A PART OF OUR HERITAGE

As a member of the board of the Museum of Vancouver and chair of the collections committee, I brought in a repatriation policy a decade ago, and we have since successfully repatriated a number of belongings to First Nations.

But there are obstacles, not all of which are mentioned in John Lorinc’s article about Indigenous communities’ access to their archaeological heritage (“Cultural Expropriation,” January/february). In some cases, the museum’s records are inadequate to determine which First Nation is the ancestral community. There may also be expenses associated with the rituals involved in repatriation — elders, for example, might have to travel considerable distances. Some communities also may not be in a position to participate.

The article also implies that the approach in the United States, where regulations require that an e ort be made to identify ancestors in collections as part of the repatriation process, might be helpful in Canada. It wouldn’t be: working through those regulations and the associated red tape is timeconsuming and counterproductive.

Bruce Granville Miller

Vancouver, BC

I have worked with and for Indigenous communities in Canada and elsewhere for thirty years, and I have observed that when those communities have been denied direct decision making, heritage-management policies have been ine ective at best and harmful at worst.

My understanding is that the Indigenous conception of heritage isn’t just about things, and it isn’t limited to “the past.” Rather, it permeates the fabric of Indigenous societies and is largely intangible. Heritage objects and places are best managed by the heritage holders.

George Nicholas

Burnaby, BC