69

photographs of Hopi people and rituals. Howshould contemporary society redress historicdamage and safeguard what many indigenouspeople consider private or secret knowledge?

• Chapter two, “Copyright and Culture,” asksif there are limits to the control an individualand the indigenous group to which hebelongs, has regarding the economic valueand usage of a cultural design element. Thischapter focuses particularly on the case ofAustralian aboriginal ownership and controlof widely distributed visual images. Are thedesigns owned by the artist, by the clan/com-munity, or some combination of the two? Isthere a relationship between the culturalimagery claimed by an aboriginal group andtheir historic demand for land rights?

• Chapter three, “Sign Wars,” extends this issueof community group control over the appear-ance of an image by using the case of the ZiaPueblo and its assertion of ownership over acultural symbol, the Zia sun, used in the stateflag of New Mexico, and in numerous com-mercial representations. Is the conflict abouteconomic interest or cultural respect?

• Chapter four, “Ethnobotany Blues,” examinesthe situation of indigenous groups strugglingwith the exploitation of their traditionallands and cultural knowledge, particularlyknowledge they have or outsiders developregarding the flora and fauna of traditionalhomelands.The concern for “bio-prospecting”extends even to the genetic makeup of theindigenous people themselves, and the patent-ing of life forms. How do indigenous peopleresist outside economic pressures and main-tain a semblance of control while confrontingall of the factors (economic, political, social,etc.) associated with capitalistic modernity?How do we address ethical questions in thelight of current knowledge and multiple cul-tural norms?

• Chapter five, “Negotiating Respect,” looks atthe issue of indigenous spiritual practice andthe need of indigenous people for protectedspace and place. With the desire by many out-siders to use traditional lands or to gain accessto religious or spiritual knowledge, what canbe done to define and protect effective bound-aries? While rejecting outright protectionism

Who Owns Native Culture? MICAHEL F. BROWN.Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2003,315 pp. Illustrations and index.

GARY WHEELER

Miami University

The struggle for civil and human rights contin-ues to energize and confound us.What began as partof the breakdown of colonial structures echoes acrossthe past half-century, with ongoing challenges toexisting social structures and understandings aboutwomen, minorities, and indigenous peoples. Socialchange, accompanying successful objections to exist-ing law and the drafting of protective legislation, didnot arrive without the push and pull of challengesto individual and group behavior. In the U.S., the pas-sage of the 1990 federal legislation, the NativeAmerican Graves Protection and Repatriation Act,(NAGPRA), was but one iteration of the movementworldwide to establish greater legal authority forminority and indigenous cultures. Similar legisla-tion, for example, was established in Australia in1993 that recognized aboriginal “ownership” overhuman remains, artifacts, and cultural objectsdeemed to have religious or other significant culturalmeaning. Like NAGPRA, Australian legal recogni-tion was followed by implementation policies toencourage repatriation of cultural property. In somecountries the definition of protected cultural prop-erty extends to include traditional lands and geog-raphy. Legal definitions aside, the upsetting oflong-held beliefs and practices in the world of col-lectors, museums, and educators has provoked andworried many people. Michael F. Brown’s book, WhoOwns Native Culture?, provides a close reading ofmany of the inevitable conflicts, compromises, andcontradictions that have arisen during this chal-lenging period.

Each chapter provides a core case with multipleexamples and similar stories. Endnotes extend thedetailed discussion and provide clear examples ofadditional resources.

• Chapter one,“The Missionary’s Photographs,”examines the question of what can a tribe dowhen cultural knowledge has been taken bystealth or subterfuge, using the case of theMennonite missionary, Henry Voth and his

through sovereignty, Brown asserts that oneelement lacking in the relationships betweenWestern culture and indigenous peoples hasbeen respect for and about indigenous spiri-tual activities and spaces.

• Chapter six, “At the Edge of the Indigenous,”extends the examination of protections forindigenous belief to the nature of these spir-itual or religious practices themselves.Using Aboriginal rights cases that linkpeople to land and cultural practice to issuesof clan control, Brown extends the explo-ration of privacy begun in chapter one. Whatcan be kept as a shared resource within adefined group but maintained as secret fromall others?

