The Differing Meaning of Objects

The Differing Meaning of Objects

by | Oct 14, 2022 | The Differing Meaning of Objects

The Huron Missionary Museum operated from 1911 to 1941 at Huron College, with parts of the former museum collection now sitting in storage closets at Huron University.  Repatriation is no simple process and the collection descriptions left behind from the Museum’s past give little relevant information about the objects to go forth with repatriation. Maureen Matthews’ book, Naamiwan’s Drum: The Story of a Contested Repatriation of Anishinaabe Artefacts is a seminal work in the study of repatriation. Matthews is a Curator of Cultural Anthropology at The Manitoba Museum who brings forth the story of Naamiwan’s Drum to enlighten readers about the complex nature of repatriation. Naamiwan’s Drum is an Ojibwe water drum belonging to Naamiwan, a leader of the Pauingassi Ojibwe community before his death in 1943. [1] This drum was one of his most significant possessions. Around 1970, a collector claimed that he saved many Pauingassi objects from decay and brought them to the University of Winnipeg. [2] The University of Winnipeg Museum took ownership of these objects and treated them as proper museum artifacts. Taken out of its original context, the cultural meaning of the drum began to shift. Matthews argues that the cultural meaning of collections may not be as transparent as many believe and that museums must conduct thorough research to ensure they understand the cultural meanings of their objects. To many non-Ojibwe people, for example, Naamiwan’s Drum may simply appear as a historic percussion instrument. This makes the drum important, but no more so than any other historic instrument. To Ojibwe people, however, water drums, like Naamiwan’s Drum, are some of the most important historical objects. According to Matthews, they interpret the drum as an animate being, capable of having thoughts and feelings as well as influencing the community. Matthews explains how, when conducted poorly, repatriation can greatly harm source communities. This can happen when museums misunderstand the meaning of objects to the communities from which they came. Matthews brings forth Naamiwan’s Drum as an example of a museum neglecting to understand the meaning behind its objects and conducting harmful repatriation.

From a general perspective, Ojibwe do not believe that all objects are alive, rather, they believe certain objects can encapsulate the influence of important things in the world around them. While the Ojibwe people view most stones as inanimate, some stones, like a uniquely smooth one, can represent the presence of a living thing. [3] Ojibwe people thus hold more personal connection with animate objects like Naamiwan’s Drum because they see it as an animate being. Naamiwan’s Water Drum is thereby extremely meaningful to the Ojibwe people because it is an object with significant animate connections to Naamiwan, a member of the Ojibwe community.

Matthews’s book demonstrates how the meaning of objects can vary greatly between two different Ojibwe groups. Naamiwan’s Drum holds significance with the Pauingassi – to which Naamiwan belonged – because Water drums like Naamiwan’s are highly personal items to their owners and families. They accompany their owner to significant life events like healing rituals and cultural events while also providing spiritual guidance. [4] This creates a highly personal connection to the community and family to whom such objects belong. The University of Winnipeg put forth some commendable, although imperfect, efforts such as holding the animate objects in restricted storage so they would stay off display and not face unnecessary disturbance. However, when Naamiwan’s descendent Omishoosh visited the collection, his interactions with the objects did not meet the expectations of university staff who expected him to act in a more traditional Ojibwe way. They thus made incorrect assumptions that the Pauingassi people no longer practiced the culture of their ancestors. [5] When The Three Fires Midewiwin Ojibwe people approached the University to claim repatriation rights of the Pauingassi objects, the University agreed without contacting the Pauingassi. The University of Winnipeg decided that the Three Fires Midewiwin deserved the objects because they maintained more traditional aspects of their Ojibwe heritage. [6] By assuming the changing traditions of the Pauingassi meant they no longer held significant connection with their ancestors, the University of Winnipeg Museum irreparably harmed the source community of these objects.

The lesson that Matthews takes from these observations is that it is the responsibility of museums and collection holders to understand the meaning of objects with their home communities or risk causing greater harm through their mistreatment. In the case of Naamiwan’s Drum, the University of Winnipeg failed to fully understand the meaning of Pauingassi objects within their collection. They knew that the drum held significant value to the Ojibwe people but did not put forth efforts understand its meaning to the Pauingassi Ojibwe.

