Objects are a big part of how we tell our story. They carry on the memories of the makers.
—Jordan Dresser1
IN 2013 A SMALL lecture series on archaeology at a museum in Miami was attended by members of the Seminole Tribe of Florida’s Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (NAGPRA) Committee. At the time, the NAGPRA committee was earnestly consulting on a repatriation case to return ancestors home who were then housed at a large university museum. The remains of these individuals were acquired during a dark period of US history when large numbers of human remains, sacred objects, and grave goods were taken through the heinous acts of violence, grave robbing, religious suppression, and annihilation. The remains held at this particular museum, and under review by the NAPGRA committee, were of women and children who died during their forced removal from their homelands, as well as warriors whose crania had been removed by physicians on the battlefield during the Seminole War period as a way to further study what some considered “inferior” groups of people.2 As the repatriation case continued, the NAGPRA committee respectfully asked that although the remains of these individuals remained in the museum’s collection, any analysis or research on them (including publications and presentations) be halted out of respect for the tribe’s ancestors. The request was denied at the time.
The NAGPRA committee attended this lecture series for one main reason—to observe a presentation of a graduate student’s research project on the Seminole ancestral remains that were in the university museum’s collection. The NAGPRA committee, along with members of the public, sat through the presentation, which shared culturally sensitive photographs and scientific analysis that was done outside of consultation with the tribe, and subsequently contra dicted oral histories and traditional cultural views. It was in the name of science that the remains of these individuals had been taken from their resting places and almost two hundred years later, Western science was still interpreting them without consultation with the tribe.3
This experience is shared to illuminate some of the critical challenges that museums face—how to manage, care for, and consult on culturally sensitive and sacred objects in their collections. Although the terrain is not always easy to navigate, museums should exercise inclusivity in all of their spaces by welcoming the voices of source and descendent communities and learning how to integrate an object’s cultural context with care protocols. Outside of specific laws, museums are not generally required to consult with culturally affiliated groups, which in many ways has allowed for the continuation of colonial interpretations. Therefore, adoption of strong ethical and social justice standards will help guide the care and disposition of sacred objects. While the following guidelines and best practices offer a road map for care, it is important to note that this subject matter deserves thoughtful consideration and consultation, which may be unique to each object.
We are asked to fit the sacred realm into a tidy box so that others can manage our cultural property through policy.
—Sven Haakanson, Jr.4
Sacred and culturally sensitive objects have come to museums through many different means. As previously noted, some of these objects were collected under painful and traumatic circumstances. Other sacred objects may be on loan to a museum, some were created with the intention of exhibition or display, whereas others were purchased or received through donation from a cultural or religious group.5 There are several important questions that should be explored by museums as they develop policies that guide the care of culturally sensitive and sacred objects. The first and foremost question is, what is sacred or essential to a culture?6
How do the staff of a museum know what is sacred or religious within their collections? There is no one-size-fits-all definition for sacred and culturally sensitive objects, which understandably has caused some apprehension within the museum community. If the definition itself is unclear, then could any object be deemed sacred in a museum’s collection? Although that is an unlikely scenario, it does raise a valid concern for those museums trying to better identify the objects in their collections. The key to understanding which objects are sacred is that museum staff must work closely with present-day cultural authorities in groups affiliated with the objects. Museums must be guided by the principle that “authenticity, authority, and expertise sit outside the museum as well as within it.”7 Fostering the idea that we are merely custodians of collections and not owners allows for the inclusion of spiritual and traditional cultural practices, which, in return, provides a path for reconciliation and relationship building among source communities.
