines put in place by the province of Alberta require only that that the museum contact other cultural institutions to notify them of the auction. He went on to explain that many of the objects are unprovenienced - meaning that they were acquired in the 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's from collectors who did not provide such vital information like cultural affiliation, name of craftsperson, etc.
Aboriginal leaders have countered by saying that stylistic attributes such as beadwork patterning and makers marks could be used to identify families associated with the objects. These stylistic attributes would be analagous to the tartans that identify Scottish clans. The Glenbow has response to these criticisms by stating that it will investigate the matter further, and consult more widely before the rest of the objects are put on the auction block.
Please listen to the interview here:
http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/episode/2011/09/30/friday-september-30-2011/
Go to Part Three of the audio feed. The interview with Dr. Conaty starts at 17.55 min.
I would be interested to hear your comments on this story. Did the Glenbow museum do all it could in contacting First Nations communities to notify them of the auction? Did it go far enough in its' attempts to find families associated with these objects? Should museums auction off their collections to make up for budget cuts to cultural institutions at the Federal and Provincial Levels?
I always find these issues really difficult to put into black and white terms. However, letting First Nations groups know about this auction surely would have been a simple sign of respect to their culture?
ReplyDeleteThis story outrages me. It’s further abuse and racism against aboriginal and indigenous communities. The lack of consideration for these artifact’s creators is an example of a blatant disregard for human emotion and value (as well it’s a demonstration of racism via the inconsideration) …how could a museum curator think he was doing a good job? Conaty said himself “ I’m just not sure how we’d get in touch with everybody” How did someone get this position that has so little information? My guess is Gerry Conaty knows more than he is leading on and made an intentional effort to avoid giving these artifacts back to their owners. The Glenbow as well is committing a federal offence by trying to sell eagle feathers. This is nothing short of a money grab situation at the expense of minorities, who this curator assumed no one would care about.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the fact that these artifacts were probably illegally purchased through "private" collectors mean anything? what happens with normal stolen property when it's found? We give it back to it's owner! Not only do I think that there wasn’t enough effort put into trying to find the individual communities, I think the lack of effort speaks volumes as to the horrid ethics within the museum culture as a whole.
Museums (black market artifact shops) fall into the gritty field of ethno-pharmacology for me, in that these organizations have NO right to steal traditional artifacts or knowledge. It’s always like “ think of what we can do with this…” and it’s never “think of who were hurting by doing this”. The Albertan and Canadian government should (I’d Hoped) know better and have stricter guile lines. I hope these tomb raiders end up in jail! I would like to go to this mans house and steal an urn with his fathers ashes in it and sell it on e-bay.
It’s funny to me that Conaty claims to be expert enough to identify whether or not a pipe has been used, but he lacks the knowledge of how to get into contact with the people he's (apparently unofficially) representing, through the museums artifacts.
I may be one of the few aspiring archaeologists to say this but DOWN with all museums, Zoo’s and elitists; the world is not ours to put on display. We do not own it.
In an ideal world, museums would never find themselves in the situation where they are forced to sell artifacts. However, with the way things are, I think museums are completely justified in holding these auctions to liquidate their inventory. Museums do not have infinite amounts of space for storage or the funds needed to maintain the artifacts. The materials that are likely to be sold are ones from back storage from which no new information would be gained. For example, museums and cultural resource management companies have storage rooms full of unidentifiable bone fragments and fire broken rock that no longer serve a purpose. The revenue from these artifacts will go to supporting the core collections that attract thousands of admirers every year.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that Dr. Conaty did a good job representing the Glenbow Museum during the interview, mainly due to his passive tone. The museum contacted all of the native museums and cultural centers in Alberta to inform them of the auction. In what way could they have better reached these communities? Surely informing all individuals would be unreasonable considering the amount of resources it would take. Also through informing these places, indigenous people and organizations were given the opportunity to purchase or negotiate for the artifacts they wanted. Dr. Conaty also said that the museum would reexamine any artifacts that are speculated to be sacred or illegal.
The people that would privately buy these artifacts obviously have interest in, and care about, Alberta’s prehistory. These private collections will most likely be well taken care of and highly valued in the owner’s eye. Really, I would love to know when the next auction is so that I could own an authentic piece of history.
I would much rather see the Glenbow Museum selling off excess artifacts if it means that the museum will be able to continue providing a source of education for the public. Even if it means it will ‘ruffle some feathers’ because more will be gained through this venture then lost.
I think the that the idea of the Glenbow selling artifacts is extremely distasteful and poorly timed. I agree that certain collections should be transferrable from one institution to another (especially if they are going to a place where they will be used), however with the controversy surrounding First Nations artifacts, and the history that the Glenbow Museum has had with First Nation communities, it was very unwise to even mention that the museum would sell them off. Every effort should be made in order to provenience these artifacts and find the appropriate communities to send them to.
ReplyDeleteThis is not just a case of "ruffling" some feathers, this is the continuation of a serious problem faced by Museums and First Nations communities. For decades the mainstream society has collected artifacts from communities that some felt were "dying out", however, these communities are still living entities, and these "artifacts" are peoples material culture. These "artifacts" mean something to some people,and for the museum to try to make money by selling these artifacts is just wrong, and it is a sign that this Museum is becoming run down. If they are damaged, or deemed "garbage" by the the First Nations community, this would have never been an issue.
I think that the idea that these collections will go to private buyers is also disturbing. If you want a piece of prehistory, First Nations "artifacts" are the wrong things to collect, as these are living breathing cultures, and their historical good should belong with someone who is part of the community, and not to the highest bidder. The Glenbow needs to remember that it is not an auction house. It is an institution whose very existence serves to keep and preserve material culture, and to act as a bridge between different cultures, not to act as another large corporation, just trying to make a buck and attempting to function as cheaply as possible.
I believe that selling these artifacts is the wrong thing to go about getting money. If Glenbow is in need of money, there are other ways to go about it. These artifacts are someone's history as well as a countries history. They definitely should have made more of an effort to contact the First Nation communities of whom these artifacts belonged to. To say that they weren't sure who they all belonged to seems a little far fetched. I mean for the most part most of the artifacts (as stated by other First Nations) have some sort of markings on them to distinguish which group they belonged to. If that wasn't the case, it doesn't seem to difficult to contact First Nation groups and have them come in to identify any artifacts that belong to their group, also providing they give some sort of proof so artifacts are going to the wrong cultures.
ReplyDeleteThough I do think Contay was telling the truth about doing the best they could. It can't be easy to contact everyone to whom these artifacts may belong to.
But still the museum should not be selling artifacts.
Pete Here: Interesting discussions. However, I wouldn't come down too far on Glenbow. These are difficult issues to resolve because they are highly emotionally charged. Furthermore, Glenbow's hands are somewhat tied because of legislation which deems these objects as property of the crown.
ReplyDeleteHere's an interesting legal tidbit. In Canadian Law, if an object is intentionally abandoned, sold, or given away, it is no longer considered the property of the owner/maker. However, if the object is unintentionally lost - then found by someone else - that "someone else" is obligated to return the object to the original owner. If museum objects are considered "lost property" then the owners and their descendants are entitled to have them returned. However, if these items were sold to a collector, then they cannot be considered as "lost".
In archaeology, you could separate artifacts into those intentionally discarded (i.e things found in middens, burials) from those likely "lost" (i.e a projectile point found under a sleeping platform, or in the corner of a house). This is not so clear cut for museum collections, however. I would argue that items sold to collectors because aboriginal people desperately needed financial assistance, as was the case in Manitoba during the 1950's and 60's, should be returned to the original owners/families. Very challenging issues to resolve, but very interesting to discuss.
I think that the biggest issue a lot of people are having with this interview is Dr. Conaty's tone and probably choice of words. This is a hard issue to form a solid base to stand on in terms of defending one's self and the Glenbow because it will always cause a public stir. Personally I didn't know that museums sold artifacts and maybe many others in the public did not realize that as well. Perhaps better choices of words used or a more assertive tone on the part of Dr. Conaty could have created a more positive situation. Ultimately I don't think it is in the best interest of the public if the Glenbow is forced to shut down.
ReplyDeleteThe parts of the interview I found to be the most unsettling were Dr. Conaty's responses when asked about contacting the First Nations groups and selling the artifacts. Understandably it is difficult to contact each and every person but Dr. Conaty's responses made it appear as though he also felt more could have been done.
Overall I felt that Dr. Conaty was placed in a very difficult position. This is a hard issue to tackle, especially when the public may not be aware of the laws Dr. Dawson discussed. With issues such as these often times the public will grasp to the emotional side of the argument and may not fully understand the legality behind it. If Dr. Conaty had come across with a stronger voice and a solid response to everything asked, I feel like many of us would have a different attitude.
I understand the pressure placed on curators do to more with less money. The conservation, storage and care for artifacts is an incredible undertaking and it goes along with all the everyday costs of running a building, staffing, and maintenance. Places like the Glenbow also must seek out private donors and patrons just to stay afloat. It would seem that people are placing less and less importance on their history and viewing museums as more of a hindrance that a place to celebrate who we are. That translates into a lack of funding for places like museums, or it forces the government to prioritize which heritage sites get funding based on what is popular at the time.
