Reflection on Workshop I

Ethnographic museums in Europe have been part of long, urgent and protracted debates about questions of representation and recognition of the lifeworlds of the many peoples globally whose heritage objects they care for. In recent years these debates have become even more contested, as questions of decolonization and of restitution are increasingly being placed on the agenda by many activists out – and- inside museums. These calls could be seen as tied to broader national and international questions about how to come to terms with the afterlives of slavery and colonialism in the present. As Wereldmuseum, we have been part of diverse conversations triggered by and in response to these questions, to help shape the museum that we want to become. And we will continue this work, mindful of the diverse projects and programmes we have planned for the coming years. We have identified several themes that will shape what we do and in line with some of the major projects that we have set out for ourselves in the coming years.

One important project is the renovation of Wereldmuseum Leiden, we hope to open a new museum in the first quarter of 2029. What stories will we tell and what approaches will we employ in telling these stories? Arguably more importantly, from whose perspective will these stories be told? What objects will be on display and how will they be displayed? If the ethnographic museum has long privileged Eurocentric narratives and narrative forms, what role do Indigenous and other peoples from whom objects originated play in storytelling. How to tell of the foundational role that colonialisms and slavery have played in shaping the museum and its collections, the world we are living in today, but importantly, its damaging effects on the lifeworlds of Indigenous and other colonized peoples and their descendants? And what role might current scholarship play in this telling, for example scholarly interests in more-than-human worlds. At the core of the concerns for the refurbishment, is how to tell the story of Indigeneity, of Indigenous worlds and practices of worldmaking, that are supportive of Indigenous politics of sovereignty, especially mindful of the  museums own implicatedness in colonialism’s infrastructure? In fact, we see Indigeneity as one of the key pillars for a refurbished Wereldmuseum Leiden. How to do this in ways that do not reproduce past extractive, and wrongful representational practices is, thus, one of the key questions we want to address as part of the process. Over the coming years, we will invite several scholars/curators/makers to think with us. For us, these will be deep listening sessions geared at critiquing our current practices, whether it is how we exhibit, or how we catalogue our collections, or the words and concepts we use to describe Indigenous lifeworlds. They will also be sessions of creativity aimed at developing new concepts or modes of representation.

In January 2024 the first closed workshop of a series on Indigeneity took place at Wereldmuseum Leiden. Our approach to this theme is global and for this first workshop we focused on Indigenous North America, and especially Canada, to think from and with about representation of Indigenous life worlds. This said, we were aware that Indigeneity was not nationally or nation state bounded and therefore would include concerns for kinship relations across different territories. Urgent questions for us unfolding from this theme were, for example, questions of restitution and decolonization in relation to Indigenous sovereignty and the differences between settler and imperial colonialism and how these shape decolonization and restitution practices. But also, whether there is sufficient accounting for the representational practices into which Indigenous lifeworlds are framed within European museum contexts, how imperial colonial projects affect the ways in which “source community” work is done in Europe, and how to contend with the possible extractive techniques that are part of these projects. Importantly, we wanted to address what visitors to these museums come with, what they already “know” or understand about Indigenous lifeworlds – what baggage they come with and how this may inform how we tell the stories and what stories we tell. What kind of responsibility comes with presenting Indigenous lifeworlds within the European context and how might we develop strategies for exhibitions and collection work that can serve to redress historical injustices that we have been implicated in while supporting Indigenous sovereign futures?

As part of the workshop we invited Indigenous scholars and curators Dr. Krista Collier-Jarvis, Dr. Heather Igloliorte, Dr. Michelle McGeough, Jonathan Lainey, Prof. Carmen Robertson, and several colleagues from European ethnographic museums attended as well: Eero Ehanti, Rania Tania (both National Museum of Finland), and Dr. Matthew Walsh (National Museum of Denmark). In the following a concise summary of the presentations and ensuing discussions is provided, as well as follow-up questions that we will take up at the museum.

