Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 1993.22:201-220 Copyright © 1993 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved

EXPLODING CANONS: The Anthropology of Museums

Anna Laura Jones

Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305-2145

KEY WORDS: art, exhibitions, primitive, repatriation, representation

INTRODUCTION

In this review I discuss the growing chorus of criticism and controversy over the treatment of non-Western art and material culture in museums. I have chosen to bypass the steady flow of solid ethnographic studies of traditional arts and popular arts, and the emergence of new theoretical concerns in these

studies for two reasons.1 First, academic anthropologists rarely consider mu­

seum anthropology as an important area for the employment of anthropolo­gists, and thus for the training of students. The situation for anthropologists in museums is rapidly changing and aspiring curators should be advised of the directions of change. Second, museum anthropologists now practice in a highly politicized public setting and their experience puts current theory into

practice in interesting ways. Controversies surrounding museum practice in the 1980s and early 1990s

have highlighted many recent issues of academic debate-the nature of ethno­

graphic authority, the creation of traditions, the examination of colonial and postcolonial bias in the representation of other cultures, the ethical responsibil­ities of anthropologists, and the epistemological status of analytical categories ("art," "text," and "culture").

I refer the interested reader to review articles on recent studies in African art (1, 16), of literature on Paleolithic art studies (37, 164), and on the study of material culture (68, 96, 116, 136).

0084-6570193/1015-0201$05.00 201

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

202 JONES

The "politicization of the humanities" has blasted out of the academy and

into the media (105) and has hit the museum world like a hurricane. The practice of anthropology in museums has entered a stage of heightened risk and intense public scrutiny (97). New political and economic realities are

effecting changes in all areas of museum operations: research, curation, and exhibitions, in particular. Critics from within academic anthropology are help­ing to shape these changes. This is a startling tum of events from the not-so­distant past when academic anthropology ignored (at best) or derided museum anthropology, and when museums were considered the most conservative of research institutions (19).

THE PRACTICE OF ANTHROPOLOGY IN MUSEUMS

Differences

Many authors have described the rift between museum anthropology and academic anthropology (4:38-43; 43:156; 59; 67; 99; 100:180-81, 183). Aca­

demic anthropologists commonly dismiss collections-based research as non­theoretical (4:40), or as exemplifying outmoded or unfashionable theories (such as evolutionism, see 116:491-92). Academics (and some museum cura­tors) consider exhibition work "less respectable and intellectually demanding than teaching" (100: 184) or "like writing an elementary textbook with a liberal

use of visual aids" (4:42). The practice of anthropology in museums has few things in common with

its practice on campuses (4, 43, 99, 100).2 Museum curators conduct field research, publish in scholarly journals, and attend conferences. In small muse­ums, curators are also expected to be familiar with a wide range of artifact types and culture areas and to perform an enormous variety of duties. In large museums, curators must work with professionals from other areas of the museum: artists and designers, writers, educators, fund-raisers, and volunteers. The authority of curators has steadily diminished relative to that of other museum professionals and there is some concern over the effects of popular­ization on exhibition content (147).

Several authors have remarked upon the increasing vulnerability of mu­seum anthropologists (4:43), who are losing power within large museums to those who raise and manage money and to those who design exhibitions and activities for the public (4:41; 21:29; 99:15; 158; 159; 147). As the media and members of communities whose cultures are exhibited in museums become

2 University museums are an interesting hybrid case, particularly when curators also serve as

faculty, or when there is a professional museum studies program. However, the general disdain with which academics have regarded museum studies and the tensions between museums and academic departments often persist here as well.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

ANTHROPOLOGY OF MUSEUMS 203

more critical of the content of exhibits, curators are exposed to greater public scrutiny than many of their academic colleagues (43: 164; 139). A trend toward criticism of museum practice from academic anthropologists, sociologists, historians, and even English professors, is creating new tensions between museums and the academy (see 67,91,92).

One might conclude that it is a difficult time to be a curator. It is certainly a challenging and exciting period. The potential of museums to promote multi­cultural education has never been more critical. The involvement of ethnic communities in museum planning and activities is an opportunity to enlarge the role of museum anthropologists and a chance to participate in the empow­erment of those traditionally excluded from museum decision making. This new atmosphere of relevance and accountability, a change from the isolation and triviality of past decades, has made the museum environment as dynamic and challenging an arena for anthropology as the halls of academia (60:273). There are several major exhibitions of the past decade in which curators took risks and encountered controversy from the public and from their academic colleagues.

Academics Attend Museums

STUDIES OF MUSEUMS Bourdieu's work on the influence of class, educa­tion, and habit on artistic taste and museum visitor behavior (23, 24) brought the study of museums to the attention of critical theory and cultural studies (see also 106). By the mid-1980s, Lurie's observation that anthropologists were ignoring museum exhibitions (100: 182) had been replaced by fresh, critical attention. Detailed deconstructions of museum installations and catalogs added a new level of understanding of the technology of representation (7, 9, 22, 32, 152). The most widely cited of the new critiques are Clifford's works on museums and theory (30, 32). The theoretical work of Ames (3,4) is also highly regarded.

