Giselle Paquette
Giselle Paquette graduated from Athabasca University in 2021 with a Master's in Interdisciplinary studies focusing on education, writing, and media studies. Presently she works for the Upper Canada District School Board as a language and arts specialist. In her role, she advocates for indigenous rights and education. This paper is the culminating thesis of her studies at Athabasca University. Giselle is also a practicing artist, her work was published in the Journal of Integrated Studies. While at Athabasca she contributed her talents as an art director for the journal.
She lives in eastern Ontario with her husband, son, and two cats.
In recent decades, Haida of Haida Gwaii (formerly the Queen Charlotte Islands) have repatriated ancestral remains and sacred artifacts back to their communities amid conversations of reconciliation for past oppressive transgressions made upon Indigenous people. Some museums, collectors, and institutions refuse to participate in the repatriation, contending that they have the appropriate environments to preserve these pieces. Institutions also claim that the artifacts and Indigenous remains serve as reminders of colonialism associated with the English history. This paper will argue that reclaiming and returning ancestral artifacts and remains is important for reconciliation. By revealing historical data, namely the consequences of the Indian Act, The Truth and Reconciliation Report, and The United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, this study clarifies the importance of returning the remains and artifacts of Haida Gwaii, adding that the best approach is to respectfully open dialogue to attain a common ground between stakeholders.
Keywords: Reconciliation, Haida, artifacts, remains, UNDRIP, Indian Act, museums, worldview.
In September 2009, 21 members of the Haida Nation visited Oxford and London to work with 800 pieces at the Pitt Museum and the British Museum. The British Museum has displayed Haida ceremonial regalia, dishes, poles, and other articles for over 230 years to inform the population about other civilizations and cultures (Krmpotich & Peers, 2013). It was the first time that the museum staff met Haida delegates (Krmpotich & Peers, 2013).
During the visit, the Haida delegation viewed a Chilkat blanket from the Shipper collection taken from a gravesite of a chief from Haida Gwaii. After some women pointed out the staining on the blanket (proving the grave provenance), community members became angry and grief-stricken. Some physically pulled away from the area; some women began to cry. An elder from the group said, “That is enough for him, we should dance for him” (119) (Krmpotich & Peers, 2013). The youngest from the group danced while the others sang the chief a song.
Krmpotich and Peers (2013) report that these collections came from various sources, acquired by Captain George Dixon, missionaries, photographers, collectors, donors, and naval surveyors either as exchanges or diplomatic gifts or procured from the original community during colonization. Haida descendants have vivid memories of the objects’ removal but often remain unaware of the whereabouts of these pieces. Many items were served in the traditional Haida potlatch, a ceremony involving "the distribution of property among different coast peoples regardless of the nature of the event" (Steltzer, 1984, as cited in Davidson et al., p. 25).
In 1884, a potlatch ban was enacted to facilitate the assimilation process; this law made it illegal for Haida and other First Nations to host potlatches in Canada; this law was designed as an attempt to “civilize” communities (Davidson & Davidson, 2018). Missionaries, such as Charles Harrison, misunderstood the meaning of the potlatch: "The potlatch was the impoverishing native custom of giving away property and has now been discontinued" (ibid., p. 25).
Potlatches were a legal and social structure, ensuring the transmission of cultural knowledge (Davidson & Davidson, 2018). The preparation of a potlatch ceremony could take as much as a year (Montgomery, personal communication, 2021). The ceremony includes dances, songs, and stories signifying the chiefs as well as the clan. The objects and artifacts given to the guests were as lavish gifts to denote status, utilitarian items as well as items to commemorate the event with symbolic meaning and clan traditions.
One crucial aspect of Haida culture was sharing things rather than accumulating them because they saw it to acquire affluence and the accompanying affluence (Davidson & Davidson, 2018; Montgomery, 2021). The term "potlatch" in Haida is gyaa ‘isdaa which means "to give away” (ibid., p. 25). Removing the potlatch was missionaries' strong attempt to "civilize" the Haida (ibid., p. 25), thereby pushing traditions and narratives into oblivion. Thus, the actions taken through colonization dismembered Haida communities in many ways.
