|
|
Hokkaido University Collection of Scholarly and Academic Papers >
Slavic-Eurasian Research Center >
境界研究 = Japan Border Review >
No.12 >
博物館展示における先住民族との協働 : 国立アイヌ民族博物館と国立アメリカ・インディアン博物館の比較
| Title: | 博物館展示における先住民族との協働 : 国立アイヌ民族博物館と国立アメリカ・インディアン博物館の比較 |
| Other Titles: | The Development of Collaborative Exhibitions with Indigenous Peoples: A Comparative Analysis Between the National Ainu Museum and the National Museum of the American Indian |
| Authors: | 小坂田, 裕子1 Browse this author |
| Authors(alt): | Osakada, Yuko1 |
| Issue Date: | 31-Mar-2022 |
| Publisher: | 北海道大学スラブ･ユーラシア研究センター内 境界研究ユニット |
| Journal Title: | 境界研究 |
| Journal Title(alt): | JAPAN BORDER REVIEW |
| Volume: | 12 |
| Start Page: | 93 |
| End Page: | 106 |
| Abstract: | In 2020, the National Ainu Museum (NAM) was established in UPOPOY, namely the “Symbolic Space for Ethnic Harmony” in Shiraoi, Hokkaido. The special character of its exhibitions is indigenous narrative by making “We as the Ainu” the subjects of its exhibition descriptions. The NAM attached importance to the concept that the Ainu themselves, not the national government or the researchers, introduce their own cultures to the visitors, and respected the involvement of the Ainu in the creation of exhibitions, according to an interview with the director of NAM. However, there are various criticisms of NAM. One of them is that NAM did not respect the Ainu’s proactive participation in developing its exhibitions. This article addresses how such perception gap occurs by comparing collaboration with indigenous peoples in the cases of NAM and the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI). This examination contributes to seeking better collaborative exhibitions with indigenous peoples. This article reveals that although NAM learned the indigenous narrative for their exhibitions from MAI, how these museums collaborated with indigenous peoples is different. NMAI collaborated with indigenous curators who were appointed by the indigenous communities themselves. Indigenous peoples welcomed such collaborations as “shared authority”, or even as the effective implementation of their “cultural sovereignty”. While their exhibitions were, however, not free from criticisms, NMAI overcame these criticisms by creating a new exhibition with indigenous community curators. On the other hand, NAM collaborated mainly with Ainu people who were considered professional in the Ainu languages or cultures. The members of the Working Group for NAM’s exhibitions were appointed by the Japanese government or the preparation committee of NAM, not by the indigenous communities themselves. Some Ainu people who were excluded from this collaboration process have criticized the way NAM’s exhibitions were created. They might consider that the collaboration with indigenous community curators just like NMAI did is more desirable. This is how the abovementioned perception gap occurred. As long as NAM uses the indigenous narrative by making “We as the Ainu” subjects of their exhibition descriptions, Ainu participation in developing its exhibitions is indispensable. The necessity for Ainu participation was consistently recognized through the establishment process of NAM. In addition, the number of Ainu experts in their languages and cultures is limited. Against these backgrounds, this author argues that the option of collaboration with indigenous community curators will become more important for NAM. However, realizing collaboration with indigenous community curators requires that many difficulties be overcome. NAM and Ainu must confront existing problems, such as the lack of a nation-wide representative organization of Ainu, and the diversity of views among Ainu, more seriously. It should also be noted that such a collaboration will not prevent criticisms against its achievements, that is, their exhibitions. Ultimately, how to collaborate with indigenous peoples depends on how to consider the role of museums. When it comes to NAM, the problem is how to consider the role of the museum which was established in the “Symbolic Space for Ethnic Harmony”. Different groups see it as a sightseeing facility, an enlightenment facility, a facility for preserving and developing Ainu culture, or even as a facility for realizing the right to self-determination of the Ainu. This issue requires further discussion among the concerned parties, thus the author does not give an immediate answer to this. In the establishment process of NAM, it was emphasized that “by creating better conditions for the Ainu people to proactively participate in museum activities, NAM will develop its exhibitions through dialogue and interaction with them”. The author will continue to bring into focus how NAM addresses various criticisms by some Ainu people and how it develops its exhibitions. The author believes that NAM could learn more from NMAI’s collaboration experience with indigenous community curators to make its exhibitions better. |
| Type: | bulletin (article) |
| URI: | http://hdl.handle.net/2115/85038 |
| Appears in Collections: | 境界研究 = Japan Border Review > No.12
|
|