MUSEUM STUDIES In the mid-1980s academic anthropologists "agreed that the time was ripe for a revitalized anthropology of things" (5 : xiii) , spawning a series of studies of the cultural biographies of artifacts (6, 94), the role of ceremonial regalia in ideologies of domination (26, 34), and the display of material objects as emblems of class, and ethnic and national identity (13, 63, 121, 153). In addition to bringing theoretical interest to material culture studies, scholars working in the Marxist or postmodern schools have considered the role of museums as social institutions that support capitalist subordination of the working class (see 24, 77) and that glorify colonialism (see below).

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

204 JONES

The British postprocessual school of archaeology (see 73-76, 151) has

revived a familiar philosophical debate about whether objects have objective qualities, and about the so-called linguistic analogy by which objects are interpreted as text (30:38-41, 73:72-73, 149, 151, 155). These radical revi­

sions of common sense conventions are bringing a new level of theory to material culture studies, but they have yet to make much impact on museum practice.

EXHmITIONS

The Critique of Primitivism

The most basic criticism of the treatment of objects from non-Western socie­ties is that museums, particularly museums of art, continue to treat this mate­rial as exemplifying primitive qualities. In the period under study, several

books and a famous exhibition demonstrated the salience of the concept of the primitive in popular and connoisseur culture.

The 1984 exhibition "Primitivism in 20th Century Art: Affinities of the Tribal and the Modern" at the Museum of Modem Art (MOMA) in New York

City rekindled opposition to the use of the term "primitive.,,3 The exhibition

traced the influence of African and Oceanic art on early modern art (e.g. Picasso, Giacometti, and Klee), both in terms of documenting particular artists and their exposure to specific art objects and in terms of "affinities" of form or meaning (128).

The exhibition was reviewed widely (39, 51, 95, 102-104). Danto de­scribed the exhibition as a "stupendously misconceived" example of

"museological manipulation" (39:590). Danto further noted that the category of primitive art "may be as vivid a transport of cultural imperialism as the concept of Orientalism" (p. 590) and criticized the MaMA installation of non-Western art as "decorative touches destined for tasteful interiors, as in the failed Rockefeller Wing of the Metropolitan Museum, which looks like a detached segment of Bloomingdale's" (p. 591).

McEvilley found the installation "thrilling" and "brilliant" but also criti­cized it for illustrating "without consciously intending to, the parochial limita­tions of our world view and the almost autistic reflexivity of Western civilization's modes of relating to the culturally Other" (102:55). McEvilley's review in Artforum initiated an extended dialogue in that journal between

McEvilley and the exhibition's curators (102-104, 126, 127, 157). The most

important issues of difference were the status of universal formal aesthetics

3 The Philip Morris Corporation's sponsorship of the exhibition also created some political

controversy (102:60).

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

ANTHROPOLOGY OF MUSEUMS 205

and the treatment of non-Western works as anonymous, timeless, and without

reference to context:

I have no doubt that those responsible for this exhibition and book feel that it

is a radical act to show how equal are the primitives to us, how civilized, how sensitive, how "inventive." Indeed, both Rubin and Vamedoe passionately declare this. By their absolute repression of primitive context, meaning, content and intention (the dates of the works, their functions. their religious or mythological connections, their environments). they have treated the primi­tives as less than human, less than cultural-as shadows of a culture, their selthood, their Otherness. wrung out of them (102:59).

McEvilley then described this as an "act of appropriation" (p. 60), "a need

to coopt difference into one's own dream of order, in which one reigns su­

preme" (p. 59), and further as demonstrating "Western egotism still as unbri­

dled as in the centuries of colonialism and souvenirism. The Museum pretends

to confront the Third World while really coopting it and using it to consolidate

Western notions of quality and feelings of superiority" (p. 60).

William Rubin, curator of the MOMA exhibition, defended "Primitivism"

as representing "the reception of tribal artists by Western artists. the ethnocen­

tricity of which history we ourselves described as manifest. .. precisely what

'prirnitivism'-as opposed to 'the primitive'-signifies" (126:43). He reiter­

ated that "our story is not about 'the Other,' but about ourselves" (p. 44).

Rubin defended the museum's decision to exhibit non-Western objects in the

same manner as great art from Western societies (p. 44).

There are two contradictory principles at issue here. Non-Western art re­

veals universal formal values; and therefore can be exhibited in the museum

context in the same way as Western sculpture; yet, these objects do not need to

be treated as having had individual creators acting in an artistic tradition and

historical context. It is a tribute to the importance of the "Primitivism" show

and the debate it created that critics continue to write about the exhibition long

after its closing (30, 32, 91, 152).4 Clifford (30:200) discussed the exhibition

and its attendant controversy to illustrate the workings of the art-culture sys­

tem-indicting the conventional treatment of non-Western objects in muse­

ums of art, anthropology, and natural history. He suggested t hat the preoccupa­

tion with the antique, the pure, and the authentic appropriates non-Western

objects into Western capitalist systems of values and ignores the values and

voices of those it claims to celebrate (30:202, 220-21; 31).