Since the 1970s, Haida communities have repatriated remains and artifacts, but some museums and institutions refuse to give back these sacred items (Hamilton, 2020; Sciarpelletti, 2019). Although, this paper argues that the return of these pieces as being an act of reconciliation, some opine that Haida do not have the environment to preserve the articles, that these items form part of the history of colonialism, and that there is an agreed appropriation when claiming the universality of the artifacts and remains. However, this stance is incongruent with the call into action on improving relations between Indigenous and non-indigenous. It is not in accordance with the implementation of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (2015).
Returning the artifacts and remains to the Haida is a proactive step toward reconciliations and an attempt to heal the relationship with Indigenous communities. This paper will support this argument with a literature review, historical data, and documents such as the Truth and Reconciliation Report and The United Nations Declarations on The Rights of Indigenous People.
Since the 1970s, the Haida committee has worked to bring over 500 ancestors’ home for reburial on Haida Gwaii with the help of the Council of the Haida Nation, (Hamilton, 2020; Sciarpelletti, 2019). Several remains of the Haida nation, taken from gravesites by colonizers, have been repatriated since the 1990s (Bourgon, 2013). Archeologists and anthropologists looted graves in 1887, 1901, and 1903 for scientific purposes (Ross, 2003). Artifacts were taken from these gravesites, for example, blankets to wrap up or cover bodies.
Jingang Nika Collison, the Haida executive director, and museum curator of the Haida Gwaii Museum, says that artifacts were taken from Haida Gwaii after the smallpox epidemic in the 1860s and colonialism continued to grow unabated (Collison, as cited in Sciarpelletti, 2019). Collison points out that many pieces were sold under duress, stolen, or taken by force. The smallpox epidemic led some to believe that the Haida population would become extinct, so the prevailing practice was to appropriate cultural treasures in the name of science and preservation.
Many artifacts and ancestral remains are owned by collectors, institutions, and museums worldwide (Krmpotich & Peers, 2013). The institutions’ refusal to act in good faith and return sacred remains or items divides people and enhances the feeling of animosity and exploitation. According to Wawameesh Hamilton (2020), the efforts started long ago and continue to this day as Indigenous people repatriate artifacts and remains. However, these efforts have declined due to high costs and regulations that some label “institutional arrogance” (Hamilton, 2020). In other words, museums claim that remains and sacred artifacts belongs to them, and that Indigenous people can’t take care of their own cultural heritage, artifacts, and remains.
Haida believe it is inappropriate to have the remains of their ancestors or cultural artifacts (Montgomery personal communication, 2021; Hamilton, 2020). Haida believe in reincarnation. The remains of their ancestors, as well as the items they use, are meant to decay, and return to mother earth to complete that cycle of life. By storing them in museums, their spirits have been trapped for eternity and unable to fulfill that journey (Montgomery, personal communication, 2021). The Herekiekie Herewini explains that cultural remains and artifacts were taken, stolen, and traded from several Indigenous communities worldwide (As cited in Hamilton, 2020). Moreover, institutions and museums do not recognize Indigenous rights, believing that they own these ancestral remains and artifacts (Te Herekiekie, as cited in Hamilton, 2020).
Royal Albert Memorial Museum (RAMM) in Exeter refuses to return sacred artifacts to Indigenous Canadians, claiming to be unaware of organizational structures and resources that could ensure the long-term care of repatriated artifacts (Lloyd, 2020). Lloyd states that RAMM has a $100,000 built-in room that controls humidity, temperature, and light to preserve relics (2020). The museum representative posits that the environment or a lack of care could inflict strong damage to these items. As a result, these objects and human remains are kept for posterity, and scientific study prevents them from decaying. However, this viewpoint suggests that Indigenous people cannot curate their own cultural heritage (Roberston, 2020). As per Robertson, this argument may be a product of corrosive colonialist ideas.