Culturally sensitive and sacred objects come under the larger category of cultural property. Cultural property can include either tangible or intangible evidence or expressions of cultural heritage. Sherry Hutt writes that, “cultural property is so central to personal identity that the International Conference on Cultural Property Rights of the United Nations termed it ‘ethnocide’ to withhold or destroy cultural property.”8
As a starting point for museums, several working definitions may prove useful. Both NAGPRA and the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) Act define sacred objects as:
Specific ceremonial objects which are needed by traditional Native American religious leaders for the practice of traditional Native American religions by their present-day adherents.9
NAGPRA legislation provides definitions for human remains and culturally sensitive objects, including funerary objects, and objects of cultural patrimony.10
The Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa defines culturally sensitive objects as:
Objects or types of objects about which people of the culture from which the objects originate have concerns about the objects’ present and future use, care, and possession.11
The Canadian Conservation Institute’s (CCI) Preventive Conservation Guidelines for Collections online resource defines sacred and holy objects in this way:
“Sacred” may include objects or places that are venerated, consecrated, dedicated or protected. “Holy” is often associated with a religion or a deity. Although not all ceremonies, or the objects used in them, are religious, they may remain highly culturally significant. Sacred places and objects may be revered in a larger sense, such as those associated with the actions of cultural ancestors, or those used in the individual sense of “sacred to the memory of.”12
Cultural significance attached to an object can change over time so it is important for museums to acknowledge the fluidity of cultural values. The CCI guidelines go on to say that it is not just “the original situation or intended use of the object that determines whether it is regarded today as sacred/sensitive heritage, but the intervening passage of time and events.”13
Cultural affiliation determines which individual or group will be the owner or steward of culturally sensitive and sacred objects. It is through this identifying link that tribes, religious, or cultural groups can request particular care, treatment, and disposition of sacred objects.
In 2017, the Seminole Tribe of Florida’s NAGPRA Committee was confronted with several challenges during a repatriation claim of twenty-seven sets of human remains. The tribe had presented several lines of evidence to support cultural affiliation for these remains including oral histories, historical records, and ancestral land evidence. When the claim was submitted to the holding museum, the museum largely denied the request, and was only willing to repatriate four of the twenty-seven sets of human remains. All of the individuals had been removed from their original resting places in the state of Florida, yet the museum claimed that there was not a preponderance of evidence to support cultural affiliation for the remaining twenty-three. Furthermore, because not all of the remains had been originally labeled as Seminole in the archaeological record, but only identified as prehistoric, the museum asserted that they held no lineal or historic connection to the Seminole Tribe of Florida. In an effort to provide additional evidence of cultural affiliation, additional oral histories were shared about the tribe’s long ancestral connection to the state of Florida. After hearing these oral histories museum staff asked if they had been written down as it would prove stronger evidence of cultural affiliation for the review committee if the oral histories had been published in a book.14 As of 2019, cultural affiliation for the twenty-three individuals was still in dispute. Determining cultural affiliation can be a taxing and complex process, as seen in this example. Not all sacred and culturally sensitive objects were acquired by legal or ethical means. Records indicating the object’s purpose or cultural context may be lost or may never have existed in the first place. Inaccurate identification of cultural groups by the original collector is not uncommon.
Cultural affiliation can be determined in a number of ways including looking at geographical and ancestral lands, kinship or biological connections, archeological evidence, linguistics, folklore, oral histories, and historical or religious records.15 All of these lines of evidence are to be weighed equally. Museum staff must also recognize the cultural authority and collective knowledge of affiliated groups and that these groups have the right to define their own cultural practices and belief systems.
Under NAGPRA, cultural affiliation is defined as:
A relationship of shared group identity which can be reasonably traced historically or prehistorically between a present-day Indian tribe or Native Hawaiian organization and an identifiable earlier group.16
The first step collection management staff should take to determine cultural affiliation is to review all existing documentation and records associated with the object. If there is missing information or the affiliation is inconclusive, additional research may be necessary. Conducting new research should be done in good faith and guided by inclusive practices.17
Knowledge of basic human rights and legal rights is critical to the identification of culturally affiliated groups and the treatment and disposition of culturally sensitive and sacred objects. NAGPRA and the NMAI Act provide a process for cultural objects to be returned to lineal descendants and culturally affiliated Indian tribes and Native Hawaiian organizations. In addition to these two laws, museum staff must be knowledgeable about human and civil rights to ensure that no laws have or will be violated during acquisition, treatment, and disposition.
It is through active consultation between museum staff and culturally affiliated groups that decisions on care and disposition are made. Consultation is a critical nexus to building relationships and provides a process for meaningful dialog with the affected groups. It is an opportunity for full expression of views from both the museum and the affiliated groups. Consultation is a legal requirement under NAGPRA, but experiences with consultation vary greatly, from very good to very poor.18
According to the National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, “mutual respect must be the basis upon which successful consultation builds, and that coming to a final agreement is not as important as building ongoing channels of communication.”19 The quality of consultation is not solely based on the outcome but on the commitment and respectful exchange of views.
