|
"American Museums and Postcolonial Identities:
Early Anthropological Collections Revisited"
ABSTRACT
In this paper I present a case study of an anthropological collection at the Smithsonian Institution’s National Museum of Natural History in Washington, D.C. This collection is comprised of Native American cultural objects and human remains and it is the product of mid- to late-nineteenth century government science. This assemblage was amassed through the combined efforts of the Smithsonian Institution, the Department of Agriculture, the Bureau of Ethnology, Army surgeons posted in ‘Indian Country,’ the Army Medical Museum, and government geographical and geological expeditions as well as railroad and boundary surveys. The objects and human remains in this collection were taken from scores of Native tribes from all parts of the United States. A great many of these objects and human remains are now being reclaimed through the repatriation efforts of Native American tribes.
Repatriation is the federally legislated process in which museums and Native American groups enter into consultation in order to negotiate and determine the rightful ownership of culturally sensitive objects such as funerary and sacred items, as well as human remains. Consequently, what is considered to be scientifically and ethically appropriate for collection has dramatically changed.
Situating repatriation within the broader historical framework of nineteenth century collecting demands recognition of cultural, racial, and national identity formations. These colonial formations, I argue, continue to shape both today’s repatriation debates as well as disciplinary identities within museum anthropology -- all of which resonate within the formation of larger national identities. The historical circumstances of this collection, when juxtaposed with the contemporary repatriation movement, offer valuable insights into postcolonial American identities. I maintain that the repatriation movement provides the opportunity to reexamine the ways in which old, racialized concepts of science and progress still linger. For example, the issue of repatriation is often characterized as a binary debate: The Native versus the Museum. This oversimplified depiction not only does an injustice to invested individuals and the political complexities of the issue, but it is inaccurate. Allegiances are not so easily separated here. When easy lines are drawn between museums and natives, a slippery slope is created that leads to dangerous binaries such as scientific interests versus indigenous ones. By situating indigenous interests outside of science, old racist stereotypes re-emerge of natives as existing outside of scientific progress.
This analysis not only enables helpful insights into the politics of repatriation within American museums, but it also examines contemporary negotiations (and reformulations) of national identities as they are informed by ideas of science and the relevance of scientific inquiry.
|