In his memoir Unreconciled, Jesse Wente points out that we define Indigenous rights by confrontations (2021). He adds that “as always seems to be the case, we were helpful as objects, as pop culture artifacts, but not as people. Our humanity only got in the way of the desire for our aesthetic” (Wente, 2021, p. 83). In his book The Inconvenient Indians, Thomas King adds, “They want our land, our culture, our skin, our sovereignty, just not us. They want us to make them look virtuous in the eyes of the world at the same time as they work to erase us” (King, 2012 p. 122). Wente exposes how cultural appropriation exploits a culture by not crediting, compensating, or properly consulting with that culture. Moreover, several institutions, such as the Canadian Museum of History founded in 1856, the National Gallery of Canada founded in 1880, and the Art Gallery of Ontario founded in 1900, were created by dismissing appropriation and establishing it as the law. Wente goes on to add that Westerners tell many First Nations, Inuit, and Métis stories through a white lens.
Emily Auger contends that many museums recontextualize objects and give them different categories, such as art, thus giving these artifacts a different value (2000). She adds that Western art categories remain useful in art discussions, but more conscious attention should be paid to their associated values and meaning. For example, masks and robes worn in ceremonies are regarded as high art or objects of great value for Haida. The masks and robes illustrate Haida identity and kinship, which reflects a relationship with the environment, in turn, historical and spiritual beliefs (Montgomery, personal communication, 2021). However, from the Western models, they are seen as fine art, not in a ceremonial context, or as sacred objects. This denotes a dissonance in perceptions of substances and symbols that assume significance for Haida.
Bob and Cynthia Joseph, in their book Indigenous relations (2019), state to achieve a respectful relationship with Indigenous people, that it is crucial to understand the core difference between Indigenous worldviews and Western worldviews (Joseph et al., 2019). They define worldview as an interpretation of a collective cultural code that is inclusive of shared philosophy, values, and customs. Rangel (2012) advances that museums should promote and recognize Indigenous ways of knowing, Indigenous models of representation, and accurately model the delivery of knowledge regarding Indigenous culture. Rangel posits that this model should include beliefs systems, values, traditions, and ideologies tied to language, community, and place.
Keith et al. (2016) expounds on the Indigenous artist's refusal to participate in “Canada's Truth and Reconciliation Journey” and how this objection unravels an innate resistance to the current trajectory. They add that “the colonial attitude is characterized not only by scopophilia, a drive to look but also by an urge to penetrate, to traverse, to know, to translate, to own and exploit.” (29) Garneau, as stated in Keith, adds that everything is a commodity and Indigenous artists refuse to be a native informant (Keith et al., 2016). The article elaborates on how reconciliation can be deterred by differences in beliefs and values.
Garneau (2016) explains how artists believe that Westerners are not true to their word. For example, the historical experiences of the recent past inform the present, those of exploitation, oppression, and appropriation of culture. The current discussion of reconciliation and the refusal of the museum to return what belongs to the communities create division rather than unity. Museums and establishments must take action to change the views of indigenous communities, such as the return of what belongs to them, and establish communication and trust.
In contrast, Bourgon (Walrus, 2013) states that the museum industry encourages “universalism” and that culture belongs to everyone; it does not matter where the objects come from or where they stay. Bourgon interviews Laura Peers, arguing that the objects should remain in England because colonialism is an inextricable part of English history (Bourgon, 2013)
Haida aim to repatriate ancestral remains and artifacts to reconnect with a lost past and reconcile with their culture (Collison as cited in Lloyd, 2020). “Our art is the companion to our Haida language. It is our form of writing” (Collison as cited in Lloyd, 2020). Some First Nations, Inuit, and Métis artists resist reconciliation due to colonial attitudes mirrored in the need to own, appropriate, and not engage in the cultural dialogue (Keith et al., 2016).
