Tsimshian Treasures: The Remarkable Journey of the Dundas Collection

Tsimshian Treasures: The Remarkable Journey of the Dundas Collection. Donald Ellis, ed. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2007. 144 pp.

Reviewed by Christopher F. Roth

This sparely arranged, visually pleasing volume—an exhibit catalogue enhanced with several essays—lands amid elltsi.jpgone of the more controversial museum exhibits in the recent history of Canadian First Nations art: forty Tsimshian artifacts that spent decades hidden in private hands and surrounded by myth and rumor, surfacing on the auction block in New York in 2006 and fetching a world-record take ($7 million) for a Native American collection.

The pieces were originally collected in 1863 on a visit to Metlakatla, British Columbia, by the Rev. Robert James Dundas. He procured them from William Duncan, the dissident Anglican lay missionary who ran the tiny Tsimshian village as a utopian fiefdom. The circumstances of the transfer are murky, as is the story behind Duncan’s having them in the first place: his job was not to hoard or sell objects but to eradicate the Tsimshian customs they represented. The spotty written record (more on that below) leaves it unclear whether or not Dundas bought them outright.

For 143 years the objects were in the Dundas family’s possession. They decorated the family’s billiard room and children played charades with them. Dundas’s great-grandson, Simon Carey, who eventually brought them to auction, at one point had to stop his mother and aunt from throwing the collection away. He died nine days after the auction.

I recall the impotent anger expressed in Tsimshian communities when word of the impending auction emerged in 2006, especially considering that some of the objects had belonged to the legendary chief Paul Legaic. Legaic’s rejection of “heathenism” under Duncan’s influence was the pivotal point in the Christianization of the Tsimshian. Alan L. Hoover’s contribution to this volume, “The History of the Dundas Collection,” describes the historical and cultural context satisfactorily for the nonspecialist, connecting the written record with what can be discerned from the objects themselves, though Tsimshianists will find some of his occasional dips into the ethnographic record to clarify details of Tsimshian heraldry unsatisfyingly preliminary.

A few pages from Dundas’s own diaries are reproduced in the volume but in tantalizingly short excerpts. There is no mention of the controversy over Carey’s son’s refusal to make the full texts of the original diaries, which are still in England, available to scholars.[1] One can only wonder, as Tsimshian leaders ramp up their anger over the circumstances of the objects’ acquisition: what are Dundas’s descendants hiding?

There are no answers to such questions in Tsimshian Treasures. Most of the essays (the powerful concluding essay by the Tsimshian weaver William White is an exception) to some extent set aside the collection’s weightier implications for repatriation, sovereignty, and the politics of cultural representation. This is because this volume is in a sense a peace treaty between warring sides: Tsimshians and their allies who feel collectors and distant museums have no right to the pieces, versus collectors and exhibitors who feel the matter is now settled. For example, the contribution by Sarah Milroy, a Globe and Mail reporter, on the ceremonies surrounding the objects’ unveiling at the Museum of Northern British Columbia (an institution that works closely with Tsimshian chiefs) alludes to controversy but seems more like a travel-section feature story, ending on an upbeat, redemptive note.

The major question for many Tsimshians is whether the objects were stolen or given up freely. Answers are inherently elusive. To suggest that Legaic was somehow coerced into abandoning his traditions for Christianity bucks the emerging trend in missionary studies in general and Tsimshian studies in particular, highlighting indigenous agency in missionization. Indeed, amid today’s Tsimshian cultural renaissance, it is hard to imagine a powerful chief surrendering his hereditary privileges to adopt Christianity and white culture. Older Tsimshians may find such ambivalence about one’s own culture sadly familiar. But was Legaic even authorized under Tsimshian law to surrender objects that in another sense belong to the rest of his lineage (who, mostly, did not convert at that time)? Or do his descendants and fellow tribesmen now have an automatic claim? And what about objects with no clear lineage provenance? Duncan did not quite use force to convert the Tsimshian, but he was not above, for example, claiming that Metlakatla’s loss of only five lives in a smallpox epidemic, while nearby “heathen” Port Simpson lost 250, was God’s will. Maybe he believed it himself. But, for a culture convinced of a relationship between disease and spirit power, isn’t Duncan’s use of those arguments a kind of coercion?