4

The controversy surrounding this exhibition radiated personal acrimony in waves that continued to ripple in the 1990s. The McEvilley-Rubin exchanges were often petty, sarcastic, and acrimonius. Torgovnick's attacks on Rubin and others (152) illustrated the heat generated by the critique of primitivism.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

206 JONES

The Persistence of Formalism

The "Primitivism" exhibition raised important issues in the art and museum world and resulted in a more self-conscious use of language in exhibits. Despite the challenge to "the hegemony of modernist aesthetics" posed by critics of the show (152:120), museums continue to mount formalist exhibi­tions. Clifford (30:206) singled out the exhibition program of the Center for African Art as exemplifying the next stage in aesthetic formalism:

These are no longer the dateless "authentic" tribal forms seen at MOMA. At the Center for African Art a different history documents both the artwork's uniqueness and the achievement of the discerning collector. By featuring rarity, genius, and connoisseurship, the Center confirms the existence of autonomous artworks able to circulate, to be bought and sold, in the same way as works by Picasso or Giacometti. The Center traces its lineage, appropriately, to the former Rockefeller Museum of Primitive Art, with its close ties to collectors and the art market.

In a series of exhibitions curated by Susan Vogel, the Center for African Art has stood by the principles of universal formal aesthetics (10, 41, 150, 158--61). These exhibitions maintained the thesis that there are universal cri­teria of formal excellence. In other ways they addressed the cultural critique of modernism. "African Aesthetics" (158) made an attempt to characterize Afri­can aesthetics, but the installation did not reflect alternative strategies of presentation, or the depth and complexity of African philosophical systems. The "Perspectives: Angles on African Art" exhibition (10) was one of the first to present non-Western art from a range of viewpoints, including that of African artists (see critiques of this exhibition in 120; 152: 123-24, 130-35). "The Art of Collecting African Art" produced a catalog that is a fascinating ethnography of art collectors, but one that does not inspire respect, admiration, or even envy.5 "Closeup: Lessons in the Art of Seeing African Sculpture" (150) was a reaffirmation of Vogel's predilection for formalism.6

The Center for African Art has also sponsored exhibitions that challenge the frame of formalism. "ART/artifact: African Art in Anthropology Collec­tions" (41) was an influential exhibition that presented a series of galleries depicting different contexts for displaying African art: "Contemporary Art

Gallery," "Curiosity Room," "Natural History Museum Diorama," "Art Mu­seum," and a videotape of an African ceremony. This important exhibition raised the level of awareness of display conventions on the part of both art and

5 I use excerpts from the collectors' statements in my course on the anthropology of art. The

statements are a powerful educational tool for demonstrating the influence of donors to museums, the commodification of art objects, and the weaknesses of formalism. 6

Vogel's contribution to the catalog, "African Sculpture-A Primer," is also a valuable contribu­tion for teaching students the techniques (and limitations) of formal analysis (150).

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

ANTHROPOLOGY OF MUSEUMS 207

anthropology curators. An exhibition of contemporary art from Africa, "Africa

Explores: 20th Century African Art" (160), was a further step in the direction

of addressing some of the assumptions of modernism: the celebration of living

artists working in non-traditional media and the colorful installation have

made the exhibition another icon in the art world (for a critical review of the

exhibit, see 163).

The Center for African Art carries on the tradition of universal formal

values-values that curators ascribe, collectors quantify, and museum visitors

consume (see 24, 120). Some critics see a sincere effort to approach the

representation of alternative systems of value and representation in some of

these exhibitions (50; 152: 135, 269). Other critics assail Vogel's work as

perpetuating stereotypes (120:35-36; 137),7 and as a clever attempt to "co-opt

the discourse of ethnography" without addressing the assumptions that under­

lie the art museum project (30:205).

The reign of formalism is far from over. As long as museums must cater to the tastes of wealthy patrons, the visions of universal formalism will continue

to be represented in major museums. The "Art of the Dogon" exhibition at MaMA in 1988 was a telling example of the power of donors to influence

museum practice (44).8 Clifford (30) and Kasfir (91) discuss the influence of

donors on museum practice.

A number of authors address the implications of formalism (4:52-54; 20;

30; 102). In previous decades the art museum was the home of formalism; the

natural history or anthropology museum was the realm of contextualism and

relativism (4:51-52; 58; 64). Relativists argued that objects had no meaning as

"art" in cultures without a word for art, or where those object classes are not designated as "art" (20, 40). Museum anthropologists take the issue of context

quite seriously and may believe that "taking specimens 'out of context' -that

is, displaying them as art objects-is considered immoral" (4:53; 58). This

classic opposition between art and anthropology museums has gradually

eroded to the point where most displays of non-Western art have qualities of

both: exotic objects beautifully mounted with labels that describe some aspect

of their original context [Clifford calls this "aestheticized scientism"

(30:203)].