Although many museums and institutions are returning sacred artifacts and ancestral remains, some still refuse to collaborate. They argue that the pieces should remain in their possession because it is a reminder of the long English history of dominion. Another argument is that Indigenous communities lack the facilities to store or preserve these items safely, thus increasing the risk of deterioration. Collectors, museums, and institutions aim to preserve these items to have an accurate anthropological record of Indigenous culture. Bourgon espouses the idea of “universalism” that culture belongs to everyone. It can be argued that these ancestral remains were appropriated in a state of distress and must not be preserved in a museum when the descendants of the objects request their return. Ancestral remains do not belong to everyone.
It is noteworthy that Haida have a living culture. They rightfully want to reclaim their culture. Haida are reclaiming past objects to inform their present and future as they continue to live traditionally on the land. This journey of repatriation is an act towards reviving their community and culture. In this context, returning objects taken from them is an important stepping-stone toward healing these communities.
Haida remains belong only to the families and their ancestors. If the same development had unfolded in a western context, it would have sparked widespread outrage and the culprits would have been immediately shamed. How can we uphold rights for some Canadians and not all Canadian communities? If funding is the reason for a decline in repatriation, governments should support these institutions through financial aid to act toward reconciliation. If Haida wish to share their culture with the museums, institutions, collectors, they will do so. Agreements on reproduction may be a consideration so that communities may perform customary ceremony with stolen items. Anything else is more than arrogance; in fact, it would not be farfetched to call it appropriation and theft.
Haida Gwaii means land of the people, and archaeological evidence confirms consistent habitation of the area for 6,000 to 13,000 years (The Canadian Encyclopedia, 2021). The archipelago is situated on the northwest coast of British Columbia and Prince of Wales Island on the southern tip of the Alaska Panhandle. In a 2016 census, 501 people claimed Haida heritage, and some of them still live on Haida Gwaii (The Canadian Encyclopedia, 2021). However, Cara Krmpotich and Laura Peers (2013) opine that today’s population is closer to 6,000.
The first recorded encounter with Europeans was in 1774 with the arrival of Juan Perez followed by several traders and explorers (Canadian Encyclopedia, 2021). The increase in the number of visitors to the Island enhanced trading between Haida and the Europeans. In such situations, traders were falling ill on their way back to Haida Gwaii. Soon after, two waves of smallpox beleaguered villages between 1790 and 1860. Smallpox spread in villages, decimating the population and therefore the Haida lineage. In fact, the population reduced from 30,000 in 1790 during contact, to 58 in 1915 according to a census report (Canadian Encyclopedia, 2020).
North American and German museums are accused of having raided the Northwest Coast of physical objects between 1875 and 1925 (Cole, 1995; King, 1999; Meuli, 2001, as cited in Krmpotich). These dates coincide with the establishment of many of our Canadian museums such as the Canadian Museum of History, founded in 1856; the National Gallery of Canada, founded in 1880; as well as the Art Gallery of Ontario, founded in 1900, which Jesse Wente refers to as a time of Indigenous appropriation of artifacts and remains (Wente, 2021). Thus, these artifacts and remains were taken under oppressive conditions, and not given away. Canadian Museums profited from these actions of colorizations.
Bill Montgomery is the current Indigenous lead, Upper Canada District School Board. Of Haida descent, he has led and shared with both Indigenous and non-Indigenous students and staff about Indigenous cultures since the early 2000s. When Bill Montgomery was asked if he considers the return of these items as an act of reconciliation he undeniably said: “yes” (Montgomery, as per conversation, 2021). Montgomery shared the following facts about Haida social structures.
