An increasing number of UK museums have moved to instigate a clear and transparent policy on the handling, storage and exhibition of so called culturally sensitive materials. Such policies are, at present, the result of ethical guidelines rather than law. Concerns are being voiced about whether this consideration for cultural sensitivity has gone too far. The furthering of vital scientific knowledge, it appears, is being hampered by museums that restrict access to certain objects or documentation on the grounds of cultural sensitivity.
The Museum Association’s Code of Ethics fails to address this issue adequately. On the one hand it encourages museums to make their collections more accessible than ever before and at the same time, asks curators to “consider restricting access to certain specified objects where unrestricted access may cause offence or distress to actual or cultural descendants”.
In a recent article that appeared in the New Statesman, The Censoring of our Museums, Tiffany Jenkins wrote an impassioned criticism of UK museums that practice such restrictions asserting the opinion that “the quest for knowledge can be conducted with tact and sensitivity, but there should be no restrictions on the pursuit of intellectual inquiry”.
‘Culturally sensitive materials’ can include human remains and any objects associated with funeral rites, ceremonies or sacred objects plus photographs and documentation relating to these things.
Reasons for access restriction nearly always arise from the sacred and/or religious nature of the artefacts. In the case of some North American Indian Artefacts, certain objects are designated male or female and museums are often asked to implement such gender restrictions in regard to staff handling of these items. Examples of objects in this category might be war materials or objects such as puberty dresses used at gender-specific rituals.
“Women are also asked to limit their handling of specific objects during their menstrual cycles it is the belief of many tribal religions that a woman has very high energy levels, which could interfere with the energy contained in the objects,” according to New Methods in the Care of American Indian Artefacts by Kristina Dunman.
Broadly similar examples can be seen that relate to Australian Aboriginal items.
The return of artefacts to their place/culture of origin, or to the care of representatives of that culture, is known as repatriation. It is inextricably linked to the issues of censorship that Ms Jenkins explores in her article. It is practiced noticeably in North America, Canada and Australia where there still exist indigenous peoples whose wishes and needs have now been formally legislated for, particularly in regard to the return of human remains. It does not always entail the actual removal of artefacts from the museum and there are many examples where repatriated items often continue to be stored in the museum. Where this happens, the original cultural ‘owners’ often impart their knowledge of the objects’ correct usage and then dictate the nature of storage, handling and access. In such ways, the Museums Association says, they help to ‘preserve the cultural patrimony’ of the indigenous peoples. Access is becoming the controversial issue because it is the stipulated denial or restriction of access that is getting academic researchers hot under the collar.
Britain is in a slightly more complex position of course in that it has collections involving a vast number of different cultures from its colonial past and unlike North America, Canada and Australia, there are no indigenous peoples in situ whose wishes and needs have to be addressed by law.
It’s comforting perhaps, if not helpful, to remember that the issue of access restriction in museums is not a new one. Totally unrestricted access to the collections of museums and libraries has never been permitted in the history of museums and the reasons given for keeping people out range from dictatorial and patronising…
For example at the Imperial Public Library of St. Petersburg in the 1800s staff were instructed to restrict material with “morally harmful” content, especially fiction, to readers. Political works that the government censored were kept in a special room in the library and could be examined “only with good cause stated in a written application.” (The British Museum, “Access to Other Museums and Libraries’)
…to just plain ludicrous.
At the Imperial Library of Vienna in 1726, Charles VI made the library open to everyone with a recommendation to except “idiots, servants, idlers, chatterboxes and casual strollers.” (The British Museum, “Access to Other Museums and Libraries’)
There are cultures today that would agree with restricted access to ‘morally harmful’ material but in our modern western culture we would invariably see such an injunction as old fashioned and the antithesis of our more liberal views on freedom of information where it furthers understanding of human history and life.
Ms Jenkins points out that we now have higher expectations of our research institutions when she remarks,”how important it is to be able to overturn old orthodoxies. Museums…are arenas that should encourage profanity, so that we can question and contest all ideas.”
So what is the solution to this ethical dilemma about access? In Britain it seems inappropriate to legislate formally in the way that North America, Canada and Australia have done because of the absence of a resident indigenous populus. In any case, museums are increasingly opting to follow the route of repatriation of their own accord. They have found that entering into a two-way discussion with cultures about culturally sensitive items has resulted in trust and co-operation all round. They claim to have increased their understanding of cultures through their sympathetic handling of artefacts and human remains. In the cases where items are removed from the museum and returned to the cultural community, it’s a shame that those items are lost to view, but at least it’s cut and dried.
Where it seems to fall apart is with the situation of repatriated artefacts that the museum continues to store but is then not allowed to exhibit publicly. Are they hoping that one day the culture concerned will change its mind about this no-go policy? What is the point of a museum holding artefacts that cannot be viewed?
Museums have a duty to be non-partisan, even if they are specialising in one particular cultural area. They surely must choose to be objective about the artefacts in their care and anyone entrusting items to the care of museum should accept that it is the museum’s function to share that item with its visitors without arbitrary restrictions.
I can think of only one workable compromise and it is the current policy for tourists visiting Australia’s spectacular Uluru (Ayer’s Rock) monument. One of the possible ways to enjoy this attraction is to climb to the top and although fairly risky, this is not illegal. The local Aboriginal community requests that visitors respect their belief in the sacredness of the rock and refrain from climbing on it – this is an optional request not an edict and it is left to the individual to decide how they feel about this.
As in many situations where you give people a chance to use their own adult reasoning rather than dictating their actions, a significant number of people choose not to ‘trespass’ on the rock. It is perhaps a simplistic and idealistic solution but could this be a useful model for museums on the issue of access to sacred cultural artefacts?
For further reading and sources please see:
