When I was at the University of Oregon Natural History Museum, whenever
the Javanese Gamelan was displayed, we would scatter flower petals and
burn incense in the exhibit case.  It not only kept the gods of the
Galelan happy but it
added to the experience.  We had positive feed back from the Indonesian
students who visited the museum.  There can be a place for sacred objects
in exhibits if done with sensitivity to the culture and in this case
permission from the current care taker of the instruments.
 
 
On Sat, 5 Nov 1994, Tree Ring Circus wrote:
 
> 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
>