Two moieties represent our peoples: Ravens, and Eagles (Montgomery as per conversation, 2021). Each family owns specific crests that are the property of that clan and individuals cannot use crests that do not belong to their family. These crests have been passed down through the Haida matrilineal system and further acquired through traditional potlatch to bolster the wealth and status of the clan. As a case in point, a Raven cannot wear the imagery on their regalia of an Eagle because they do not own the crest.
On Haida Gwaii, totem poles identify these families and crests. Some of the imagery of the crest relates to animals endowed with spiritual powers. The images are often attached to a story and part of a narrative relating to oral traditions. As for many Indigenous people, education, and cultural transmission, for Haida, is done orally through storytelling. The imagery used on items is meant to reinforce these narratives and reinforce the reverence for the land and the creator. Haida artifacts were not intended for artistic purposes or aesthetic representation but to support beliefs, traditions, and narratives. The items served several purposes: to signify ownership of utilitarian items, ceremony, and trade/commerce. To preserve traditions, Haida must ensure that artifacts remain within communities to fulfill this objective.
Haida also believe in the continuation of the spirit, so they bury items with individuals that will be needed in that journey. They are of the view that a person’s soul cannot continue to the afterlife if the body is moved or disturbed (Bourgon, p. 61). Therefore, Haida buried items of significance with chiefs, shamen, and people of nobility within “Mortuary Poles.”(Montgomery as per conversation, 2021). They also tend to bury their leader’s remains (chiefs) with sacred items that belonged to them or identify them. The non-return of the remains is also troubling for Haida because it means that their loved ones or ancestors will not be able to find a place in the afterlife or peace.
As mentioned previously, the implementation of the Indian Act of 1884 that banned Haida from cultural practices such as the traditional Potlatch contributed to the distribution of the remains and artifacts. The ban aimed to sever the connection with Haida history and the expression of Indigenous identities (Davidson & Davidson, 2018). “The Federal government believed that true assimilation could be attained only by legally abolishing all cultural practices.” (Joseph 2018, 48, as cited in Davidson & Davidson, 2018).
The Indian Act is the primary law that the Canadian federal government uses to administer Indian status, local First Nations governments, and the management of reserve land. (The Canadian Encyclopedia, 2020). It outlines governmental obligations to First Nations peoples (The Canadian Encyclopedia, 2020). It is also notable that the Indian Act pertains to people with Indian Status and does not directly reference non-status First Nations people, the Métis, or Inuit.
The Act has been amended several times, most significantly in 1951 and 1985, with the removal of discriminatory sections (The Canadian Encyclopedia, 2020). Even though several alterations have been made to the act, the document has caused and social and cultural disruptions, trauma, and human rights violations for generations of Indigenous peoples (The Canadian Encyclopedia, 2020). The Indian Act continues to exist even to this day. As Collison maintains (as cited in Lloyd, 2020), ceremonial distribution of property and gifts in Haida villages were prohibited, so many pieces were sold or taken under vulnerable conditions due to illness or colonial oppression. However, it is about that that these items should be returned without resistance since they were taken unlawfully.
In 1998, the Canadian federal government acknowledged the harm inflicted on First Nations, Métis, and Inuit people (Joseph & Joseph, 2019). Ten years later, then Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an apology to the residential school survivors and their families. In 2015, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada released their final report based on statements of tens of thousands of survivors of colonialism, recommending a call for action in the spirit of reconciliation. One main aspect of acting towards reconciliation is respect, a process, and a journey of understanding others’ worldviews.
The United Nations Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People implemented in 2007 recognizes a series of mandatory rights for Indigenous people. Forty-six articles list the rights of equality, non-discrimination, and freedom, including article 12: “The right to practice, develop and teach spiritual traditions, customs, and ceremonies. The right to the use and the control of their ceremonial objects and to their repatriation of their human remains” (The United Nations, 2007, p. 6). According to the declaration, Indigenous people should have access to these ceremonial objects and remains through transparent methods. Refusing to return ceremonial artifacts or remains violates the Indigenous rights according to UNDRIP (2007).