In the museum literature there has been a critical consideration of the issue of context (39, 41, 64, 91:52) that may lead to innovations in exhibition

7 In her critique of Vogel's treatment of African artists who contributed to the "Perspectives"

project, Price suggested that Susan Vogel "allowed her slip to show" (120:35). The appeal of the pun apparently superceded the genderist implications of this metaphor for Price, who uses a similarly out-of-date construction on a later page (120:97). 8

The "Art of the Dogon" video, produced by MOMA with funds from the donor of its Dogon collections, is another valuable teaching tool for demonstrating the power of the museum's patrons.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

208 JONES

design. Several major exhibitions have been credited with attempting an en­tirely new approach: the "Magiciens de la terre" exhibition in 1989 at the Centre Pompidou in Paris is the most widely acknowledged [there have been many small avant-garde installations curated by artists (see 25)J. The "Mag­iciens" installation was designed to challenge museum and art conventions: "the process of de-defining art . . . because much of what is exhibited here is both art and kitsch, both fine art and decorative art, both high art and popular art, kitsch and not avant garde-art and not art" (107). The main criticism of the show was that it only went half-way and still assumed aesthetic universal-· ism (25:89; 91:41; 107:86; 118). Nonetheless, postmodern exhibitions may be a next step (30:213).

Authenticity

A recent dialogue in African Arts9 concerning the issue of authenticity pro­vides an interesting complement to the critique of museums treating non­Western objects as art. The editors asked Sidney Kasfir, author of an earlier critique of the notion of "tribalism" (90), to reexamine the subject, which they had treated in an earlier series of articles (2). Kasfir's article (91) indicted the art world's (amazingly resilient) canon of assumptions about African art: the "before/after scenario" that privileges precolonial objects in major collections and exhibitions, the idea that objects collected during the early contact collect­ing period were unaffected by Western influence, and the persistent notion of timeless tribal styles (pp. 41-43). The distortion of history in non-Western societies is an important critique of museum (and ethnographic) representation (see 30, 46, 119).

Kasfir also argued for the inclusion of contemporary popular arts com­monly denigrated as "tourist arts" [the negative response to this suggestion from several museums illustrates the persistence of old ideas on the subject (see 45, 134)]. This argument is reminiscent of the comment about the "Dreamings" exhibition of Australian acrylic paintings that "the only defini­tion of 'authentic Aboriginal art' that we regard as defensible is .. .it is art made by Aboriginal people" (145:205). The problem of authenticity received fresh attention from many authors in the 1980s (30, 31, 33, 141).

Kasfir's article stirred up a hornet's nest of critics in the museum and academic communities-some defending the usefulness of formalism (45, 122), some presenting alternative perspectives (42, 108), many in defense of

9 This journal is a disturbing example of contradictions that plague the intersection of the art

world and academia. On one hand, the articles exhibit first-rate scholarship-some of the best ethnographic writing on contemporary non-Western art appears in the pages of African Arts. However, the advertisements from dealers trafficking in archaeological artifacts and decorated human skulls (see for example the back cover of the July 1992 issue, and page 26 of the same issue) represent serious ethical transgressions for many anthropologists.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

ANTHROPOLOGY OF MUSEUMS 209

museum curators (14, 21, 42, 45, 114, 122, 134), and one in defense of collectors (56). A few scholars supported Kasfir's view, particularly as applied to museums of art (47, 114, 143).

The interesting aspects of this d!!bate are the continuing defense of formal­ism, and the defensiveness of curators. The notion that curators no longer possess "autonomy and unassailable expertise" in the face of "federal funding guidelines (and reviews), museum boards, community concerns, educational

requirements, and the like" (21:29) is undoubtedly true but rings false as an apology for bad exhibition content. The discussion of the roles and relative power of curators, collectors, donors, and the "market" addresses important problems for the future of museum anthropology. I tum next to examples of how museums have confronted these issues in a series of politically charged exhibitions.

Politics and Exhibitions

THE SPIRIT SINGS Several problems hampered the well-intentioned curators of "The Spirit Sings: Artistic Traditions of Canada's First Peoples," a 1988 exhibition at the Glenbow Museum in Calgary, held in conjunction with the 1988 Winter Olympics (66). The Lubicon Lake Cree Indian Nation called for a boycott of the exhibition and of the Calgary Olympics because the exhibition's major sponsor, Shell Oil, was drilling oil wells on land the Canadian government (which was also a sponsor) seized from the Lubicon (see 3:9-10 or 4:160-62 for a summary; 170 for a critical review; 67 for the Glenbow Museum's point of view). The international support for the boycott and the ensuing controversy revolutionized the Canadian museum world by forcing it to confront native reactions to museum practice (see 8, 110, 167). The resulting dialogue between native peoples and museum curators raised important criticisms of conventional museum practice: the neglect of contemporary Indian artists, the failure to consult local native communities, the display of objects collected under suspi­cious circumstances, the distorted historical treatment, the use of the "culture area" concept, and in particular, the curators' ignorance of contemporary polit­ical issues (4:163; 154; 170:72).

The controversy surrounding the exhibit, and the decision of the Canadian Ethnology Society to support the boycott, generated a discussion between a Glenbow curator and a university museum curator about the conflict between museum and academic anthropologists (67, 154). The discussion reflected the relevance of issues of political interference, academic freedom, and corporate sponsorship to both communities of anthropologists.