If we see beads as kin, she suggests, as story keepers and as visual ways of knowing, collection management practices could shift to a different understanding of responsibility and reciprocity, for example through a celebration of visiting and gifting or exchanging stories instead of exclusively material conservation. Wahkotowin, drawing on the work of Maria Campbell, means including all (living) things and matter as kinship, to honor and respect those relations and to fulfil the responsibilities and obligations that come with it. Contemporary artists working with beads as material stress the traditional, pre-contact techniques of beadwork as well as more recent methods. This allows us to bring different knowledges together, across time, for instance in the work of Katherine Boyer. During the session of close-reading objects that took place in the Wereldmuseum storage facilities, the workshop participants shared specific stories of the objects and kin that we visited, some of which included beadwork.

Drawing on her own experience, Michelle McGeough discussed the potentials of Indigenous curatorial methods. She recounted several important moments in the Canadian context that prompted indigenous curators to tell their own story instead of leaving it over to the curatorial apparatus of the settler state. These moments included the Indians of Canada Pavilion during Expo 67 in Montréal and the founding of the Indigenous Curatorial Collective in 2006. According to McGeough, distinguishing features of Indigenous curatorial practice are: mentorship, community consultation, accountability, and reciprocity. She posed the question what considerations Indigiqueer methodologies and critique can bring to the care and curation of Indigenous cultural material. Some of the ways we discussed were how to make Indigiqueer experiences the reference instead of working on legibility for different publics, or including an “easter egg” in an exhibition to give a specific community the feeling of being seen, without it necessarily be understood by outsiders.

In her presentation, Krista Collier-Jarvis pushed for Indigenous ways of knowing and being in museums other than ethnographic, where Indigeneity is not always noticeable, in this case the Louvre. As a space lacking Indigenous presence, she argued that Indigenous bodies in these museums constitute a rupture of signification. Drawing on Deleuze and Guattari, these ruptures contain a productive possibility, an opportunity for re-territorialization. Artists also use this strategy, for example Kent Monkman’s painting Miss Chief’s wet dream (2018) which references The Raft of the Medusa (1818-19) housed at the Louvre but tells history from an Indigenous Canadian perspective. Through an analysis of selfies by Indigenous people in museum spaces, Collier-Jarvis questioned what it means to reclaim space for oneself or one’s ancestors. This led to a discussion on the implication of leaving a trace, collectively and individually, and whether presencing, being bodily present somewhere, alone is enough, as part of justice work for Indigenous sovereign futures which requires being seen and claiming recognition.

During the final session, Heather Igloliorte took the idea of privileging Indigenous, and more specifically Inuit, worldviews and viewpoints further. She recounted the process of curating the inaugural exhibition INUA (Inuit Moving Forward Together) at Qaumajuq (Winnipeg Art Gallery) in 2020 as a member of the curatorial team. Inuit perspectives were central in all aspects of making the exhibition, from the artists selected to the exhibition design, including the previously mentioned easter eggs to make Inuit visitors feel seen and heard. Iglioliorte’s practice as an academic and curator largely centers on mentorship, which she has formalized in the project Inuit Futures. Through mentorship and career opportunities within the arts and cultural sector, the project aims to support Inuit within this field. Lastly, she shared a selection of artists she has worked with over the years who often engage critically with Indigenous heritage and histories, such as Sonny Assu’s work Artifact of Authenticity (2011) which questioned the discursive authority over Indigenous art by art world institutions.

Several key suggestions emerged from the workshop, some of which were concrete such as removing a Black baby doll in a carrier from a display case, others require policy changes within the Wereldmuseum organization. One of the concrete outcomes of the workshop is the idea of establishing a fellowship on data decolonization. The aim would be for a fellow to work together with collection staff on topics such as using Indigenous languages and terms in metadata and updating descriptions of objects and photos from an Indigenous perspective.

With regard to the care for objects, the close reading sessions in the museum storage showed the importance of the depot being a space for new beginnings: access, interaction, knowledge production, etc. How can we take care of the collections in different ways than the conventional conservation methods? How can we have drums be oiled and played, jingle blankets be worn and turned around? As for community engagement in provenance research several questions came up, such as: at what stage should communities be involved in this process? How to avoid an extractive engagement with communities? And who can be considered community representatives? Lastly, the idea of ancestral accountability sparked interest: what are the different shapes ancestral accountability can take within the curatorial process? How can ancestral accountability live beyond a temporary project or exhibition?