Donald E. Crabtree Lithic Technology Collection

CLIR-DHC: Advisory Board Interview Lorisia MacLeod 11/29/2022

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (00:00): Okay. Well, thank you so much for joining us, everyone. Thank you to the audience for watching, and thank you especially to our guest today, uh, Lorisia MacLeod. Thank you so much for coming and joining us and speaking with us. Um I’ve — I’ve been saying this at the start of every one of our interviews, I feel like we got just incredibly lucky, uh, with the advisory board that we ended up with, and you’re a huge part of that. So I just wanted to say right off the bat, thank you so much. Um we’ve appreciated the help that you’ve already shared with us, and also, um, I think we’re going to have even more questions as we work our way through sharing our 3D models.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (00:34): Um your expertise, I think, is especially pertinent, um, to sort of the second half of the project, if you will, where we’re thinking about how to share some of these digital assets, um what those 3D models like, what some of the implications of those are, like the ethical handling of those, particularly um the sort of split between things that were created by Crabtree and then things that are Native belongings or Native provenanced in that collection. So I’m just — I’m just so happy to have you here today, I’m so happy to chat with you about these questions. So thank you so much for being so generous with your time and um being a part of our advisory board.

Lorisia MacLeod (01:11): Absolutely. I am very excited to be involved and it’s a really exciting project, especially, um, I am really excited by the multidisciplinary kind of aspect of the advisory committee, um, and I think that’s really important for a project like this. So super excited.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (01:30): Awesome. Thank you. Yeah, I — I, we got such a — a cool crew and I’m excited to see all the videos together too, and the sort of um, overall um complexity and perspectives and viewpoints that puts out, with the commonality of everyone being really rad. So, um I just feel really lucky. Uh so with that, we’ll just dive right into the questions. So um the first one…

Jylisa Kenyon (01:50): Um Marco, I think we want, uh, Lorisia to give an introduction.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (01:54): You are so right, Jylisa. Thank you so much. Uh, yes, Lorisia, would you please do a — a full introduction of yourself, um full name, um any affiliations, anything that you’d like to share just as an intro?

Lorisia MacLeod (02:07): Excellent. Okay. Um so is it all right if I introduce myself in part in Cree and I’ll provide you the typing of all that for the transcript? Excellent, uh, so [Transcription Shared 00:02:18] Tânsi, Lorisia MacLeod nitsikason. Niya ochi James Smith Cree Nation ekwa amiskwacîwâskahikan. Um so hello everyone, my name is Lorisia MacLeod. I am a proud member of the James Smith Cree Nation, and I reside in Edmonton, Alberta, in Canada. I am a learning services librarian at the Alberta Library, and my background, uh education-wise, is a master’s of library and information studies, as well as a BA with a double major in French and language, uh French language and literature, as well as anthropology.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (02:53): Awesome, thank you. Thank you. And great catch, Jylisa. [laughs] I was like, “all right, question one.” All right, so let’s dive into that question now, after um we have a little bit more context. So uh for number one, what’s your perspective on the Crabtree collection and ones like it? Do you think it’s appropriative of Native cultures?

Lorisia MacLeod (03:14): So my perspective on it is, first of all, it’s unfortunately not a unique collection. Now, by that, I mean, the pieces within it, the artifacts themselves may be quite unique, but the way that this collection was created is unfortunately not all that unique, um, to how archaeology or in fact, a lot of academic pursuits treated Indigenous knowledges and Indigenous creations, um, historically. So, I personally do see it as, uh, an appropriative um, uh, collection, and that really comes down to the fact that it does appear to be created without any intent for there to be a reciprocal relationship with the Indigenous groups that this knowledge was coming from. Um I guess there’s no way to say for sure what Crabtree’s intent was, but um it really does come off as very appropriative because there isn’t that community relationship built into the work that he was doing, um which is unfortunate.

Lorisia MacLeod (04:22): I will admit, it does seem like it’s a very important collection, and that is both it was important in its time in the way that it was used, but I think it’s also actually kind of more important now because it can be used to spark this kind of conversation about how was this work done and was there a way that it could have done, been done better? Um and I think that can be really informative for current and future archaeological work. So I’d actually argue as unfortunate as it’s appropriative actions were historically, um there is the opportunity to take that and really make it beneficial to the field more generally, to discuss ways of doing this kind of work in a better way, um, matching kind of modern ethics of working with Indigenous people, not working on Indigenous people or Indigenous knowledges. Um that concept of “nothing about us, without us,” uh, is of course very common. So um yeah, I would say it is appropriative, but I do see there being a benefit to engaging with it in a modern context, for sure.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (05:38): That is very well said and well considered. Thank you for — for sharing that. And one of the things that stood out to me is this kind of concept of, sometimes I feel like we use something being historical in its context as an excuse, you know, and so it’s like, well, that’s how archaeology was done back when Crabtree was doing it. And it’s like, hmm, well, that’s debatable in and of itself, you know, we always have to take the things we know about history, with — with some criticism or skepticism potentially, especially, I think, sort of social things like that where we’re kind of excusing, um, different types of harm. But I also think it’s super useful to say, like, whatever the originating context is, we have an obligation to think about what we can do with it now, today, that, um, adheres to our current ethics and our current practice of doing it, right? And hopefully, um, librarians and archivists, you know, 50 years, 100 years down the line have even better ideas about how to approach some of these things, and maybe would have criticisms of us.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (06:41): But I mean, hopefully that’s part of the point, right, is that we’re continually thinking about, um, history as — as active. Um it makes me think about the — the archive that I work on, we use this concept a lot of, um, like ‘encuentro’ is the word, it’s Spanish for encounter, and basically the idea is it’s like history as a place of encounter and transformation, as opposed to history as a static site or record of something that happened. And it refers to the sort of transformative process that we see people have working on the archive. And so it just makes me think about this, like well, what’s the sort of transformative opportunity? We can say, yes, there’s appropriative elements maybe kind of baked into this. We can debate, if we thought it was valuable, how much of that’s from Crabtree specifically and how much of it is a product of his time? But ultimately what matters is what do we do now? And being critical about not re-presenting that just as it is and saying it’s justified ‘cause it’s historical or how they used to do anthropology and archaeology or whatever.