A TIME OF GATHERING In 1989 the Thomas Burke Museum at the University of Washington launched an exhibition, "A Time of Gathering: Native Heritage

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

210 JONES

in Washington State," using an ambitious outreach program to involve indige­nous communities, thus avoiding the problems encountered by The Glenbow Museum with 'The Spirit Sings" (169). The museum used a Native Advisory Board, a native American co-curator, and ,a native Protocol Officer as well as other native museum professionals to guide development of the exhibition (61, l38, 169). The native American influence was evident throughout the exhibition (see l38): in the selection of artifacts, in the presentation of maps and photo­graphs, in the treatment of religious issues, and in papers by tribal members published in the exhibition catalog. Native advisors also persuaded the museum to include a gallery of contemporary Indian art, a display of panels created by ,the participating tribes that often addressed political issues, and a display panel describing the experience of compulsory boarding school education.

The only criticisms of the show were that the Burke Museum should have given more control and power to the Native Advisory Board, involving the Board in the earliest stage of exhibition proposals, and assisting the Board in securing repatriation of certain sacred objects loaned by other museums for the show ( l38:944). It also appears that the treatment of the "transitional" period (exemplified in the boarding school display) was more subtle and less dra­matic in its treatment of conflict, subordination, and resistance than it might have been. Overall, the show enjoyed great success with the general and Indian communities, and provides an example of the productivity of serious efforts at collaboration. There is a definite trend toward increasing control over repre­sentations of history, culture, and identity by native museum professionals and tribal communities (4, 19, 32, l35).

INTO THE HEART OF AFRICA Another Canadian exhibition, "Into the Heart of Africa," at the Royal Ontario Museum (ROM), sparked a political controversy in 1989. The exhibition, curated by Jeanne Cannizzo, intended to represent the contexts in which the ROM acquired its collections (27). The installation included a "military" gallery exhibiting objects collected by Canadian military officers; a "missionary" gallery including a lantern slide show mimicking tum-of-the-century missionary propaganda, and objects donated by missionar­ies; a gallery presenting objects in a recreated village setting; and a gallery demonstrating contemporary cultural events with storytellers, musical and dance groups, films, etc. According to several reviewers, the show was innova­tive, visually interesting, and scholarly (see 113, 133).

This show, like "The Spirit Sings," created a storm of controversy: a boy­cott, a riot and arrests of demonstrators, the refusal of other museums to take the traveling exhibition, harassment of the curator, and considerable debate in the media (4, 28, 113, 117). Critics of the "Heart of Africa" exhibit charged that the installation perpetuated racist stereotypes and that the ROM's han­dling of the show demonstrated lack of respect for African culture and t�e

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

ANTHROPOLOGY OF MUSEUMS 211

local African-Canadian community. (See 117 for a powerfully persuasive critique of the exhibition from the the perspective of an African-Canadian writer and educator.) Members of Toronto's African-Canadian community objected to exhibit publicity, which showed a bare-breasted pubescent girl from Zaire with "wish you were here" stamped across her breast, and to many specific aspects of the installation and label content (117). Marlene Nourbese Philip suggested that "a more fitting title would be Cutting Out the Heart of Africa" (117:69).

Cannizzo's strategy of using irony to suggest a critique of the museum as colonial institution has been criticized as too subtle for general audiences to understand; perhaps they "misread" the material as representing the museum's opinions (133:19). Philip responded to a Toronto Globe journalist: "Let's call it as it is-when Bronwyn Draine writes that the problem African Canadians have with the ROM's exhibit... arise from the curator's 'sophisticated approach' to her material, she means that African Canadians are too dumb to understand what Jeanne Cannizzo (the curator) intended" (117:69).

Schildkrout, a curator at the American Museum of Natural History, observed that "it is patently absurd for the museum to blame the audience for misunder­standing the exhibition." Schildkrout described the exhibition's use of irony as "something like an off-color joke told with a knowing wink" [133:21; see also her review on the successful use of irony in another exhibition (133:22)].

In her thoughtful critique, Philip recognized that the museum staff was not racist, but maintained that the curator and museum administration treated the African-Canadian critique in a patronizing, recalcitrant, and arrogant manner (117:76). Cannizzo and her defenders accused the protesters of pursuing a "larger political agenda" (addressing police violence and high unemployment among African-Canadians in Toronto) and not fairly representing the views of Toronto's African-Canadian community (28:5-6; 113). Cannizzo's statement to a member of the press that "for me it's not a race issue, it's a question of expertise. Scholarly issues should be left in the hands of scholars .. . " (see 38:37) illustrates the type of assertion of authority that many members of ethnic communities find objectionable. Philip's response, "Can the oppressor ever tell the whole story about the oppressed?" (117:74), and Schildkrout's report that "many critics asked whether an exhibition on the Holocaust from the point of view of the Nazis would be acceptable" (133:20), illustrate the struggle over authority central to the practice of anthropology in a postcolonial world.

POLITICS AND POLICY The controversies about "Into the Heart of Africa" and "The Spirit Sings" brought home to anthropologists the fact that "museum policy can no longer make undisputed claims for the privileges of neutrality and universality. Representation is a political act. Sponsorship is a political act.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

212 JONES

Curation is a political act. Working in a museum is a political act" (3: 13). The

successful response to this realization has been a move toward consultation with

interested communities, as in "A Time of Gathering." Ames predicts that a further shift in the level of collaboration-moving "beyond the level of consul­tation to establish equality at the level of decision-making"-is the next step in redressing the problems of representing other cultures (3: 13).

Museums have already confronted the problems of dealing with a diversity

of viewpoints among members of local ethnic communities. In some cases, the

expedient solution is to work with the group whose opinions suit the museum

(see 113:82). This will hardly avoid the potential of political embarrassment

(see 67:6), but offers the museum some defense. The most careful response to

a difference of opinion among indigenous advisors-over the display of reli­

gious objects, for example-is to avoid any action that might give offense (see

55:12-13 for an example). It is clear that indigenous communities are prepared

to speak out about museum practice. Museums must choose whether to give

those communities a voice within the institution itself.

The conflicts within the scholarly community and the public controversies

have "made many of us working in the field of ethnographic exhibi­tions . . . tremble with a sense of 'there but for the grace of God go I'" (133:16).

Schildkrout acknowledges that "many curators would argue that the best,

although not necessarily safest, approach these days is to unabashedly accept

the responsibility of curatorial authority, try to base an exhibition on solid

research, and hope that not too many people are offended" (133:23).

Several museums have chosen instead to engage in collaboration and dia­

logue with local ethnic communities (see 19). It is now common for regional

museums to have close, collaborative relationships with the indigenous peo­

ples of their area (for examples, see 8, 57, 110, 167). Many indigenous peoples

have control over their own museums as well (see 4:81; 32). While this is

particularly true in postcolonial contexts where national museums have come

under the control of native curators, the trend has had some impact in those

areas where indigenous peoples still live under conditions of occupation (Can­

ada, New Zealand, and the United States, for example). The recent success of

the repatriation struggle in the United States has forced the issue of cultural

patrimony control and is proving a strong incentive for incorporating Indian

perspectives in museums. Unfortunately, the vigor with which many museums opposed repatriation legislation has left scars that will take time to heal. There

are also special challenges where collections were gathered from distant com­

munities, whose members are less likely to object to museum presentations (19). The trend toward international collaboration on exhibitions is also an

important opportunity for anthropologists to play a role in facilitating change

in museum practice.

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

ANTHROPOLOGY OF MUSEUMS 213

THE NEW HISTORICISM

The most important trend to emerge in museum anthropology in the 1980s is the movement toward accountability described above. A second major trend is the popularity of historical studies of museums, collectors, collections and curators. I describe a number of these studies, the attempts made to use this approach in exhibition design, and I examine the political critique of this genre of museum anthropology.

The History of Museums

There are a growing number of histories of the development of anthropology and natural history museums (4:15-24; 11; 17; 30:215-51; 36; 54; 77; 79; 100; 112; 115; 140; 144). There are accounts of ethnographic museums in Britain (156; 166), France (30:135-45; 36:48-73; 62; 78), Germany (22; 36:48-73; 65; 78), Portugal (22), and Canada (4; 36:267-79; 63).

The collections of larger museums have often been subjects of several treatments: the Smithsonian (7; 11; 36:9-47; 69; 87); The American Museum of Natural History (36:80-89, 141-164; 80, 82, 83, 131, 132); The British Museum (11; 78; 101; 156). Other major museums have also been chronicled, in whole or by specific collection: The Brooklyn Museum (48, 49); The Museum of Modem Art (130); The Field Museum (36:165-211) ; The Pitt Rivers Museum at Oxford (29); The Peabody Museum (11, 70, 81, 123); The Louvre (165).

Many of these histories fall into the "great man" school of profiling the importance of early naturalists, curators, and generous patrons. However, a consideration of issues of political context in historical studies of museums is an important step toward the "historical self-consciousness" advocated by critics of museums (see 30, 97).

The Social History of Things

Thorough scholarly documentation of the historical movements of specific objects [for example, untangling the whereabouts of Cook's collections (see 86, 93)] had just been acknowledged as the first step in opening the vast ethnographic holdings to rigorous historic research when the focus shifted. In keeping with the new social history of artifacts (see 6, 94), interest shifted to more theoretical accounts of shifts in the status, value, and interpretation of objects (or classes of objects) as they change contexts. Much of the literature since this shift explores the issues of "decontextualization," or "recon­textualization," and "commodification" (6; 30:215-51; 51:52; 52:219-55; 71; 91; 120; 149:82-99).

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

214 JONES

COLLECTING PRACTICE In a related vein, there is a growing literature on collectors and collecting. Museum-based research on collectors tends to portray sympathetically early collectors (for examples, see 7, 29, 35,49, 80, 83, 101,

132). Several authors present the perspectives of contemporary collectors,

usually in conjunction with exhibitions of objects from their collections (44, 111, 158). A few recent authors have more critically discussed the motivations of collectors (30, 120, 148, 152). There are also several studies that discuss the development of ethnic art markets (33; 52:219-55; 85; 91; 141-42; 162).

In an even more critical light, a few authors have described the exploitative and often illegal practices of museum collecting expeditions (11, 36, 52, 78).

A powerful example is Canadian historian Douglas Cole's work on the collect­ing of Northwest Coast Indian art at the tum of the century (36). Price's chapter on collecting, "Power Plays," is also an eye-opener (120:68-81). Al­

though the story of the looting of Benin is widely known (see 15), the story of the massive collecting in the Belgian Congo has been downplayed b6 curators writing about their collections from Zaire (7,101,131,132,135).

1 Outrage

over illegal collecting practices culminated in a series of international agree­ments against trade in cultural treasures, and in the 1990 Native American

Grave Protection and Repatriation Act.

The Critique of Historicism

Despite the growing literature that criticizes the colonial context under which most non-Western art has been collected (30, 31, 51, 120), few museums have dealt with this aspect of the history of their collections in exhibitions and catalogs (19). There is widespread agreement that museums served as "legiti­mizers of imperial exploitation" (43:154).11 Reconstructing the histories of particular collections can reveal painful stories of greed, theft, racism, and exploitation by respected scholars and institutions. Some authors feel that "no

10 I was particularly confused by the treatment in Schildkrout & Keirn (132) of the American

Museum of Natural History's (AMNH) collections obtained through gifts or sponsorship from King Leopold of Belgium during the period of the Congo Reform Movement (an early example of the politicization of museum practice). The exhibition "African Reflections: Art from Northeastern Zaire" was widely praised as dealing firmly with the issue of colonialism (see 92). However, the discussions of colonialism in the catalog seem to support the position that King Leopold was a humanistic scholar-king and that reports of atrocities during his conquest and subjugation of the Congo were exaggerated by his economic rivals. Schildkrout discusses the challenges of writing about colonialism in her review of the British Museum exhibition "Images of Mrica" ( 135). In her review of permanent exhibits at the AMNH, Bal suggests that there are troubling contradictions in the museum's treatment of colonialism (9:579-83). 11

Many museums display the attitude Rosaldo describes as "imperialist nostalgia ... mourning for what one has destroyed" (124) in their lamenting of "lost" arts and "extinct" peoples. Rosaldo's allusion to "the white man's burden" reminded me also of one of the arguments against repatria­tion of sacred objects in museum collections, specifically the claim of having saved objects from certain destruction at the hands of careless natives (who even now cannot be trusted to preserve their cultural heritage).

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

ANTHROPOLOGY OF MUSEUMS 215

anthropological remorse, aesthetic elevation, or redemptive exhibition can correct or compensate this loss because they are all implicated in it" (51:61). The sanitized histories of museums and collectors, which have so far domi­nated this trend of historicism, are hardly the heady stuff of "historical self­consciousness" (see 19, 30:229).

Recent efforts to interpret the conquest of the Americas-in film, in Co­lumbus Day parades, and in Quincentennary programs-are showing the po­tential of popular culture to grapple with the ugly truths of conquest. The powerful work of Jewish museums of the Holocaust demonstrates that victims of genocide and colonialism can use museums to tell their stories. This is a greater challenge where the museum has participated in gloryifying colonial­ism and has benefited from it. Larger museums may eventually adopt some of the innovative approaches of tribal museums and smaller urban museums (see 19, 53, 84, 129, 146).

The trend toward organizing exhibitions around the story of the collector (museums generally choose "nice guy" collectors for this treatment) has the danger of focusing on the collector's experience, or more generally on the Western vision of the Other. By focusing on Our history, we continue to subordinate the histories of Others (9:583, 30-31, 119), treating the Other as a passive object, not as an active agent of resistance, change, accommodation, and creation of the objects on exhibit.

It may seem easier to deal with archives and artifacts that "don't talk back" than with representatives of ethnic communities, who may be hostile or have their own political agenda that is not in harmony with the position of the museum curator, or more importantly with its trustees and wealthy patrons. Failure to involve represented communities in exhibition planning at its earli­est stages, and with effective decision-making authority, can lead to public relations disasters like the controversies over "Into the Heart of Africa" and "The Spirit Sings." In too many instances, this failure contributes to the continuing sense of alienation and paternalistic exploitation felt by ethnic communities in regard to museums. Challenging the conventional authority of curators and institutions and sharing real power over representations is the wave of the future. The success of museums in dealing with these changes depends upon continuing review and guidance from the discipline of anthro­pology.