Although successful consultation may take on different forms it should incorporate the following baseline practices:
Successful consultation may not involve all of these practices. Each meeting, phone call, or correspondence will be unique so it is only through meaningful dialog between museums and source communities that common ground can be found. Consultation can be emotional, uncomfortable, and difficult for all parties involved; and although it is oftentimes challenging, it is a responsibility that museums must not take lightly as it can be the first step to righting past wrongs and healing communities.
When museums work to follow the spirit of the law and are guided by sound ethical practices, they can make their best efforts to honor specific care requests made by a culturally affiliated group. The practice of properly caring for culturally sensitive and sacred objects places an extra emphasis on the human element of collections management. Ultimately, it should bring satisfaction to the museum staff to know that they were part of a process to properly protect or return sacred objects to their source communities.
Collection care guidelines will be unique to each museum and developed through their consultation efforts. It is worth noting that not all cultural groups believe that their sacred objects need specific care protocols.26 When developing collection care protocols, it is important that museum administration and staff are fully educated and in agreement about any special care considerations. Successful implementation of collection policy and procedures rely on all staff being well-informed.
In their NAGPRA handbook, Finding Our Way Home, the Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, in consultation with numerous tribes and museums from across the country, identified common requests that tribes have made to museums regarding how culturally sensitive or sacred objects should be cared for:27
The US Holocaust Memorial Museum has integrated certain protocols for complying with Jewish religious law to appropriately care for their Judaica collections. Objects that fall under the category tashmishey kedusha (“accessories of holiness”) are given extra care and consideration. Examples include:28
The integration of traditional cultural practices and treatments—while still maintaining appropriate levels of collections care—requires a balance of ethics, logistics, and available resources. Museums must work with affiliated cultural groups to know what can and cannot be done. For example, is it possible for a museum to reorientate a statue of the Buddha so that the Buddha’s head is higher than surrounding objects? What about the inclusion of ceremonial feedings or offerings in an exhibit or collections storage area? Will a museum allow for smudging or smoking of culturally sensitive objects? Although many requests by cultural or religious groups may be a simple change and do not pose concerns (e.g., changing the type of materials an object is housed in), some may be more complex, needing time and resources to accommodate. Not all requests can be implemented due to constraints such as space restrictions or federal regulations. However, thoughtful curation planning and policy development will provide a means for the museum and cultural or religious groups to arrive at common ground, ensuring that sacred and culturally sensitive objects are cared for in the most appropriate ways. Within these guidelines, museums should have steps in place to address traditional practice requests. The Department of Anthropology at the National Museum of Natural History has been incorporating specific cultural procedures to care for culturally sensitive objects since the 1980s. The museum has established a three-part process that includes evaluation, implementation, and record management:29
Museum staff or visitors may have questions about why they need to abide by these care protocols; it is not about the person’s personal belief in the cultural practices, “but asking them to respect those who do.”30 Although daunting at first, it is possible to find an effective balance between cultural care requests and traditional museum practices. Both the Alutiiq Museum and Archaeological Repository in Kodiak, Alaska, and the Ah-Tah-Thi-Ki Museum in Clewiston, Florida, are tribal museums that have received accreditation with the American Alliance of Museums. Both museums successfully navigate Western museum standards of care with the recognition and incorporation of traditional cultural methods and practices through their own internal guidelines and policies.31
There is much discussion within the museum community about the accessibility of culturally sensitive and sacred objects. The topic of accessibility is twofold: Providing increased access for culturally affiliated and source communities and accommodating restricted access to sacred and culturally sensitive objects. It is a challenging subject that can produce ethical dilemmas as museums search for a balance between their missions as public trust institutions and their responsibilities to be inclusive of an object’s cultural, sacred, and religious significance.