Lorisia MacLeod (07:44): Yeah. And if I could just add to that, um, a concept that comes up a lot in my library work is, uh, the concept of trying to avoid vocational awe. This being the concept that the profession that you’ve chosen, it being a liberal left-leaning social science field, um, is inherently good in itself and therefore inherently can’t cause harm. It, um, it — it kind of has this concept where you put your profession up on a pedestal. And I feel like collections like this are an opportunity for people to lovingly critique their own field, to be able to recognize that there are roots of systemic erasure, systemic racism, um, that although we can love and adore the professions that we’ve chosen, we can hold that in the same hand that we hold, uh, a loving critique of some of the roots that it came out of. And this collection, I think, is a great example of that, where yes, it caused harm, but now we’re looking at, um, let’s acknowledge those appropriations.

Lorisia MacLeod (08:57): Let’s acknowledge the ways that this collection could have been done better, um, and not pretend like this field never would’ve done that. Um and I think that’s a really important thing for a field to continue to move forward, um, improving itself. Uh if we just ignore things that we did in the past that were, uh, or sweep them under the rug, saying, “Well, you know, that was then,” um we’re really not hitting at what was the actual reason that allowed these things to happen. Um so, you know, in the case of Crabtree’s collection, we’re looking at, uh, in the entire society there was a system of, or rather a stereotype of Indigenous peoples as being, um, either savages or long-past, you know, bygone era. Um there wasn’t an acknowledgement of them as thinkers, as developers, as current active people contributing to society and knowledges that existed today. Um and I think that enabled a collection like Crabtree’s to develop in the way that it did.

Lorisia MacLeod (10:11): Um and so we can use that to look at our own fields and be lovingly critical of where they’ve come from. And I agree with you, I really hope in the future, even the work that we’re doing today, there’s going to be future critiques because it does say that we’re continuing to develop and continuing to move along that path. So I look forward to future folks being able to look at this and say, “Hmm, I think she’s missing this important piece or something.” You know I’m — I’m really excited for that because uh, to me, that means that we’re continuing to move in the right direction.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (10:47): I agree. I agree. And I think that’s sort of the iterative process that the academy is built on, right, that iterative evidence-based or evidence-informed process, where we’re still trying to improve on what we’re doing. And I — I really — I really love what you said, and it makes me, um, think like, you know, some, some of the folks watching this really love Crabtree specifically, like, they — they are very familiar with him as an individual or his work. And I really appreciate that message of like, this isn’t an unloving thing to do. This is actually a loving thing to do that brings this collection into just a sort of 20, 22nd century reference or wherever we’re at nowadays, you know, it brings us up to — up to a modern reference.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (11:29): And it’s also really interesting and intriguing to think about what would this look like today, you know, or what would this look like if this had been created with the relationships that, um, you know amateur archaeologists are maybe encouraged to have with Native Nations today, as opposed to how they were doing things 50 years ago? And I think you can, that’s a — that’s a really interesting sort of, um, Indigenous futurisms kind of experiment to think about, well, what would that look like and how would it be different, and what different things would be baked into the collection and the way we — we think about it and have thought about it? So, that’s great. Um Jylisa, I’ll let you take question two.

Jylisa Kenyon (12:04): Okay. Uh do you think folks digitizing digital collections, who are not anthropologists, should take up this type of contextualizing work? If so, how can we be successful without causing further harm?

Lorisia MacLeod (12:19): Um so absolutely. As I mentioned in my introduction, although I do have an academic background in anthropology, I by no means have, you know, a PhD in archaeology. I wouldn’t consider myself an expert in that. Um so perhaps I am a little biased when I say I think that this does need to be approached from a multidisciplinary perspective. Um but I think that comes from recognizing that siloing can be very dangerous, especially when we’re looking at trying to find better ways of doing things in something like an academic institution where historically these have not been very kind to Indigenous knowledges or peoples. Um and so bringing together people from different knowledge areas is a great way to kind of help ensure that you’re coming up with the best possible path forward, you know. There may be, especially thinking broadly of social sciences, um because those, you could consider sibling fields to archaeology, so they’re already rather close relation-wise, there might be something that’s happening in another part of social sciences that could be applied to archaeological work and it — it could improve things.