ReplyDeleteWhile I see the auctioning off of artifacts that are lacking in provenience as a way for museums to obtain some of the funding they are lacking, obviously the guidelines surrounding the sale of these goods are not sufficient at the moment. This particular sale seems to have just done the bare minimum with reaching out to other museums that may have had room in their collections for these artifacts. Just because the people at the Glenbow could not recognize the pieces it does not mean that other experts could not recognize where they may have come from. Now people will not have access to these artifact any longer, and there is no way to ensure that they are being properly cared for in someone’s private collection.
I believe it is the museum's resplonsibility to deal with such kind of artifacts and keep in mind the history behind them. For instance, if the museum was to be selling artifacts of a now dead culture it wouldn't have generated such a scandal. Unfortunately, it seems, in this case, that it didn't matter whether these objects may have meant something or not. I blame the museum and the curator's choice to sell such artifacts without even taking into account their socio-cultural and religious significance. In the interview not only he seems to not know anything about their provenience, but clearly states that due to the need of funds he thought it was ok to auction these objects. I somewhat understand his intentions, but you simply can't do such a thing without taking into account several factors (provenience of the artifacts, social and cultural importance, and a possible reaction from the "owners" of these objects).
ReplyDeleteI think the main issue most museums are facing today is storage space. I'm not for the Glenbow museum selling off artifacts, but I can understand if the artifacts were being sold to other institutions for their collections so the public can enjoy them and learn from them. It would be better than having them in storage facilities packed away. The Glenbow museum recently donated (I think) a whole collection of Mesoamerican artifacts for the Nickel arts Museum. The archaeology department has the task of sorting through them and Dr. McCafferty found pots with what we believe to be human remains inside. These pots have been sitting in the Glenbow museum storage archives for how long?.. and they didn't even know what they had exactly. I think they could have handled the situation better with the Native American artifacts. Perhaps consulting with the locals better, but I believe that if they were to sell off artifacts to educational institutions or other museums who will put the artifacts on display or at least learn more about them than that would be great. I also think the money that they do get from selling artifacts should go to the staff they need to organize and set up new displays. I think I've gone to the Glenbow Museum about 10 times and their main exhibit seems to be always the same. If they circulated their artifacts more and informed the public maybe they would generate more revenue from the artifacts they have already in storage, instead of selling them off.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt is often much easier to consider what 'should have' or 'could have' been done to solve a particular problem, after the issue has already been addressed. Although it is disheartening that the First Nations were not consulted, it is also a harsh reality that the Glenbow i sstruggling with finances. Undoubtedly it would be upsetting for the First Nations, but would have consulting before auctioning off the artifacts changed the fact that the Glenbow does not have enough space or funds to curate? The only direction to go from here is to prevent this from happening in the future, and perhaps developing a systematic way of communicating these issues with the First Nations before having the auction.
ReplyDeleteI think this unfortunate situation is telling of deeply rooted issues in greater Canadian society. The fact that funding is being cut and different options to receive funds are limited and the 'consultation guidelines' do not necessarily require the First Nations to be consulted, can be indicative of priorities and the cumulative effects of Canada's history.
The First Nations should have been consulted before anything should have been auctioned off. Understandably the Museum is not getting as much funding but that is the state of numerous museums. Any artifcats that have to do with any group should always be consulted before anything is auctioned. It would most likely assist in narrowing down the amount of anger and disruption that occured. In regards to the interview what I noticed the most was the tone of voice of Dr. Conaty. Whenever the interviewer pushed he seemed to get more and more annoyed but can you really blame that people are angry with what happened. With not having enough space in the museum maybe some of those artifacts they auctioned off could have been given back to the First Nations groups that the artifcats came from. I know where I am from the museum there has some First Nations artifacts but not many to upset the group there since they wanted their own museum. It is difficult not to offend people but maybe by making consultations some of the anger that occcured will not happen again.
ReplyDeleteWhile I definitely think Dr. Conaty could have given a better interview with CBC, I see the arguments on both sides of this issue, and I don't think it's entirely fair to be really harsh towards the Glenbow. Like others have mentioned, storage becomes an issue in museums where collections are properly growing, and unfortunately the ways of dealing with excess materials is not always tactfully deal with. I understand completely the anger of First Nations people who find this insulting, but I also think they need to consider the position of the Glenbow. What should be considered instead perhaps is how these materials came into the possession of the Glenbow, and the political correctness that surrounds that issue. I think a larger discussion needs to take place here that supercedes this singular issue, such as the presence of long ago acquired artifacts and their place in modern museums, like the Elgin marbles at the British museum.
ReplyDelete