During consultation, representatives may request increased access to culturally sensitive, religious, or ceremonial objects. These objects may eventually be repatriated or they may stay under the care of the museum for perpetuity—as seen at the Australian Museum. Chief Jerry Taki, Ni-Vanuatu leader and traditional owner from the island of Erromango, was asked by then Director of the Australian Museum, Frank Howarth, if the people of Vanuatu would want the extensive Vanuatu collections to be repatriated back to them. Chief Jerry Taki responded no, and that it was good that the museum was caring after their objects, and that, “as long as the Ni-Vanuatu people have access to their objects then he was satisfied that they stay where they are.”32
Some museums have implemented long-term loan agreements as a way that culturally affiliated groups can have access to a sacred object for use in ceremonies or religious practices within their own communities. The Minnesota Historical Society states in their NAGPRA and Culturally Sensitive Objects Policy that, “the Society will make decisions regarding loans of culturally sensitive and sacred objects in consultation with the appropriate tribes. Loans will not be made if written permission from the appropriate entity cannot be obtained. Temporary or long-term loan of the Society’s culturally sensitive objects to their home communities for use in that community will also be considered.”33
Certain restrictions to sensitive information and the handling or viewing of sensitive objects may be requested through consultation. There are many ways that museum staff can accommodate access restrictions:
The 1997 exhibit Baule: African Art/Western Eyes, held at the Yale University Art Gallery in corporation with the Museum for African Art in New York, successfully demonstrated how cultural viewing restrictions were accommodated during an exhibition. The exhibit, co-curated by Susan Vogel and native Baule researcher Koffi Nguessan, allowed the Baule artworks to be “seen both in the distinctive ways intended by their creators and in the traditional Western museum manner.”36 Several of the objects presented in the exhibit were placed into gender restricted spaces to honor their role in Baule sacred rituals. Although visitors were given full access to the exhibition, many of them chose to respect the restricted areas.37
There are debates, however, within the museum community concerning whether access restrictions should or should not be allowed. These debates stem from the foundational belief that it is a museum’s responsibility to hold objects within the public trust. Some argue that to restrict access to sacred or culturally sensitive objects would take away a visitor’s opportunity to be exposed and learn from the heritage of our collective humanity.38 Museums should not be servants to any one political or religious agenda so giving the “right to religious freedom for a few over the right to intellectual freedom of the academic community as well as the education of the general public” places museums in a contradictory role.39 These differences in belief shape how museums manage access to culturally sensitive objects and their information. Consultation is an appropriate time to inform cultural or religious groups of the institution’s protocols on recordkeeping and access so that an informed decision on what information will be shared can be made.
The changes we see happening in museums surrounding culturally significant collections are encouraging. As stewards of cultural heritage, museum professionals should continue to embrace an inclusive approach to collections care that not only supports the diversity of their constituencies, but also provides strong guidance on how best to care for, conserve, handle (or not handle), and exhibit sacred and culturally sensitive objects. It may seem overwhelming to begin the transition to inclusive care practices, but even small, meaningful steps can prove rewarding. When developing care policies and procedures, remember these key points:
Although cultural property and human rights laws will guide the development of collection care policies, a museum’s ethical obligations must also take precedence. The ways in which culturally sensitive and sacred objects are cared for do not always conform to what the field considers traditional museum preservation practices and may actually lead to the nonpreservation of an object or reburial of an object. Each care decision will be unique and should be based on consultation with culturally affiliated groups.
Museums are incredible places to learn and expand knowledge, and it is a museum’s foundational responsibility to preserve the knowledge held within their collections. Yet information associated with culturally sensitive and sacred collections is not always represented truthfully, tainted with colonial narratives that disregard their often traumatic histories. Through thoughtful research and meaningful consultation, museums can preserve accurately both the tangible and intangible properties of these objects by engaging with source and descendent communities. The hope is that the relationships built will not just guide the care of sacred objects but influence all facets of a museum. Involving cultural authorities and communities will lead to diverse and rich experiences that will, no doubt, have a profound impact on staff and visitors alike. •
1. Jordan Dresser, “What Was Ours,” DVD, directed by Mat Hames (Austin: Alphgeus Media, Inc., 2016).
2. D. deBeaubien and K. Macuen, “Bringing the Ancestors Home,” in We Come for Good: Archaeology and Tribal Historic Preservation at the Seminole Tribe of Florida, edited by P. N. Backhouse, B. Weisman, and M. B. Rosebrough, pp. 236–254 (Gainesville: University Press of Florida, 2017).
3. Lecture attended by author in 2013 at the National Archaeology Day event, Lowe Art Museum.
4. S. Haakanson, “Understanding sacredness: Facing the challenges of cultural change,” in Stewards of the Sacred, edited by L. J. Sullivan and A. Edwards, pp. 123–128 (Washington, DC: American Association of Museums, 2004).
5. A. Edwards, “Care of sacred and culturally sensitive objects,” in Museum Registration Methods, 5th ed., edited by R. A. Buck and J. A. Gilmore, pp. 408–425 (Washington, DC: American Association of Museums, 2010).