Lorisia MacLeod (13:41): Um so I think especially if we are looking at it from a way of how can we do the least harm possible, um, it does have to be multidisciplinary because no one group is always going to have the right answer. Um and, yeah, especially looking at a project like this, where you have a combination of digitization expertise, there’s, you know, 3D scanning, even the connection to 3D printing, you have the archaeological connection, um, you want to make sure that you have people with expertise coming from all those different areas. And the likelihood you’re going to find someone who happens to be an expert in literally every piece of this, is pretty low, um, especially when, as we kind of hit on in the previous, uh, question, really the important, the most important piece of this, in my opinion, is the conversation that’s going to happen around this collection. So having a group of people who are coming to it with different academic perspectives, but also lived experiences, that can help promote some of the best conversation, in my opinion.

Lorisia MacLeod (14:51): Um and, yeah, and I think the — the thing about harm is, I know often in allyship there is this sense of wanting to do absolutely no harm. And again, thinking of that future where I’m sure we’ll still have future folks critiquing things that we’re doing here, um, I always like to say that it’s best to try and do as little harm as possible. Like, whatever we think is no harm, may still cause harm, we may actually do it and find there is harm caused. Um or if there is, like a small amount of, you’re doing the thing that causes the least harm, trying to acknowledge where that harm is then try and find ways to, uh, heal it or to acknowledge it with whoever it’s like, if it’s a community where let’s say their intellectual property over a knowledge would be negatively impacted, but you’re minimizing it as much as possible and there’s just no way around it.

Lorisia MacLeod (15:53): Um having a discussion with that community about the harm and ensuring that they’re equally okay with it. Uh because if both parties are agreeing, yes, this is the best path forward, there may be some small concerns, but we both agree this small cut is worth the benefit in the end, um, then that’s just an opportunity for building relationships that I think in the end will probably help heal that harm better than anything else could.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (16:24): Well said. And I think also such a — such a great applied opportunity for people to practice, um, you know sort of anti-racism in, incarnate, you know sort of thinking about, um what you, so much of what you said really resonated with me and, and thinking about how that urge to pretend that it’s possible to cause zero harm, um, to think that we could be working in institutions that, um, have the institutional and structural issues that they do in terms of the harm that they cause, and then thinking that we, as individuals, will somehow be able to completely subvert that. It’s sort of a fantasy of control, um you know, and — and it’s also a — a fantasy of our own, um, sort of ability to — to — to not make mistakes or to not have ignorance and, you know, bias on our own, knowledge. And so I think that that’s such a — a profound message and — and one that I really hope people will, will take in, which is, you know, be willing and open and understand the necessity of — of saying that there is the possibility that harm will be caused, in fact, it’s almost guaranteed.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (17:36): And so it’s as much about figuring out, well, what’s our response gonna be? How are we going to mindfully minimize the harm that’s caused, but not minimize the pain that’s caused when it happens, right? So we’re trying to be very preventative in the harm that we cause, but also we’re not doing that to the extent where we pretend that it doesn’t exist and engage in denial, right. We actually say, “we’re doing our best to minimize harm and also we know some will happen, and so how do we want to respond?” And I think that that’s a very, um, a very powerful message and a very pragmatic one for anyone who’s trying to sort of do better on any element of their [laughs] personal development and trajectory, honestly. That — that — that honesty is foundational. Um, with that in mind, let’s go to question number three. Uh what do you think makes a good… uh, what do you think makes a digital effort like this a good partner to Native Nations and people?

Lorisia MacLeod (18:31): I think again, um, it really comes down to that relationship building aspect. Um having that, those conversations and those discussions, um, is key to having a project like this engage with Native Nations, um, and Indigenous people broadly. Um and I think most importantly, especially the individuals who are coming from the institutional background, um, it does involve coming to that table with an open mind, um to, like we discussed before, that loving critique of their own institution, acknowledging there could be ways that things could work better, um, there could be preexisting relationships that may cause individuals to have certain perceptions of them, just because of their institutional ties. And that might be something that you just have to acknowledge is something you’re gonna have to deal with in relationship building.

Lorisia MacLeod (19:31): Um and I think also being humble, um I think one of the great things about it being a multidisciplinary project like this is I think everyone involved has come to it with an acknowledgement that the areas of expertise that they have, do not negate the areas of expertise that others have. Um and I think more broadly, this is important to consider whenever working with Indigenous peoples or knowledges, um institutionally we often get very caught up in our own knowledge base. And it can be difficult sometimes to remind ourselves that we don’t know everything and we are not always the experts. Um but allowing oneself to be open and vulnerable in that way, can promote some of the best conversations and discussions, so yeah.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (20:23): Uh as two non-experts in many elements of this project, I — I think we can really, uh, resonate with that. Um and I feel like, uh, there’s a concept in Zen Buddhism of like beginner’s mind, and I feel like it’s been helpful for us to be able to come in with the ways that we aren’t experts, especially me and Jylisa not having the archaeology and anthropology background, and not even necessarily having a ton of 3D digitizing experience either. I mean, this really represented a lot of technological growth and development there too. And so I think that that’s — that’s been, um, something, something for folks to think about, that it’s sometimes coming in with that fresh uh, that need to build those skills or build-up context, it’s actually a really wonderful opportunity to sort of not repeat business as usual, um, because you have that, that fresh beginner’s mind and perspective, but also a — a good reminder to stay, um, humble and collaborative, um, [laughs] throughout. Uh Jylisa, do you want to take question number four?