• Chapter seven, “Native Heritage in the IronCage,” examines the piecemeal nature of theprotections provided to indigenous culturesby various nations. Brown sees reason forconcern that the drafting of mutual respectand consideration of the needs of indigenouspeoples is leading to a kind of gilded cage withnovel dangers and restrictions. Hybridizationis seen as a non-negotiable, inevitable forcefor change and redefinition. Some legal “pro-tections” are seen as having the potential formore harm than protection.

• Chapter eight, “Finding Justice in the GlobalCommons,” extends the examinations of theprevious chapter and provides argumentationfor the desirability of openness and a free abil-ity to learn and express oneself in the contextof today’s global culture. Brown asserts thata pragmatic approach that includes both opennegotiation and mutual respect provides thebest chance for accommodating both indige-nous culture and emerging globalization.

Brown tackles explosive issues with care.Among indigenous people and the multitude ofinterested Westerners (among them are anthropol-ogists, academics, museologists, and collectors), anydiscussion of ownership, intellectual and culturalproperty rights, and cultural sovereignty is likelyto be a cause of considerable tension and conflict.Emotions run high on all sides. Into the fray,Michael Brown coolly describes specific problematicsituations and proceeds to take a middle-of-the-roadapproach. At the conclusion of the book’s introduc-tion, he reframes the title question:

. . . the crux of this problem does not lie in irrec-oncilable views of ownership, even where theseexist. It is instead a fundamental matter of dig-nity. Reframed as a question, we should beasking not “Who owns native culture?” but “Howcan we promote respectful treatment of nativecultures and indigenous forms of self-expressionwithin mass societies? (2003:10).

Brown, a faculty member in anthropology andLatin American Studies at Williams College, arguespassionately for a utilitarian path, in between thosewho would place rigid legal and moral boundariesaround cultures and cultural practices, and thosewho would openly exploit anything and everything.Neither position is given much support. Indeed,Brown recognizes the complexity of individual situ-ations and asserts that what is needed is a greaterappreciation of the inherent ambiguities by all sides.What seems to happen all too often is that people getstuck in political and cultural rhetoric. What needsto happen, according to Brown, is adopting a strat-egy that provides explicit options for resolving dif-ferences, ensuring that the desire for cultural privacyby indigenous groups is respected while enablingnegotiated settlements of the inevitable culturalconflicts.Where some scholars in intellectual and cul-tural property circles argue for greater legal protec-tions, established through more restrictive andexplicit legal structures, Brown tends to focus onwhat he argues are more pragmatic solutions. Thelegal protections come at a high price for both sidesin the conflict but add little to the culture in the wayof real safeguards.

In a prelude of sorts to the first chapter of thisbook, Brown’s 1998 article, “Cultural Records inQuestion; Information and its Moral Dilemmas,”describes conversations with several Hopi on theissue of NAGPRA and repatriation. Brown con-cludes with the following questions:

Are some cultural records so morally contami-nated that they should be closed to the generalpublic? Does a culture own its traditions, or dothey properly belong to the individuals whocreate and transmit them? In the interests ofpreserving indigenous societies, should freespeech and freedom of information be curtailedby government edict? Finally, should we recog-nize an inherent right to ‘cultural privacy,’ aconcept mentioned in a recent conference call-ing for fundamental changes in the relationshipbetween the Hopi tribe and outside researchers(Dialogue with the Hopi, 1995)?1

70 MUSEUM ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 28 NUMBER 2

These questions inform the logic and inquiry ofWho Owns Native Culture? It also frames the majorcomplaint that indigenous people will have aboutBrown’s argument: he ignores a key demand ofindigenous people for moving towards the equal-ization of power through cultural sovereignty.Indigenous people increasingly argue that relationsbetween themselves and others must acknowledgethe power of indigenous sovereignty over traditionalland and cultural knowledge.

Brown is engaging and pragmatic in his coverageof cultural conflict. When describing the apparentconcerns of some native people about the intrusiveness,even invasiveness,of some ethnographers in the recentpast, Brown suggests that broad benefits or the bur-densome costs of any restriction may outweigh theconcern.Regarding Frances Densmore’s prolific record-ings of traditional Lakota songs in the early 20thcentury, for example, Brown quotes the popularHunkpapa singer, Earl Bullhead, from his interviewon National Public Radio where he describes theserecordings as serving to preserve cultural knowledgeand stimulate interest in the past. The positioningof the acquisitive ethnographer as the savior ofdeclining minority cultures is a theme that appearsoften in the text. Even if true, this position presentsa morally ambiguous scenario: a representative of adominant culture, otherwise bent on eliminating theminority culture, serving a role as the preserver ofthat minority culture.

The difficulty of Brown’s pragmatism is exem-plified in his discussions of privacy, a concept woventhroughout the text. He begins by noting thatanthropologists define culture as being featuresshared by a particular group. By definition, Brownclaims, this means that these features that make upa culture are public, contradicting any subsequentclaim for privacy on the part of members of a cul-tural group.Anytime Western notions of privacy areapplied to indigenous societies, it should not be sur-prising if contradictions arise. While Brown notesdifferences in defining privacy, the one he tends toprivilege is that of Western anthropologists:

In the accounts of anthropologists, group privacytends to come under the rubric of secrecy, espe-cially secrecy about rituals. Theorists of liberaldemocracy are strongly inclined to treat secrecyas inherently corrosive, a practice that is rarelynecessary and frequently abused. . . . Secrecygenerates social hierarchy, distinctions betweenthose who know and those who don’t (1998:30).

Yet Brown recognizes the importance placed byindigenous groups on maintaining privacy, under-standing that this importance increases with thedesire of outside groups to gain access to valuablecultural knowledge. Brown clearly is uncomfortablewith absolutes—a trait more common among fieldresearchers where compromise and negotiation aremore valuable than ideology.

In some of the included stories, such as thoseregarding the economic values associated with thebuying and selling of native cultural goods, Brown’spragmatism is clear. In this arena, Brown envisionsa democratic marketplace of ideas, assuming, to someextent, a level playing field that simply doesn’t exist.The economic power of Western cultures stimulatesimbalanced power, encouraging the exercise of priv-ilege. Brown acknowledges this imbalance, notinghow difficult it would be to recall the Densmorerecordings, the Voth photographs of Hopi rituals, orto prohibit the use of Johnny Bulun Bulun’s visualimages, or the Zia Pueblo’s sun symbol. Brown’s per-spective is echoed in the U.S. Patent and TrademarkOffice testimony of Mr. Peter Pino, tribal adminis-trator and elder of the Zia Eagle Clan:

We do not want to stop the State of New Mexicofrom using the symbol. We want recognition ofthe taking, a formal apology, and some kind ofgesture of remuneration to us—not that moneycan ever make up for this taking but because itis a wrong that needs to be righted. Manywrongs cannot ever be righted in western lawbut are atoned for, partially, by monetary pay-ment. It is manipulative for others to criticizeus for being materialistic to want some kind ofsymbolic payment for the unauthorized use ofour symbol. If any symbol or object of religioussignificance is used with disrespect, there is animbalance. We feel that the world today is outof balance.

Brown cites the crucial importance of biologicalknowledge held by indigenous cultures. He notes akey turning point in applying economic value to bio-logical knowledge as being the 1980 Diamond v.Chakrabarty, U.S. Supreme Court decision. In thiscase, a bacterium, genetically-altered to be able tobreak down crude oil, was declared as patentable,with one of the justices declaring: “Anything underthe sun that is made by man can be patented”(McLeod 2001: 157). With the support of this legaljudgment, bio-prospectors rushed to find and patentitems and materials associated with the biodiversity

71

of indigenous cultures and their traditional lands.Items under patent following this judgment haveincluded drugs based on traditional medicines andhuman cell lines. To the new explorer—scientistsaccompanied by lawyers have replaced the soldiersaccompanied by priests during the colonial invasionsof the new world—indigenous cultures are viewedas locations of untold wealth, if only the right itemsare discovered for development. The principle ofterra nullius was applied: these lands were empty oflegal owners and whatever was found, even if in longuse by indigenous people, was free for the taking.Dr. Vandana Shiva, an ecologist and physicist hasdescribed this development as bio-piracy, saying:

Patents are a replay of colonization as it tookplace 500 years ago in a number of ways.Interestingly, even at that time, when Columbusset sail and other adventurers like him, theyalso set out with pieces of paper that werecalled the letters patent which gave the powerto the adventurers to claim as property theterritory they found anywhere in the world. . . .(Paget-Clarke 1998).