Rather than repatriating the objects to Three Fires Midewiwin Ojibwe, Matthews argues that a proper course of action in this process of repatriation would include practical relativism. Matthews describes practical relativism in relation to repatriation as researching and understanding the meaning of the object to communities connected with the item. [7] If the University of Winnipeg conducted practical relativism in their process of repatriating the Pauingassi collection, they would understand the continued meaning of such important objects to the community. This example shows that repatriation requires expert knowledge of the ideas and beliefs of the original owners of the objects in addition to well-maintained connections with source communities. Only then can a museum fully understand the meaning behind significant objects and make informed decisions. Without conducting practical relativism, museums risk misinterpreting or neglecting to consider the many different possibilities of object meaning. This can cause irreparable harm to stakeholder communities like the Ojibwe Pauingassi.

Matthews’ work demonstrates the importance of conducting repatriation in a good way. It is not as simple as repatriating objects to the first community who asks for them. Museums and collection holders must conduct extensive research, modeled by practices such as practical relativism and community connections, to understand the cultural beliefs of all stakeholders and properly identify the best course of action for each object.

Notes

[1] Maureen Matthews, Naamiwan’s Drum: The Story of a Contested Repatriation of Anishinaabe Artefacts (Toronto, ON: University of Toronto Press, 2016), 10.

[2] Matthews, Naamiwan’s Drum, 131.

[3] Matthews, Naamiwan’s Drum, 66.

[4] Matthews, Naamiwan’s Drum, 4.

[5] Matthews, Naamiwan’s Drum, 177-178.

[6] Matthews, Naamiwan’s Drum, 232.

[7] Matthews, Naamiwan’s Drum, 243.

Paternalism and Early Archaeology in Ontario

Paternalism and Early Archaeology in Ontario

by | Oct 7, 2022 | Paternalism and Early Archaeology in Ontario

This week’s post discusses how the professionalization of archaeology in Ontario created a culture of paternalism over Indigenous people. Archaeologists used these notions of paternalism to justify their desecration of Indigenous burial sites and non-consensual collection of artifacts. Western University historian, Michelle Hamilton’s book, Collections and Objections: Aboriginal Material Culture in Southern Ontario, 1791-1914. Hamilton’s work shows that professionalizing archaeologists viewed themselves in a paternal light in taking on the burden of another culture that they believed would soon be extinct. These sentiments of paternalism informed the founding of other Indigenous collections like the Huron Missionary Museum. At the heart of Hamilton’s book is David Boyle. Over his lifetime (1841-1911), Boyle served as secretary of the Ontario Historical Society, Curator of the Canadian Institute, and Curator of the Ontario Provincial Museum of Toronto. [1] In these capacities, Boyle travelled across Canada to visit Indigenous communities and collect artifacts to store and study them. Over his career, David Boyle became a major influence in moving archaeology away from a means of bolstering one’s cabinet of curiosity and toward a professional practice of scientific study and analysis. [2] Hamilton argues that the professionalization of archaeology falls into three general categories. Before 1851, there were few if any professional standards in archaeology. At this point, collectors mostly focused on expanding their cabinet of artifacts. The cabinet of curiosities describes typically private collections of artifacts aimed at collecting diverse and unique objects with little focus on education and more on prestige or personal fulfillment in aiming to collect an encyclopedia’s worth of items. [3] There was little consistency in how these collectors obtained and cared for their artifacts. From 1851-to 1884, the industry started moving toward standardizing practices. Some archaeologists formed the Canadian Institute and tried to bring some consistency in how archaeologists collected and kept artifacts. They began separating themselves from amateur archaeologists who had no standards in their methods of collecting and preserving. From 1884-to 1911, there was a further push toward standardizing archaeology and separation from amateurs. Boyle’s career spanned much of this later professionalizing period. However, this professionalization translated into expanded efforts for collecting Indigenous artifacts and disrespecting cultural beliefs in the name of scientific study. [4] In a sentiment that would go on to guide the work of many early professional archaeologists, Boyle felt that no item was off-limits so long as a professional collector aimed to study it for the benefit of scientific study and knowledge. [5] This view included the justification of desecrating Indigenous graves. Nearly all types of burials are sacred, and it is especially the case for many Indigenous peoples. They believe that the body has two spirits, one that leaves the body and one that remains to protect it. Disturbing the grave, including the body and the objects left with it, angers this spirit, and disrespects the beliefs of that person in death. [6] The expansion of professional archaeology and separation from amateurs justified excavations regardless of local support. Hamilton demonstrates how professionalizing archaeologists believed that they were the only people capable of accurately preserving the story of Indigenous people. Hamilton argues that Boyle saw Indigenous people as unable to care for their history: “By placing primacy on the archaeological and historical record, and an allegedly objective scholarly reading of both, Boyle could suggest that he, not Aboriginal community leaders, was the learned expert.” [7] Boyle saw himself as the expert on Indigenous history and argued that Indigenous histories belonged in the care of museums. He contended that modern Indigenous cultures had little connection to the Indigenous peoples of the past and thus had little reason to hold onto these artifacts. Essentially, Boyle did not trust Indigenous peoples to manage their history and took it upon himself to place their artifacts and remains in museums even if it was against their will. [8] These paternal sentiments of taking on the burden of another culture informed the founding of other collections like the Huron Missionary Museum. Huron University alumni, for example, went to Tanzania to open an Anglican school in 1913, only two years after the Huron Missionary Museum first opened. The school was originally named Huron College but soon after became St. Philips Theological Seminary. It trains local people in preparation for becoming ministers in the Anglican Church. [9] The first principal of the college was T.B.R. Westgate, a Huron College graduate and Anglican missionary. [10] In essence, the people on these early Huron College expeditions acted as paternal guides aiming to convert Indigenous Tanzanians toward their Christian beliefs. These missionaries acted similarly in some ways as archaeologists like Boyle had in propelling their beliefs on Indigenous cultures. As evidence of their work, Westgate and several other missionaries brought Indigenous artifacts back from their mission. Many of these artifacts ended up at the Huron Missionary Museum and Westgate’s name remains attached to many of them as a donor. There is little known about the circumstances in which missionaries collected the artifacts now found in the Huron Missionary Museum collection. However, many of the items remain in Huron University College as remnants of the school’s colonial legacy.