Jylisa Kenyon (21:28): Sure. Um from your perspective, what should people know about flintknapping to understand the art and practice in a way that doesn’t center this one white non-native person?

Lorisia MacLeod (21:40): So I think I have kind of two answers to this, and the first one is more of a heart answer, and the second one is more of a head answer, I guess. Um so my heart answer, um, as someone who was lucky enough to have the experience of doing some flintknapping when I was taking my archaeology classes, is I would like to think that, or I would like people to know about the functional beauty of these flintknapped pieces. Um for me, it’s a really great example of how our ancestors created gorgeous things that did work. Um thinking of a lot of the pieces that I have seen created by my ancestors, they often have a really important function, but there’s a beauty to them too. And I think flintknapping is a really gorgeous example of that, um, especially because it often is, you know we’re looking at just one material, you know we, we only have the flintknapped point left, um, so it isn’t quite the same as when we get to see beautiful clothing that has a functional, uh, aspect, but has been embellished in a different way.

Lorisia MacLeod (23:01): But when you look at these beautifully flintknapped points, there is just something quite gorgeous about seeing something that is so perfectly knapped and you can see how it would’ve been — it would’ve been perfect to do the job it had to do. Um and, you know, I — I think it’s often very easy to reduce them to, oh, they’re rocks that were hit together. Um but I think when you actually get to see them, you start to realize there is an artistry here, um, and especially when you get to see larger collections where you do have a variety of materials that they’re made out of, sometimes you look at one and you have to wonder if the artist actually chose that particular rock because of that coloring or how they knew that it was going to flake the right way. Um so my heart answer is, I really hope that they see the beauty in flintknapping and how that beauty goes hand in hand with its functionality.

Lorisia MacLeod (24:07): The more mental head answer that I would give is, I would hope that people would look at flintknapping as a really great example of how there was teaching and learning happening on this land well before things like universities or schools were here. Um being able to see not only how these individual pieces were knapped, but being able to see over time changes or progressions or regionally there being different styles of knapping particular points. Um I think that really speaks to the fact that there was schooling happening, it’s just not necessarily how we think of schooling in today’s context, within an academic context.

Lorisia MacLeod (24:59): Um so I hope people kind of consider how flintknapping is actually proof of a long-standing, um, if you want, wish to call it an ‘academia of learning’ that has existed here as long as our people have. Um and I hope that they kind of view these beautifully flintknapped pieces as being examples of that, as though, you know, to the same degree as when you go into a library and you look at these beautiful tomes written by, fill-in-the-blank with whatever your favorite author is, these projectile points are tomes that have survived centuries to show us there was teaching and learning here as long as we’ve been here.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (25:53): Wow, awesome, awesome answer, and so much to think about in that. Um it makes me realize there’s been a — a disconnect in my own thinking and still thinking about things very individually and not thinking about the sort of social, um, as you’re saying, the sort of education, the social education that would go into transferring the knowledge of how to do this. And not only how to do it generally, but like how we as a particular people do it, or how we as a particular, um, like people in a particular region with access to a particular material do it, right, because obviously with, um like, genocide and dispossession of land, you know, people lost access to how, to places that they would’ve had, right? So then there’s, it’s just incredible to think about that, right? And I feel like even part of the issue with Crabtree, is it presents it as such a singular, uh, pursuit. Um and so you, even when you’re trying to think about it, you’re like, well, don’t think of it as just one individual, and

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (26:53): so I realized subconsciously my brain was like, think of it as many individuals, right, which is still sort of a western way of thinking about it. And I feel like what you’re getting at there is like, think about it socially, think about what it means culturally, and think about all of the sort of implications of that. And it’s pretty fascinating when you do that and take it as a piece of, uh, cultural evidence. And I mean that word, like, very deeply, where it’s like it shows beauty, um, it shows you know that, that artistic quality as you were talking about, it shows that, that beautiful connection of function and form, um, you known which in many cultures is sort of like the pinnacle of beauty, like a — a sort of superficial surface beauty is whatever, but to have, you know, a — a beautiful object that is also perfectly functional for what it’s doing, that’s like you know, for many, it’s like that’s — that’s the true perfection.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (27:43): And also that it shows the education and the lineage and the social networks that — that support that kind of sophisticated art creation, right? That this is not primitive by any stretch of the imagination, even though it’s early, and even though people have been doing it since time immemorial around the world, it’s actually fantastic evidence of all of these deeply sophisticated and nuanced and human things, um, right from the start. So yeah, very, really powerful to think of it that way. Thank you for sharing that, um hopefully some other folks in our audience will have a similar sort of, uh, connection there, [laughs] ‘cause I was like, “Yeah, that’s, that’s not just individuals, it’s the group,” yeah.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (28:23): One of the topics we’ve discussed as part of this grant project is the relationship between experimental archaeology, amateur archaeology, and cultural as well as knowledge appropriation. Uh can you talk a bit about what you see as the relationship between all of those concepts, um, and maybe expand on anything you’ve said so far that already kind of addressed that?