The multitude of examples presented by Brownmakes clear the changing power base of indigenouscultures. Many are exercising their prerogatives tochallenge the legality of bio-prospectors; others aredeveloping sophisticated profit-sharing relation-ships; while some indigenous groups are conveningtheir own research projects and creating commu-nity-owned businesses to exploit their own culturalknowledge. Brown describes potential problems forthe indigenous cultures who self-exploit.Among thehazards is that once the cultural group is able to iso-late knowledge based on cultural ownership andthen moves to exploit it economically, any demandfor cultural secrecy, due to other considerations, isliable to be viewed with greater skepticism.

Who Owns Native Culture? provides a wealth ofexamples of the intersection of indigenous and non-indigenous interests. The book’s strength is its insis-tence on examining the perspectives of many sides tothe conflicts that inevitably arise and offering amodel for reappraisals, negotiation, and resolution.The weakness of the argument is that its approachis grounded in pragmatic, political economics, leav-ing little or no room for the inclusion of indigenousinsistence on cultural sovereignty. This approach islikely to mean that while negotiated settlements maybe achieved, reconciliation is unlikely. Optimistic,

Brown writes: “So many people’s rights are poten-tially in conflict that the best one can hope for is animperfect, negotiated compromise based on commonsense and some degree of mutual respect” (2003:167).

Notes

1. Brown, Michael

1998 Cultural Records in Question: Information andIts Moral Dilemmas. CRM (Cultural ResourceManagement) 21(6), p. 20.

U. S. Department of Commerce, Patent and TrademarkOffice

1999 Regarding Issues Surrounding TrademarkProtection for the Official Insignia of Federally- and/orState-Recognized Native American Tribes, July 8, p. 149.

References Cited

Alfred, Taiaiake1999 Peace, Power, Righteousness: An Indigenous

Manifesto. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Brown, Michael1996 On Resisting Resistance.American Anthropologist

98(4):729–735.1998 Cultural Records in Question: Information and its

Moral Dilemmas. CRM (Cultural Resource Management)21(6):18–20.

1998 Can Culture be Copyrighted? Current Anthropology39(2):193–222.

2003 Who Owns Native Culture? Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press.

Chapman, F.1999 The Bighorn Medicine Wheel 1988-1999. CRM

(Cultural Resource Management) 3:5–10.

Coombe, R. J.1998 The Cultural Life of Intellectual Properties:

Authorship,Appropriation, & the Law. Durham, NC:DukeUniversity Press.

1998 Intellectual Property,Human Rightrs & Sovereignty.Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies:1–40.

Hemachandra, R. A.2003 Selling the Sacred:American Indians and the New

Age. In New Age Retailer, pp. 3–8.

Kasten, E.2004 Ways of Owning and Sharing Cultural Property.

In Properties of Culture—Culture as Property, edited byE. Kasten, pp. 9–32. Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Langton, M.1994 Valuing Cultures: Recognising Indigenous Cultures

as a Valued Part of Australian Heritage. Council forAboriginal Reconciliation.

Luhrmann, S.2004 Beyond Repatriation—Collaborations between

Museums and Alaska Native Communities. In Propertiesof Culture—Culture as Property, edited by E. Kasten,pp. 217–229. Berlin:Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

72 MUSEUM ANTHROPOLOGY VOLUME 28 NUMBER 2

McLeod, K.2001 Owning Culture: Authorship, Ownership, and

Intellectual Property Law. New York: Peter Lang.

Miller, T. R.2004 Object Lessons: Wooden Spirits, Wax Voices, and

Collecting the Folk. In Properties of Culture—Culture asProperty, edited by E. Kasten, pp. 171–201. Berlin:Dietrich Reimer Verlag.

Paget-Clarke, N.1998 Interview with Dr. Vandana Shiva. In Motion

Magazine. vol. 2004 (accessed May 19, 2004, websitehttp://www.inmotionmagazine.com/shiva.html.)

Shweder, R. A.2003 ‘Who Owns Native Culture?’: The Gatekeepers.

The New York Times, New York.

U.S. Department of Commerce1999 Regarding Issues Surrounding Trademark

Protection for the Official Insignia of Federally- And/OrState-Recognized Native American Tribes. In U. S.Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office,pp. 1–197, Albuquerque, NM.

Ziff, B. and P. V. Rao1997 Borrowed Power:Essays on Cultural Appropriation.

New Brunswick, NJ:Rutgers University Press.

73