Notes

[1] Michelle A. Hamilton, Collections and Objections: Aboriginal Material Culture in Southern Ontario (Montreal, QC: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2010), 8. [2] Hamilton, Collections and Objections, 15. [3] Thomas Jefferson and Joyce Henri Robinson, “An American Cabinet of Curiosities: Thomas Jefferson’s ‘Indian Hall at Monticello,’” Winterthur Portfolio 30, no. 1 (1995): pp. 41-58, https://doi.org/10.1086/wp.30.1.4618481, 44. [4] Hamilton, Collections and Objections, 169. [5] Hamilton, Collections and Objections, 172. [6] Hamilton, Collections and Objections, 85-86. [7] Hamilton, Collections and Objections, 169. [8] Hamilton, Collections and Objections, 160-161. [9] Phanuel L. Mung’ong’o and Moses Mantonya, “The Anglican Church of Tanzania,” in The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to the Anglican Communion, ed. Ian S. Markham et al. (Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013), 210-211. [10] Gordon Goldsborough, “Memorable Manitobans: Thomas Buchanan Reginald Westgate (1872-1951),” Manitoba Historical Society, January 25, 2020, http://www.mhs.mb.ca/docs/people/westgate_tbr.shtml.
Introduction to the Huron Missionary Museum Project

Introduction to the Huron Missionary Museum Project

by | Sep 29, 2022 | Introduction

A model sleigh found in the Huron Missionary Museum collection. Photograph taken by Rémi Alie.

Prior to the City of London, the Anishinaabek, Haudenosaunee, and Lūnaapéewak peoples occupied these lands. It is important to acknowledge their continuous history and importance in this region.

Hello and welcome to this study on the history of the Huron Missionary Museum and the importance of repatriation. My name is Kevin den Dunnen and I am going in my fourth year at Huron University in the History program. I am looking forward to this project where I will explore the Huron Missionary Museum collection and the repatriation of colonial collections.

It is important to note that this project is a student work meant to open dialogue on the Huron Missionary Museum and the importance of repatriation. While funded by by a fellowship from Huron’s Centre for Undergraduate Research Learning, this project does not represent the view of Huron University College. However, I hope that it might encourage my university to consider the implications of this collection.

The Huron Missionary Museum operated from 1911 to 1941 as a small collection of artifacts donated by alumni and students of Huron University College who performed missionary work in Africa, Asia, and South America in the early twentieth century. [1] The school placed some of the collection on display in the Huron Missionary Museum to showcase the missionary influence of Huron University College. While no longer part of a museum, some of the collection remains in long-term protective storage within the depths of Huron University College.