Lorisia MacLeod (28:44): Yeah. Um so I know that we had already kind of hit upon the — the fact that archaeology really has developed as a field, um, within a structure that not only approved, but in many ways rewarded the appropriation of Indigenous knowledges, um often by celebrating, uh, academic accolades of you know go find out about these, quote, unquote, “savages” and then write a book and we’ll celebrate you, you’ll be added to the royal society and et cetera, et cetera. Um so I think in my mind, that really means that experimental archaeology and amateur archaeology have the great opportunity of being able to really try doing things in a very different way, because they are kind of forms of archaeology that have always existed a little bit further than those strong colonial historical roots of the field in general.

Lorisia MacLeod (29:50): So because they’ve always existed a little further from that, they’re less tied to it. And I think it’s, I — I worry to use the word easier, because, um, I think there is still a lot of effort applied when you are trying to do things that aren’t the status quo. But, um, I do think that it is more accepted for them to try new processes, to go about things in a non-traditional way, traditional to the academia that is. Um and so that means that I think experimental archaeology and amateur archaeology have a lot of capacity to try different ways of doing community-engaged archaeology or reconnecting communities with collections if possible. Um now, I’m not going to ignore the fact that this, there is a lot of potential harm that can be caused by these forms of archaeology going about things in the wrong way.

Lorisia MacLeod (30:54): Um but I think if they tackle work, if they — if they come at things with an intent to try and do things right, um, and to do things connected to communities, to be engaged, um, especially if they’re looking at doing long-term community engagement, um, chances are they’re probably going to be doing things that are going to influence the field of archaeology broadly, um, in a way that I think is really important. Um so yeah, I — I — I don’t know, I’m kind of a champion of them. I also feel like amateur archaeology is probably where if community-engaged archaeology is done well, I would hope that it might inspire some amateur archaeology within the community itself. And to me, that would be like community-engaged archaeology is a great level, but community-based archaeology, where it’s the community doing their own, uh, archaeological digs and investigating themselves, would be like next level to me.

Lorisia MacLeod (32:02): Um so I, I’d really love to see more of that being inspired. So you know that’s kind of where I see all of those kind of connecting, and I — I look at them with a lot of optimism and hope that they will kind of help showcase alternate ways of doing things that are maybe outside of that traditional academic colonial framework.

Jylisa Kenyon (32:26): That’s a great point, uh, Lorisia. I think that when we, throughout our work with this collection, when we’ve heard the term amateur or avocational archaeology, it’s more been from the perspective of maybe someone outside of the community, someone like Crabtree who’s engaging in that work. Rather than thinking about the practices of amateur or avocational archaeology within the communities themselves and how beneficial that could be for kind of furthering knowledge around these topics. So that’s a — a great kind of change in — in how to think about the use of that word.

Jylisa Kenyon (33:03): Sorry, Marco, we can’t hear you.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (33:06): Thank you. Uh can you hear me now? Okay. Yeah. Thank — thank you, Jylisa, um I really appreciate what both of you said there. And I think, yeah, a, again, noticing that in my own thinking, that I was still thinking of community or avocational or amateur archaeologists as someone outside of community, um, sort of taking, as you said earlier, up research on people, as opposed to with. Um and — and I do think that that’s absolutely, um, sort of the bias in my own thinking that I’m seeing there. And so thinking about like, yes, amateur archaeology should expand to include the folks who are in the community, wanting to do their own research and how can we support that and build positive relationships and allow the academy or the institution to lend any knowledge or practice that’s useful, but to also have those, um, efforts truly be community-led, community-driven, community-informed and thus community-accountable.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (34:07): And I think that’s — that’s very powerful and a very encouraging message for — for folks who are watching, who may not have thought of themselves as being an amateur or avocational archaeologist, because, precisely because they’re not this outsider looking in in their community, they’re wondering, how can I support my own community in this? And so I think — I think that’s very powerful, and I also think it’s a — a good message to allies, to look for efforts that are aligned that way if you want your avocational or amateur archaeology to be more ethically-minded, that you can specifically, um, you know seek out those field schools or other community-driven and, um, accountable efforts, um, don’t take it up as something that you can do singularly. I feel like one of the really powerful messages of this is like, it’s not, it’s never going to work to just be doing it singularly, right, you need to think about the community. And, um, even if you think, oh, I’m just walking around on some land and I’m just out here by myself, that that’s — that’s sort of the illusion that all of this presents, so wow, very cool to think about.

Jylisa Kenyon (35:13): Okay, so on to question six. What do you think libraries, archives, and museums should foreground when digitizing a collection like this? What are the most ethical perspectives and strategies to employ when considering the rights and restrictions, reviewing, downloading and reusing the 2D and 3D outputs associated with collections like this.