Amid these serious moral and legal questions, it is jarring to read Donald Ellis, the Ontario collector responsible for the collection’s auction, write about another kind of repatriation: his eagerness to see the objects sold to Canadian collectors rather than (perish the thought) Americans or other foreigners. For him, bringing the objects from England to Ontario is repatriation enough. Anyone familiar with the complex Tsimshian system of lineage property rights will wince reading Ellis’s assertion that “this group of objects … belonged to Canada and all Canadians” (p. 13). Whether it is land or culture or artifacts, First Nations people by now know what is really intended when an outsider claims that something of theirs “belongs to everyone.” Reading White’s cogent words in this volume and looking at Shannon Mendes’s stunning (but, frustratingly, uncaptioned) accompanying photographs of Tsimshian elders marveling at the Dundas Collection in the Museum of Northern British Columbia, one thing is clear: Tsimshians feel proud of these objects, but they also feel robbed.

1. See: Alexandra Gill (2007) “Native Treasures Travel without Companion Diaries.” Globe and Mail. May 3: R3.

Chris Roth teaches anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and has pursued ethnographic and ethnohistorical research among the Tsimshian in British Columbia since 1995. He has contributed to numerous scholarly journals, including American Ethnologist, B.C. Studies, Ethnohistory, and Wicazo Sa Review. [2007.2.27]


2 Responses to “Tsimshian Treasures: The Remarkable Journey of the Dundas Collection”

  1. 1 Jason Baird Jackson December 20, 2007 at 8:36 pm

    An Addendum to My Review of Tsimshian Treasures

    Chris Roth

    Since writing my review of Tsimshian Treasures, I have been contacted by Benjamin Carey of Edinburgh, Scotland, great-great-grandson of the collector Rev. Robert J. Dundas and son of the late Simon Carey, who was the Collection’s custodian for half a century. He has shared with me his concerns with the Globe and Mail article by Alexandra Gill cited in the my review. Since communicating with him, I have become satisfied that the Globe and Mail mischaracterized the actions and intentions of the Carey family and misrepresented the situation of the availability of the Dundas journals. As Mr. Carey informed me, the family has always been ready to make the many journals and photograph album available to scholars, but this has always been constrained by serious conservation constraints, given the particular fragility of the one volume that describes “A visit to the Indian Settlement of Metlahkatlah (sic).” In fact, Mr. Carey, who knows that I work closely with Tsimshian communities, has offered to make the text available to me and to other scholars, as was the case with the curators of the recent exhibit and to whom Mr. Carey also freely supplied digital images of relevant extracts, which were reproduced in the catalogue. Despite what I wrote in my review and despite the implications in the Globe and Mail article, the Carey family indeed has nothing to hide and would welcome further research. I extend my apologies to Mr. Carey and his family, and to readers, for my failure to check for accuracy on this point and for any misunderstanding or damage this may have caused.

    It seems clear to me that, given his openness and goodwill, Mr. Carey’s custodianship of the Dundas archive is good news for Tsimshian studies and for the Tsimshian people. I predict that fruitful dialogue and further contributions to knowledge will emerge from further study of it and of the Dundas Collection. [Submitted to, and posted by, the editor of Museum Anthropology Review on December 20, 2007]

  2. 2 Nick Canaday March 9, 2012 at 2:10 pm

    The simple point here is that my tribe the Tsimshians were robbed of our ancestry. Shame on the Dundas family. It does not matter what they say or do, welcoming scholars to read through old dairies will not do a damn thing. The only way to make this situation right is to return these artifacts to their rightful owners….The Tsimshians.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Museum Anthropology Review (MAR) is an open access journal whose purpose is the wide dissemination of articles, reviews, essays, obituaries and other content advancing the field of material culture and museum studies, broadly conceived. ISSN: 1938-5145


%d bloggers like this: