Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros37 (1)Comptes-rendus d’ouvrageContextualizing Museum Collection...

Comptes-rendus d’ouvrage

Contextualizing Museum Collections at the Smithsonian Institution: The Relevance of Collections-Based Research in the Twenty-First Century

Martinez MM, Sears EL, Sieg L (eds), Smithsonian Institution Scholarly Press, April 2022, 219 p. [https://doi.org/10.5479/si.19436615]
Juno Salazar Parreñas

Texte intégral

1How might working with museum collections be an ethical archaeological practice? Maria M. Martinez, Erin L. Sears, and Lauren E. Sieg offer answers to this question in their edited volume Contextualizing Museum Collections at the Smithsonian Institution: The Relevance of Collections-Based Research in the Twenty-First Century, which is the 54th volume in the series Smithsonian Contributions to Anthropology. The collection stems from a 2018 American Archaeology conference session.

2Their work is part of a generation of museum workers who have pushed and are pushing their institutions to reckon with colonial and genocidal legacies that have made the amassing of their collections possible. The goals of restorative history and decolonization are enacted not just through work with source communities, researchers, and publics, but through fundamental reorganization. That work is necessarily ongoing. For instance, the authors offer a table that explains how contemporary museums classify their objects from the Americas. Instead of creating the Eurocentric category of prehistorical and pre-European contact versus historical and post-European contact, museums in conversation with anthropologists categorize their objects according to the method of collection and curation. The four categories in use are archaeological, to reference items obtained either through archaeological sites or through looting, ethnographic, to reference materials obtained directly from source communities, which are often Indigenous societies, archaeological and ethnographic, to denote unknown sources, and modern and contemporary, to reference work from modern and contemporary artists. The last category reflects the turn in acquisition practices of the National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) since the Civil Rights Era and the American Indian Movement in which NMAI aims to "shatter the anachronistic anthropological and museum narratives of contemporary Indigenous and Native peoples as well as a way to promote, support, and illustrate their resilience and cultural resurgence." (2022:4)

3Instead of relying on categories stemming from "the purely Western lens of late nineteenth century museums and anthropology practices," the authors ask museums to consider a "move to classification systems that incorporate Indigenous knowledge systems of classification when such information is available to share" (2022:5). The example they use is the substitution of the word "cultural resources," which evokes resource extraction, in favor of such terms as "cultural patrimony" or "heritage" (2022:5). Such an assertion depends on the premise that it is possible to find working terms that are legible across ontological differences and epistemic asymmetries, whereas some decolonial scholars would question how significant epistemic and ontological differences could be incorporated into a single categorical system to be instrumentalized by a museum (de la Cadena and Blaser, 2018; Spencer et al., 2018; Parreñas, 2022). The use of the word "patrimony" for instance is a surprising example because of its etymology in the Latin word for father; it is surprising because patriarchal ideas of inheritance and ownership were often violently imposed on Indigenous peoples (Aikau et al., 2015; Tallbear, 2016). Despite the criticism of word choice and the underlying question of how much epistemic differences can be accounted for in classification schemes, this volume is a worthy endeavor that takes seriously the ethics of working with Indigenous communities to make substantive contributions to archaeology.

4Museums are not intrinsically ethical institutions and the editors in their introduction are forthright in their discussion on provenance chains or how items came to be part of collections. This includes their pointing out misattributions that occurred along with "willfull neglect of Indigenous cultural heritage" in museum collecting practices along with contexts of war and displacement that have led to objects coming into possession of museums, such as the removal of Mayan objects during armed conflict in Guatemala from the 1960s to the 1990s (2022:5). Despite the unethical histories of such collections, the authors in the first part of the volume argue that ethical research is possible with ethically dubious museum collections. For instance, Rosemary Joyce’s contribution in the first part of the volume argues that research with museum collections can correct biases of working with only newly excavated items, especially when museum items "represent the only evidence for occupation of a site." (2022:27). Such objects counter any terra nullius argument that would deny the existence of Indigenous people who have longstanding ties to a place. Bishop et al. describe their collaboration in which they connected Hopi teens to the science and culture of Hopi pottery production and exchange. Burgio-Ericson and Seowtewa detail their collaboration – one an academic and the other a representative from the Zuni Cultural Resources Advisory Team, in which they worked with a collection made from a 1917 archaeological expedition. Norman et al. share their perspective as molecular anthropologists working with skeletal material. Berger et al. discuss the work of piecing together provenance chains of looted objects as a way to both situate the context of these objects and to understand past collection policies.