Lorisia MacLeod (35:39): Um this, this question I had to think about, uh, for a little bit. The first part came rather easily to me, um, really because it hits on a lot of the same notes as I’ve already, uh, touched on, where it’s really important for memory institutions, so library, archives, museums, or really any institution that is holding information, um, or knowledge, whatever it happens to call itself, um they really need to critically engage with their historical role and modern role in the appropriation of Indigenous knowledges. Um and that covers not just, you know, within the field of, uh, anthropology broadly, but also all social sciences, looking even beyond that, pharmaceutical field, having appropriated Indigenous knowledges. On the plus side, the fact that, um, pretty much everybody needs to critically engage with this piece, uh, should hopefully mean we’re all very open to having the conversation around tackling that um, those historical roots, um, I would like to think, although that’s not always the case. But, um, I think for memory institutions like libraries, archives, and museums, uh, it’s especially important because we’re often considered the experts or the repository for the official information. You know, we have a degree of credibility that has been created by this colonial academia system over, you know, a century plus.

Lorisia MacLeod (37:23): Um and so really it does rest heavily on us to make sure that we engage with that, um, especially when we’re looking at collections like this that do have their own kind of appropriative history. Um but again, I think collections like this actually do present a great opportunity for institutions to do that, um, lovingly critical self-reflection. [laughs] Um I think more broadly, it often really kind of connects with looking at whose voices haven’t been included at the table, whose voices should be added, how they can be added in a way that makes them feel comfortable, that makes everything work effectively, and even does the table need to be changed, uh, in order to welcome those people to the table? Um speaking, of course, of a metaphorical table, as well as a physical one. [laughs] Um but, you know, discussions then can occur that range from just looking at processes to do work in a better way, all the way to perhaps discussing things like repatriation.

Lorisia MacLeod (38:42): Um so, yeah. The ethical piece, um, and I think probably a lot of listeners would agree when it’s like, oh, ethics is challenging. Um it very rarely falls into a “100%, yes this way,” or “100%, no, not that way.” Um so I mean, from my perspective, the absolute best practice would be always trying to find ways to put the decision about access rights in the hands of the Indigenous peoples that it’s connected to. Now when you have collections like Crabtree’s, where unfortunately a lot of the Indigenous-created pieces have had that relationship broken, there’s no clear way to necessarily identify this piece once belonged to this group, um, that, of course, poses a bit of a problem. You can’t, you know, ask that Nation, “Hey, we have these flintknapped pieces, um, would you be okay with us having them be available for others to see and share and 3D print and et cetera?”

Lorisia MacLeod (39:56): Um I mean, this is unfortunately not uncommon for these kinds of collections. Um so I mean, obviously best practice would be to try and empower the Nation to decide, but where that’s not uh possible, um, I think it, you know, it then starts to become, uh, more of a conversation. It kind of depends on what relationships you have and if you have connections with Indigenous communities that are recommending making them available, um, then you can follow that guidance. Um I think part of it too is maybe viewing this ethical question of access as being a living question. Um it could be something that initially is made available and then down the road, um, new relationships are built and somebody comes and looks at this and says, “uh you actually know that’s a very sacred object and shouldn’t be shared outside of community?” Or “that particular object has seasonal rules that regulate its usage or even viewing.”

Lorisia MacLeod (41:14): Um and I think this is where that being humble and open-minded comes into play again, because, you know, access rights may not be a one and done kind of decision, it may have to be a bit of a living document in a way, where those may change down the road. There may be things that, even if a Nation is able to be identified, they initially say, “we don’t want them shared broadly.” And then as relationships develop, they may choose to change that and say, “actually, we want people to see this functional beauty. We want to be able to recommend to people print this out, uh, with a 3D printer and use it in your archaeology classes, because we want you to know we were here and we are still here.” Um and then it really places a lot more of the power with Indigenous peoples. Um so I — I don’t think there’s any clear answer on the ethical question, mostly because I think the answer could actually end up changing down the road as more relationships are developed, um, as knowledge keepers maybe come forward with additional information about pieces and so on.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (42:26): I think that’s such a good answer, and one that’s really important for libraries and archives professionals to consider, especially that sort of fluidity of the rights, you know, that — that really goes against some of the — the grain of how we think about rights, especially in archives, where it’s like secure the most, secure the most rights for the institution and then preserve them at all costs, you know. Um and — and I feel like it — it really does acknowledge that, well we don’t know, the — the provenance on many of these is currently unknowable, but the process of gaining that knowledge would involve us, it needs to involve us being open, willing to, you know, receive some criticism potentially, uh you know, willing to iterate and — and try something.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (43:14): So you know right now, I think we’re going for, uh, Native items that have been 3D scanned, as in items that were not created by Crabtree, but were collected by others or himself, and, uh, now part of his collection. I think our current plan is to share the models of those online, but not the downloadable form. And I think our sort of philosophy behind that at present, which you know, this will be on a website along these models, so click over to the other tab and see what we ultimately decided to do, you know, it’s kind of a fascinating time capsule we have here, capturing our thinking on it. But — but basically we’re hoping that that would allow people to see these points and to say, “that belongs to us.”