This series of blog posts will illustrate the legacy of missionary collections as sites of justification for imperial influence through racist depictions of Indigenous communities as inferior peoples. It will place a particular focus on the Huron Missionary Museum and discuss its legacy of collecting Indigenous objects. The Huron Missionary Museum collection remains a part of the colonial legacy of universities in Canada. A strong way to begin healing a colonial history is by preparing to repatriate such collections by researching and properly documenting them.

Post by Post

This series will feature eight posts published weekly. Following this introduction, the next two posts will analyze two impactful books that focus on the meaning of cultural objects to Indigenous cultures. The first book is Collections and objections: Aboriginal Material Culture in Southern Ontario, 1791-1914, by Michelle Hamilton, a professor of history at Western University. The second book is Naamiwan’s Drum: The Story of a Contested Repatriation of Anishinaabe Artefacts, by Maureen Matthews, a curator of cultural anthropology at Manitoba Museum and adjunct professor at the University of Manitoba. Through analyzing object meanings to local communities, these works demonstrate the importance of repatriating colonial collections and will greatly add to the impact of this project.

Next, I’ll write about Huron University’s missionary connection in East Africa. Specifically, Huron University alumni by the name of T. B. R. Westgate and his major role in the creation of a theological school named Huron Training College. T. B. R. Westgate, partnered with the German East African regime during the period of the Maji Maji Uprising. Causing this Uprising was the institution of brutal labour practices forced upon Tanzanian peoples. To suppress the Uprising, German East Africa killed hundreds of thousands of Tanzanian people both during and after the Uprising.

The fifth post will demonstrate the damaging language found in the main inventory for the Huron Missionary Museum collection. One example is of a knobkerrie, or as the Huron Missionary Museum inventory describes it, a “Club Used for Infanticide.” The knobkerrie, however, is a common East African club designed for warfare and hunting. This demonstrates the inaccuracy of descriptions in the Huron Missionary Museum and how they damage the knowledge and reputation of origin cultures.

The next post will investigate another artifact to show the generic descriptions found in the Huron Missionary Museum database and how they can limit the potential for repatriation. This artifact in the Museum database is a “Six string Native Fiddle.” The inventory offers little other information outside of this basic description. This lack of information and the potential for music instruments to hold significant meaning for source communities increases the stakes for improper repatriation.

Post 7 will focus further on T. B. R. Westgate and his role as a leader of the Anglican residential school system in Canada after returning from his missionary work in East Africa. Westgate’s goal remained the assimilation of Indigenous people as he viewed their culture and beliefs as wholly inferior.

The eighth and final post will argue for the responsibility of institutions to engage in repatriating their colonial collections. While repatriation efforts do not always result in every object returning to its rightful community, institutions should do their best to make it right by their colonial pasts. Rather than think of this as an extraneous task, institutions should consider repatriation efforts as a normal process of decolonizing their institution. [3] 

Acknowledgements

Thank you to the CURL Fellowship program at Huron University College for supporting this project. This series would not be possible without the assistance, knowledge, and project inspiration provided by Professor Thomas Peace. I would also like to thank Professor Amy Bell, who guided some of my early ideas for the project and provided useful resources.

This upcoming series of blog posts would not be possible without the work of former Huron University College student, Rémi Alie. As part of Professor Amy Bell’s “The Historian’s Craft” at Huron, Alie created a catalogue for much of the remaining collections of the Huron Missionary Museum in 2015. In the final remarks of this project, Alie stated “How does this collection relate to the broader historiography of anthropology, collecting, and missionary work in Ontario?” [4] This series of posts will aim to answer the question and expand by bringing in the argument for repatriation.

Notes

[1] Kim Knowles et al., 150 Huron Memories, 1863-2013 (London, ON, Canada: Huron University College, 2013), 6.

[2] Ronda Allen, “The Museum of Ontario Archaeology,” Education Forum: The Magazine for Secondary School Professionals 36, no. 2 (2010): pp. 36-39, 36. “Wilfrid Jury’s Legacy: Wilfrid Jury (Part 5).” Museum of Ontario Archaeology, July 20, 2017. https://archaeologymuseum.ca/wilf_jury_5.

[3] Jordan Jacobs and Benjamin W. Porter, “Repatriation in University Museum Collections: Case Studies from the Phoebe A. Hearst Museum of Anthropology,” International Journal of Cultural Property 28, no. 4 (2021): pp. 531-550, https://doi.org/10.1017/s0940739121000400, 533.

[4] Rémi Alie, “Notes/Recommendations for Further Student Projects,” (unpublished, March 15, 2015).