5The second half of the volume argues how original data sets can be made from museum collections, thus encouraging archaeologists to move away from a research model that depends on new digs. For instance, Martinez et al. use polished obsidian 'mirrors' crafted by Mexican Indigenous artisans for European consumers to argue that Indigenous technology and knowledge persisted and were employed throughout colonial invasion and not merely replaced by European technology. Domenici’s contribution is based on comparative analysis of objects found in similar areas to make an argument about symbolism and ritual function of shields, masks, and associated objects. Ostapkowicz, Knaf, and Davies rely on spectrometry and material identifications of stone artifacts found in the Bahamas and Turks and Caicos Islands to argue about the reaches of trade and communication in the wider Caribbean.

6Of special interest to readers will be Normal et al’s contribution, "Ethical Aspects of Community-Based Paleogenomic Research Using Museum Samples." The authors detail the importance for biological anthropologists to maintain ties with descendant communities beyond the legal requirement issued by such laws as NAGPRA (Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act) and policy guidelines issued by the American Association of Biological Anthropologists. As the authors argue, "deep investment in local community questions and collaboration provides much needed time depth, reciprocity, and trust in presenting and working on new projects using human remains." (2022:38) With the permission of descendant communities, working with fraught materials, specifically ancestral bones stolen under colonial circumstances, is possible if biological anthropologists acknowledge and confront past harm and vow to never let research without community approval happen again. The authors detail how they discuss, collaborate, and gain approval on sampling methods with descendant communities, committing for example to extract ancient DNA from ribs instead of cranium or dentition, even if it may yield less morphological or pathological information. Such collaboration makes for more robust scientific work, especially when it expands possible interpretations and analyses. The authors write, "Sometimes, the genetic and archaeological evidence, oral histories, and traditional knowledge provide different constructions of the past, and it is from these differences that new research question emerge." (2022:43)

7All of the chapters in the volume represent diverse archaeological methods and engage with materials associated with the Americas, including the Caribbean. Full color plates of turquoise masks, obsidian surfaces, gold jewelry, and ceramic figurines help fortify authors’ arguments throughout the edited volume. Overall, this is a helpful contribution to those interested in working with museum collections, material culture, Indigenous communities, and archival materials.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Aikau HK, Arvin M, Goeman M et al (2015) Indigenous Feminisms Roundtable. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies 36(3):84-106 [https://doi.org/10.5250/fronjwomestud.36.3.0084]

de la Cadena M, Mario B (2018) A world of many worlds, Duke University Press, Durham, 232 p [https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478004318]

Parreñas JS (2021) Pronouns for an apocalyptic future: asymmetrical terms for a new era. Tapuya: Latin American. Science, Technology and Society 4(1):1989849 [https://doi.org/10.1080/25729861.2021.1989849]

Spencer M, Endre D, Yasunori H (2019) Asymmetries and Climate Futures: Working with Waters in an Indigenous Australian Settlement. Science, Technology, & Human Values 44(5):786-813 [https://doi.org/10.1177/0162243919852667]

TallBear K (2016) Annual Meeting: The US-Dakota War and Failed Settler Kinship. Anthropology News 57:e92-e95 [https://doi.org/10.1111/AN.137]

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Juno Salazar Parreñas, « Contextualizing Museum Collections at the Smithsonian Institution: The Relevance of Collections-Based Research in the Twenty-First Century »Bulletins et mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris [En ligne], 37 (1) | 2025, mis en ligne le 28 avril 2025, consulté le 11 mai 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/bmsap/15944 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/13uin

Haut de page

Auteur

Juno Salazar Parreñas

College of Arts and Sciences, Cornell University, New York, United States of America ; parrenas[at]cornell.edu

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-SA 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Search OpenEdition Search

You will be redirected to OpenEdition Search