Sarah asked the questions:
Do you believe objects themselves hold power, or are they only
powerful to the believer? If sacred objects are loaned to museums is
there a "respectful" way to present them to the public to convey their
importance, or is it more appropriate to give every object equal value?
I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on this....
Sarah M.
[log in to unmask]
Sarah;
Thank you for asking several thought provoking questions. We need
more of this kind on inquiry in this venue.
If you're not already subscribed, I would encourage you to
participate in NAGPRA-L. (Send the message "subscribe NAGPRA-L" to
[log in to unmask]) There have been several threads on this list
you would find interesting.
You've posed two relevant questions central to the issues
surrounding NAGPRA.
1) What is the role of the "objects," including human skeletons,
in the educational activities of a museum, which implies:
a) what is the intended audience of the museum's
educational activities?
2) Do objects regarded as sacred by members of a culture have an
intrinsic "sacredness" that transcends cultural boundaries?
These questions tread rather heavily on the duality of
anthropologists and museum professionals as advocates for native
cultures on the one hand, and as "objective" scientists on the other.
From our scientific side, we hold that objects, as physical
manifestations of cultural activities, have no cause and effect
relationship between their use as ceremonial or sacred objects and any
resulting natural or spiritual activity, whether that be healing,
return of game or advantageous weather, as examples. Our Cartesian view
of the Universe denies the concept of an object possessing any
intrinsic "power" that has the ability to affect physical reality,
including the human occupants within it.
Despite this grounding in rationality, we nevertheless often
experience the specialness of objects regarded as sacred or powerful by
their makers and indiginous users. I doubt that there are many of us
who have not encountered an object in our collections that has elicited
a feeling of "spookiness," or at the very least, an appreciation of its
special nature. We are all aware of anecdotal evidence, our "oral
histories," of scientists or curators who treated objects with
disrespect and died suddenly at an early age or otherwise fell prey to
misfortune. Although this is the mythology of our profession, one
needn't search too far to find the data to back up the stories.
The consideration of the perception of power held in sacred
objects then begs the question of "For whom are these objects
displayed?" and, after successfully answering that query, "Should these
objects be on public display in the first place, and if so, how should
they be displayed to 'respect,' or at least acknowledge and convey
their sacred nature?"
The first question is a tough one at present, mainly because the
answer is currently in a state of flux. Twenty years ago, the question
would have elicited a puzzled, "Hunh?" Museums were obviously designed
to inform a predominantly WASP audience about the curious appearence
and activities of "Indians" and "natives," and objects were displayed
as items of curiosity, or at best, objects of art. The sacredness of
objects may have been noted as a pedantic anthopological footnote, but,
as a whole, little attempt was made to place objects in their cultural
context. (This is all hopeless generalization, of course. Anyone
offended by the above is free to point out their specific circumstances
to the contrary.)
We are attempting, at present, to bring about a resolution to the
dilemma posed by the two questions, and NAGPRA is forcing the issue by
providing legal and economic incentives to that end. We are being
forced, in some exceptional cases dragging furrows through the lobby
carpeting, to come to terms with the cultural context of the objects in
our collections. In order to do so we are being forced, again with the
same consequences to the furnishings, to actually talk in meaningful
ways to living and breathing representatives of the cultures that
produced the objects we prize so highly.
In 99 and 44/100 percent of cases, this has been an entirely
positive process, resulting in an enormous increase in understanding on
the part of anthropologists and museum professionals accompanied by a
quantum increase in collections organization and accessability. In many
cases, alliances have been forged with Native American groups that have
benefitted both parties and have strengthened the reputation of
institutions within the Native community, previously sullied by
paternalism and outright cultural imperialism. In short, as a whole, we
have all benefitted from the NAGPRA process.
I think that we will find, despite the fears and portents of
academic doom spread by some, that museums will change little outwardly
after the repatriation dust has settled. We will still have the vast
majority of our collections intact. We will still display sacred and
powerful cultural objects in our exhibits. We will still conduct
meaningful research on our colections.
What will have changed, however, will be our perception of the
museum as a purveyor of knowledge and learning. I foresee, at least in
our case here in Alaska, that the museum will become less a centralized
storehouse of things, to be studied and displayed according to
priorities set by non-Native professionals. Rather, the museum is
rapidly becoming an interactive source of "knowledge management," with
collections physically located in dispersed cultural centers throughout
its area of expertise, as well as in the centralized, formal museum
setting.
Museum professionals then become information management
specialists who facilitate access to information, data, if you must, to
and from all segments of the public, Native and non-Native alike. In
this setting, all participants can do what they do best. Museum
professionals, skilled in conservation, preservation and analysis, will
continue to care for the objects and conduct empirical research on the
collections. Representatives of the cultures that created the objects
will provide the perspective of the objects in an on-going, living
cultural context, which can be far more relevent than display of
objects on the musem walls. In this way we all have the opportunity to
benefit from the contributions of all our "experts," and we can more
effectively carry out our mission of public and academic education.
Sarah, I've restated your question to compliment my own agenda,
but the issues you pose transcend individual beliefs about the sacred
nature of the objects in our collections. The answer(s) will vary
depending on the individual circumstances surrounding each collection
and the players involved in their disposition. I hope this generates
some discussion from all sides of the issue.
I've also taken the liberty to post your question and my response
on NAGPRA-L. You should be able to jump right into the middle of the
discussion!
Thanks
Mike Lewis
University of Alaska Museum
|