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (43:58): Um you know, a — a Native nation can say, “we recognize that,” that you know, and we can then work on facilitating a potential repatriation there, as, as we’re able to within the institution. You know Jylisa and I are in the library, and so really have extremely limited knowledge of that from what the Bowers Lab has done or can do. But that would be, I think, our sort of high end goal. And then along the way obviously, if anyone is able to identify and say, “this belongs to us,” then we can use that input to inform how we handle that object. And maybe those objects, as you were saying, maybe they come down off the website altogether, maybe they, maybe that, uh, Nation says, “we’re okay. We would actually if people, you know…this is already out there and we wanted to do a sort of service and outreach work.” Um I used an example in a previous interview of like how zoos support a conservation sort of goal, by outreach and education.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (44:49): So if, if a Nation looks at it and says, “we are okay with this being out there because of the way that it does X, Y, Z thing,” then we can respect that too. But I — I — I think it really — it really emphasizes what you’re saying, which is you need to have a relationship, you need to be open to building a relationship, it needs to be, um, even if you’re only having brief or cursory interactions, it still needs to be relational as opposed to transactional. And I think that’s a big split in the sort of, um, western versus Native perspective, that, um, we say a lot, build relations, but if you’re not doing that in your sort of broader social context, maybe it doesn’t make that much sense. So I feel like that’s part of what it’s about, is — is it’s a long-term thing, it’s a long-term vision of that communication and relationship, it’s not a transactional. There is no, well, we said that and now it’s done, um, which personally, I think, I’ve driven Jylisa crazy a few times with how many times I’ve said, “I know I said that, but I’ve changed my mind.” [laughs]

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (45:47): Um and I — and I do feel like that is part of the, the cultural, um, sort of meeting here, where it’s like in — in a white culture, you’re really not supposed to have that much, uh, indecisiveness or fluidity or — or lack of clarity about what’s gonna happen. And so it’s like, well, we’re in this institution and we need those things somewhat and also we need to preserve all of this ambiguity that comes in building relationships, which is a real trick to manage with grant deadlines and everything else. [laughs] All right. Well with that, I’ll go to question number seven. Um you’ve done a lot of work and research creating custom templates that others can use to cite Indigenous oral knowledge. Uh from your perspective, what should libraries, archives, and museums foreground when seeking to center the uncited or unprovinced knowledge and techniques that were appropriated when creating collections such as this?

Lorisia MacLeod (46:39): I feel like we had the perfect lead up to this question, um, because I kid you not, the answer that I jotted down for myself was, uh, investing in long-term ongoing relationships that are not transactional with Indigenous peoples. Um and, you know, I mean, we’ve — we’ve come back to that again and again with this, I think, um, but I mean they really are foundational. Um I think I have to acknowledge though, the tricky piece is it’s best to develop these relationships, honestly before you think you need them. Um that’s part of how you avoid it becoming transactional, is instead of going to someone saying, “I want this from you, or we’re doing this project and we need you to provide input,” um, if you start off developing the relationships, you know, just organically, that’s the absolute best way to do it. That being said, when working within these kind of institutions, that often doesn’t work super well with the policies and processes that we have in place.

Lorisia MacLeod (47:55): Um so then it does become, um, a bit like we were talking about with mitigating harm, looking at ways to mitigate the transactional nature of it. Um so it might be that you initially, um, create a relationship with a community or group because, um, you engage with them for a particular project, but if, from the get-go, you’re very open and honest about the fact that you would like this to be a continuing ongoing engagement that goes beyond this particular project and you follow through on that, um, you can still develop, you know, a, like a project-based relationship into that important organic, uh, kind of ongoing relationship, where then you have these folks who might do a fantastic job in terms of letting you know some loving criticism of something that the institution is doing that is creating harm. And then you can start a discussion around, oh, can we change this to mitigate that? Can we improve this?

Lorisia MacLeod (49:02): Um yeah, I — I will acknowledge, for institutions, that can be very difficult because those kind of relationships don’t fit nicely on a budget line or in a grant timeline, um, but that really is the — the goal. That being said, I would rather institutions were willing to at least have transactional relationships with communities, rather than no relationships at all. I would just put in the plug of ensure that if you are engaging Indigenous people for emotional labor, um, and expertise, um, that you pay them for their time and expertise, um, which is something that hasn’t historically been done. Um so that’s a way to try and make the relationship slightly more reciprocal within kind of colonial constraints of projects. Um but you do what you can with the systems you have in place, admittedly, but like I said, I would much rather people have Indigenous voices at the table, even if that relationship starts out as very transactional, there is the opportunity to grow it into something bigger and better, um, and that’s definitely better than having no Indigenous voices at the table at all.

Lorisia MacLeod (50:19): Um also, uh, you know I jotted down a quick note for myself, like, be open to considering alternate ways of both collecting and providing information. For example, uh, recording discussions like this can be a great way that isn’t kind of stuck within the traditional academia of write a paper, um, which may not connect as well for some communities or knowledge keepers. Um so be open to the idea that the way that your institution likes to do things maybe isn’t the best way of doing them in that instance. Um and one thing I would make super clear would be, um, have clear intellectual property rights, I wrote this down for myself in big, bold letters, um and in particular avoid jargon when you’re talking about those. Um when I’ve had discussions with, um, Indigenous elders and knowledge keepers to help guide my own work, something that I realized about myself was coming out of library school, I often jumped right to using all the usual jargon.