6. R. McCoy, “Is NAGPRA irretrievably broken?” 2018. Available at: https://culturalpropertynews.org/is-nagpra-irretrievably-broken/ (accessed April 20, 2019).
7. See W. R. West, “The National Museum of the American Indian: Steward of the sacred,” in Stewards of the Sacred, edited by Sullivan and Edwards, pp. 7–18.
8. S. Hutt, C. M. Blanco, W. E. Stern, and S. N. Harris, Cultural Property Law. A Practitioner’s Guide to the Management, Protection, and Preservation of Heritage Resources (Chicago: American Bar Association, 2004).
9. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FHPL_NAGPRA.pdf (accessed April 20, 2019).
10. See CHAPTER 7F, “NAGPRA Compliance.”
11. Available at: https://collections.tepapa.govt.nz/category/323742 (accessed February 10, 2019).
12. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/conservation-institute/services/preventive-conservation/guidelines-collections/caring-sacred-culturally-sensitive-objects.html#a3 (accessed February 10, 2019).
13. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/conservation-institute/services/preventive-conservation/guidelines-collections/caring-sacred-culturally-sensitive-objects.html#a3 (accessed February 10, 2019).
14. Author’s personal experience, 2017.
15. Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act, 25 U.S.C. 3001 et seq. Available at: https://www.nps.gov/history/local-law/FHPL_NAGPRA.pdf (accessed June 2, 2019).
16. 25 U.S.C. 3001 (2).
17. Edwards, “Care of sacred.”
18. B. M. Mueller, “Consultation and compliance: Then and now,” in We Come for Good, edited by Backhouse et al., pp. 255–272.
19. National Association of Tribal Historic Preservation Officers, “Tribal consultation: Best practices in historic preservation,” 2005. Available at: http://www.nathpo.org/PDF/Tribal_Consultation.pdf.
20. Mueller, “Consultation and compliance.”
21. National NAGPRA, 43 CFR 10.2 (e).
22. E. Hemenway, M. E. Henry, and A. L. Holt, Finding Our Way Home: A Handbook for Tribes, Universities, Museums and Individuals Working Towards Reparation under NAGPRA (Harbor Springs, MI: Little Traverse Bay Bands of Odawa Indians, 2012). Available at: http://www.ltbbodawa-nsn.gov/Arch/NAGPRA%20LTBB%20Manual.pdf (accessed June 10, 2019).
23. Edwards, “Care of sacred.”
24. Available at: https://americanindian.si.edu/explore/collections/conservation/pesticides (accessed June 10, 2019).
25. Edwards, “Care of sacred.”
26. G. Flynn, and D. Hull-Walski, “Merging traditional indigenous curation methods with modern museum standards of care,” Museum Anthropology 25, no. 1 (2001): 31–40.
27. Hemenway et al., Finding Our Way Home.
28. D. Butler, “Museum approaches to Judaica: The forgotten spoils of the Nazi plunder of Europe” (master’s thesis, Seton Hall University, 2017).
29. Flynn and Hull-Walski, “Merging traditional.”
30. Available at: https://www.canada.ca/en/conservation-institute/services/preventive-conservation/guidelines-collections/caring-sacred-culturally-sensitive-objects.html#a3 (accessed February 10, 2019).
31. See S. Haakanson, “The Alutiiq Museum’s guidelines for the spiritual care of objects,” in Stewards of the Sacred, edited by Sullivan and Edwards, pp. 155–166.
32. F. Howarth, “Decolonizing the museum mind,” 2018. Available at: https://www.aam-us.org/2018/10/08/decolonizing-the-museum-mind/ (accessed March 7, 2019).
33. Minnesota Historical Society, “NAGPRA and Culturally Sensitive Objects Policy,” 2013. Available at: http://sites.mnhs.org/library/sites/sites.mnhs.org.library/files/NAGPRA%20Policy%20Final.pdf (accessed June 17, 2019).
34. See Flynn and Hull-Walski, “Merging traditional.”
35. Edwards, “Care of sacred.”
36. S. M. Vogel, “Baule: African Art Western Eyes,” African Arts 30, no. 4 (1997): 64–77.
37. R. Hartfield, “Seeing and silence: Sacred encounter in museum exhibition,” in Stewards of the Sacred, edited by Sullivan and Edwards, 51–56.
38. T. Jenkins, Keeping Their Marbles. How the Treasures of the Past Ended Up in Museums and Why They Should Stay There (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016).
39. Edwards, “Care of sacred.”