A significant aspect of The United Nations Declarations of Rights of Indigenous People is that it is violated by the Indian Act (Joseph & Joseph, 2019). The Canadian government attempted to abolish the Indian Act in 1969 by introducing The White Paper (The Canadian Encyclopedia, 2015). However, First Nations leaders were concerned that this move would deprive them of special treaty rights, so they inexorably refused to make any changes.
The act of returning remains and artifacts to Haida communities shows respect towards a people that has suffered irreparable losses due to systematic colonialism and hegemonic oppression. The actions also follow the UNDRIP, which clearly states that to act otherwise violates human rights. Not having these pieces returned to Haida exacerbates suffering and violates the spirit of reconciliation.
Therefore, these cultural artifacts must be returned because they tell the story of the people of Haida Gwaii. They incorporate socially unmistakable cosmologies, conviction frameworks, values, customs, and philosophies attached to the language, the local area, as well as the environment from which they originate (Langel, 2012). These models of representation provide knowledge that may be lost for Haida communities.
It is essential to preserve the truth since Western culture appropriates “Indian” arts and culture by recontextualizing or reframing items to give them a new meaning. As Leuthold states (as cited in Langel, 2012), artistic expression is interconnected with worldview and aesthetic experiences with collective identity. For Haida, this identity is embedded in their creation stories, land, and oral traditions. The artifacts and remains may provide clarity about a lost past and inform them about their culture. Their return may not only create new narratives and oral stories but also provide healing and closure to a community. Not returning the items deprives them of what they value, especially when it concerns the return of ancestral remains.
Many institutions understandably want to preserve items in the best condition and provide an environment that stops their deterioration. However, the Haida ancestral remains, and sacred artifacts taken unlawfully and without consent are not to be appropriated in the name of universalism, especially considering that Haida are still a living culture demanding the return of the remains and artifacts. Respectful conversations and exchanges between Haida and institutions may be the best way to nurture a relationship without harming or offending them concerning their cultural beliefs. Without understanding differing or divergent worldviews, no reconciliation is possible.
As Bob and Cynthia Joseph explain, traditional Western worldviews are concerned with science and compartmentalized knowledge and then move to understand with a wider lens (Joseph et al., 2019). Indigenous peoples’ worldviews are based on the circle where all things are equal in contrast to the Western views of a hierarchical categorization (Joseph et al., 2019). Acknowledging, understanding, and respecting our differences can bridge many gaps and promote understanding and better relations.
Since the 1970s, Haida have been requesting the return of sacred artifacts and ancestral remains taken during colonization. Most items were taken by the Germans and the North Americans between 1875 and 1925. Five hundred remains have been returned, but some museums and institutions still avoid participating in this process of reclamation. The institutions argue that artifacts and remains acquired during colonization are part of English history and that they belong to everyone. This is the ideology that museums aim to promote.
However, the current paper argues that this attitude violates Indigenous rights and is against the UNDRIP that protects the right of Indigenous people to reclaim any artifacts or ancestral remains. For Haida, this process is a steppingstone to reclaim their past, culture, and traditions. It is indeed a matter of preserving their cultural identity, which assumes great importance to them. More than anything it is a step toward reconciliation for this community that survived discrimination, disease, oppression, and so many atrocities because of colonialism.
Behind these remains and artifacts lie narratives and oral stories that need to be told to heal the next generation. Boundaries must be set, and there should be a common understanding of how to respectfully share culture in public places so that all concerned parties feel acknowledged in terms of their values, beliefs, and culture.
Archibald, J. A. (2008). Indigenous Storywork. UBC Press.
Auger, E. (2000). Looking at native art through western art categories: From the highest to the lowest point of view. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(2), 89. https://doi.org/10.2307/3333579
Bourgon, L. (2013, March 26). Grave Injustice. The Walrus. https://thewalrus.ca/grave-injustice/
Davidson, S. F., & Davidson, R. (2018). Potlatch as pedagogy: Learning through ceremony. Portage and Main Press.