Lorisia MacLeod (51:33): And even when talking about things like citation, I would talk about it in a way that didn’t make any sense. Once I had someone critique me on that, and I was able to kind of revisit, okay, how can I discuss this in a way that makes more sense? And I began talking about citation in connection to respect and relationship, connecting it with things that made much more sense outside of the academic sphere, I was able to get really great conversations and feedback. Um so, you know, tackling those important things like intellectual property rights, make sure to try and avoid jargon and use plain language so that everyone can really connect with what’s being said. Um and then, yeah, of course, the best practice being trying to find ways to keep the intellectual property with the Nation where possible, that’s the absolute, you know, gold standard, I would say.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (52:29): That’s awesome. And, um, it makes me think about, uh, we were lucky to have a little outreach effort from Nez Perce National Historic Park, to digitize some of, uh, their collection, a few items that they have that they were hoping to make surrogates that then could travel, instead of the original items. But one of the things that’s really interesting to me about that relationship is that it actually predates this project because the person who came and asked for our assistance with that, had come and accessed our makerspace at the library previously and asked about, um, some different projects. And so I also encourage folks, um, who are working in institutions who might be watching, to think about this as something that happens at multiple levels throughout your organization. I think sometimes we want to think like, oh, well, we, we should only have certain important people speaking to the, the Native Nations and representing the library in a particular way or the archive in a particular way.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (53:24): And in fact, um, all throughout your organization, you should have a team that understands what your particular institution’s, uh, philosophy of service is to Native Nations. And that’s a way that you can start building that relationship even before building the relationship, as you’re saying. So when Kristine approached us about this project, she’s able to say, “I’ve had really positive experiences at the makerspace, at the MILL, asking them about, um you know, 3D printing and 3D digitizing, and they’ve been so helpful. And now we have this like step two, which is this deepening of the relationship, and we actually want to lend you some things and actually ask you to, to scan them.” And, you know, we — we were super stoked about this, and, you know, as you pointed out, we tried to be very, um, deliberate about the IP. I will acknowledge that we actually didn’t get a clear answer back from our partner there about what they wanted to do with the IP, but we — we asked and, um, are totally flexible about it.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (54:25): I mean, I think that’s one of the things that we made sure to do is to say, even if we have no ultimate IP rights over this, we would still undertake this as service because it’s not about us trying to get something out of this, as in a particular digital asset or digital collection or something. It was about us wanting to provide that service. And it having already started in the library with that connection to the MILL is super, super cool, and I just think super relevant for folks to think about, um, the way that you respond to this kind of a goal of being more connected, respectful, and contemporary in how you engage with Native Nations and Indigenous appropriation, that’s a whole institution thing, right? It’s an iterative thing, it’s something that everybody in the institution needs to sort of think about how that might manifest in their work, and then take that up, um, as — as something that’s important, because again, that’s that pre-relationship building that makes it a — a genuine relationship, as opposed to always a, a specific ask for some specific reason, yeah.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (55:28): Well, uh, Lorisia, thank you so much. This was just excellent. I, we have real time recording of me having so many realizations, so very cool. Um is there anything else you want to add or share with us before we — we officially wrap up your recording for today?

Lorisia MacLeod (55:45): Um no, I think the only thing I would leave with is kind of a realization that as we were going through these, uh, questions that hit me, about the kind of aspect of like re-peopling the stories involved in these memory institutions, uh, that we kind of kept circling around. Um so similar to you having a bit of a — a realization, uh you know, I realize when we talk about, uh, libraries, archives, and museums, these memory institutions, um, even I myself sometimes kind of forget about the fact that those memories are people’s stories, um, and an institution is made up of people, there’s a lot of people pieces involved in this, um, and I think that’s why so much of this ends up connecting to relationships and communication, and um, you know, the historical systems of oppression and racism that exist, um, are things that are upheld by people, plural. Um and so finding a better way forward and finding a better way to engage with collections is equally going to take people in the plural.

Lorisia MacLeod (57:02): Um and so yeah, you know, I similarly kind of had that realization. So just to share a realization in reciprocity of your realizations. [laughs] Um you know, I really enjoyed this concept of like re-peopling, and I think that connects well with this collection, where it did kind of end up circling around one individual, but in reality, it connects to many people. Um and some of those connections we don’t even quite know because they’re a little bit lost, um, and who knows, in the future, we might find them again, but, um, regardless, now we’re all part of that, that story as well, so yeah.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (57:42): Yeah, really interesting to think about re-peopling as sort of antidote to vocational awe, um, there’s something there. So, uh, stay tuned for future collaborations. Um but with that, I — I will say officially, thank you so much for all your time and energy in this wonderful interview. Um you’ve given me and Jylisa here so much to think and reflect on. So thank you for being so generous and, um, thoughtful in your sharing. It really, really shows and has really had a tremendous impact on me, and I’m sure for our audience too. So thank you so much, and with that, we’ll go ahead and shut down the recording.

Jylisa Kenyon (58:16): Thank you.

Marco Seiferle-Valencia (58:16): Yep.