Haida Nation, Canada-Crown, & British Columbia-Crown. (2021, August). Changing Tide. British Columbia and Canadian Government. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/environment/natural-resource-stewardship/consulting-with-first-nations/agreements/gaygahlda_changing_tide_framework_agreement.pdf
Hamilton, W. (2020, March 15). 'We were horrified': Fights to repatriate indigenous ancestral remains continue worldwide. CBC News. Retrieved November 29, 2021, from https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/indigenous-remains-repatriation-efforts-1.5489390
Joseph, B. (2018). 21 Things You May Not Know About the Indian Act. Indigenous Relations Press.
Joseph, B., & Joseph, C. (2019). Indigenous Relations: Insights, Tips & Suggestions to Make Reconciliation a Reality. Indigenous Relations Press.
Kennedy, D., Bouchard, R., & Gessler, T. (2010, October 24). Haida. The Canadian Encyclopedia. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/haida-native-group
Kinross Gold Corporation. (2017). Respect for Indigenous Rights [Circle graph]. https://www.kinross.com/sustainability/community/default.aspx
Krmpotich, C., & Peers, L. L. (2013). This is Our Life: Haida Material Heritage and Changing Museum Practice (3rd ed.). UBC Press.
Krmpotich, C. (2014). The Force of Family: Repatriation, Kinship, and Memory on Haida Gwaii. University of Toronto Press.
Lagace, N., & Sinclair, N. J. (2015, September 24). The White Paper, 1969. The Canadian Encyclopedia. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/the-white-paper-1969
Lloyd, H. (2020, February 3). Fury as Exeter Museum refuses to give back sacred artifacts to indigenous Canadians. Devon Live. https://www.devonlive.com/news/devon-news/fury-exeter-museum-refuses-give-3805526
McCall, S. (2017). Arts of engagement: Taking aesthetic action in and beyond the truth and reconciliation commission of Canada ed. by Dylan Robinson and Keavy Martin. ESC: English Studies in Canada, 44(1), 195–199. https://doi.org/10.1353/esc.2017.0058
Martin, K. D., & Garneau, D. (2016). Arts of Engagement: Taking Aesthetic Action in and Beyond the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. Wilfrid Laurier University Press.
Rangel, J. P. (2012). Moving Beyond the Expected: Representation and Presence in a Contemporary Native Arts Museum. Wicazo Sa Review, 27(1), 31–44. https://doi.org/10.5749/wicazosareview.27.1.0031
Robertson, G. (2020, June 11). It's time for museums to return their stolen treasures. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/style/article/return-stolen-treasures-geoffrey-robertson/index.html
Ross, M. (2003). Museum releases remains to Haida Gwaii. AMMSA. https://ammsa.com/publications/windspeaker/museum-releases-remains-haida-gwaii
Sciarpelletti, L. (2019, July 2). New emotional gallery exhibits highlight return of Haida ancestors and artifacts. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/haida-gwaii-museum-art-ancestors-indigenous-1.5197542
The CFLA-FCAB Truth & Reconciliation Committee. (2016, August). The Truth and Reconciliation Report. Canadian Federation of Library Associations–Fédération Canadienne des Associations de Bibliothèques (CFLA-FCAB). https://librarianship.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/CFLA_TRC_Report.pdf
The United Nations. (2007, October 7). The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs Indigenous Peoples. https://undocs.org/A/RES/61/295
Wawmeesh, H. (2020, March 15). "We were horrified": Fights to repatriate Indigenous ancestral remains continue worldwide. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/indigenous-remains-repatriation-efforts-1.5489390
Wente, J. (2021). Unreconciled: Family, Truth, and Indigenous Resistance. Allen Lane.
Zussman, R. (2016, June 21). B.C. demands return of First Nations artifacts. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/bc-first-nations-artifacts-1.3646204