CONCLUSION

This review has presented some of the problems and opportunities that face anthropology of and in museums in the 1990s. The decade of the 1980s saw dramatic changes in the roles of curators, "natives," and critics. In my opinion, these changes represent a positive direction in opening the museum to alterna-

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

216 JONES

tive voices, histories, and representations. The time has come for academics to

rethink museum anthropology in recognition of the breaking of the dusty,

dated molds of past representations. The new critical attention to museum

practice should be an issue of instruction, debate, and scholarship in depart­

ments of anthropology as it has become in departments of history, area studies,

art, literature, education, and law. There is an openness to criticism, to new

perspectives, and to risk that promises a challenging and exciting (not to say

explosive) future for anthropology in museums.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to thank my museum colleagues (from museums in the United

States, Great Britain, New Zealand, Australia, and the Pacific Islands commu­nity) for educating me about museum issues. Space limits me to acknowledg­

ing Phyllis Rabineau and the staff of the Field Museum, and Manouche

Lehartel and her staff at the Musee de Tahiti et des nes, with whom I have

worked for several years. Colleagues who have offered suggestions of litera­

ture for this review include Nancy Mitchell, Rhonda Moore, Enid Schildkrout,

Tom Seligman, Bernard Siegel, Gregory Starrett, John Rick, and Tom Wilson. Thanks also go to Julia Hammett, who offered valuable editorial advice, and to Michael Lowry for his support and encouragement.

Literature Cited

1. Adams M. 1989. African visual arts from an art historical perspective. Afr. Stud. Rev. 32(2):55-103

2. Allison P, Crowley D, Goldman P, Ottenberg S, WiJIet F. 1976. Fakes, fakers and fakery: authenticity in African art. AJr. Arts 9(3):20-31;48-74

3. Ames M. 1991. B iculturalism in exhibi­tions. Mus. Anthropol. 15(2):7-15

4. Ames M. 1992. Cannibal Tours and Glass Boxes: The Anthropology of Museums. Vancouver: Univ. British Columbia Press

5. Appadurai A, ed. 1986. The Social Life of Things: Commodities in Cultural Per­spective. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press

6. Appadurai A. 1986. Introduction: com­modities and the politics of value. See Ref. 5,pp.3-63

7. Arnoldi MJ. 1992. A distorted mirror: the exhibition of the Herbert Ward Collection of Africana. See Ref. 89, pp. 428-57

8. Assembly of First Nations and the Cana­dian Museums Association. 1992. Task force report on museums and first peoples. Mus. Anthropol. 16(2):12-20

9. Bal M. 1992. Te lling, showing, showing off. Crit. Inq. 18:556-94

10. Baldwin J, Bearden R, Eyo E, Graves N, Karp I, et a!. 1987. Perspectives: Angles on African Art. New York: Center Afr. Art

11. Barber L. 1980. The Heyday of Natural History 1820-1870. London: Cape

12. Deleted in proof 13. Bayly C. 1986. The origins of swadesbi

(home industry): cloth and Indian society, 1700-1930. See Ref. 5, pp. 285-321

14. Beidelman TO. 1992. Authenticity and ap­propriation. Response to Kasik AJr. Arts 25(3):24-26

15. Ben-Amos PG. 1980. The Art of Benin. New York: Thames & Hudson

16. Ben-Amos PG. 1989. African visual arts from a social perspective. Afr. Stud. Rev. 32(2):1-53

17. Berlo JC. 1992. Introduction: the formative years of Native A merican art history. See Ref. 18, pp. 1-21

18. Berlo Je, ed. 1992. The Early Years of Native AmericanArt History. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press

19. Berlo lC, Phillips RB. 1992. "Vitalizing the things of the past": museum representa­tions of Native North American art in the 1990s. Mus. Anthropol. 16(1):29-43

20. BIier SP. 1988-1989. Art systems and sem-

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

iotics: the question of art, craft, and colonial taxonomies in Africa. Am. J. Semiot. 6(1):7-18

21. Blier SP. 1992. Shadow plays: reading be­tween the lines in postmodernist criticism. Response to Kasfir. Afr. Arts 25(3):26--30

22. Bouquet M. 199 1 . Images of artefacts. Crit. Anthropol. 1 1(4):333-56

23. Bourdieu P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cam­bridge: Harvard Univ. Press

24. Bourdieu P, Darbel A, Schnapper D. 1991. The Love of Art: European Art Museums and Their Public. Stanford: Stanford Univ. Press

25. Brett G. 1989. Earth and museum-local and global? Third Text 6:89-96

26. Cannadine D. 1983. The context, perfor­mance and meaning of ritual: the British monarchy and the 'invention of tradition,' c. 1820-1977. See Ref. 72, pp. 101-64

27. Cannizzo J. 1989. Into the Heart of Africa. Toronto: Royal Ontario Mus.

28. Cannizzo J. 1991. Letter to the Editor. Mus. Anthropol. 15(4):5-6

29. Chapman WR. 1985. Arranging ethnology: A. H. L. F. Pitt Rivers and the typological tradition. See Ref. 144, pp.15-48

30. Clifford J. 1988. Predicament of Culture. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press

3 1. Clifford J. 1989. The others: beyond the salvage paradigm. Third Text 6:73-78

32. Clifford J. 1991 . Four northwest coast mu­seums. See Ref. 88, pp. 212-54

33. Coe R. 1986. Lost and Found Traditions: Native American Art 1965-1985. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press

34. Cohn B. 1983. Representing authority in Victorian India. See Ref. 72, pp. 165-210

35. Cohodas M. 1992. Louisa Keyser and the Cohns: mythmaking and basket making in the American west. See Ref. 18, pp. 88-133

36. Cole D. 1985. Captured Heritage: The Scramble for Northwest Coast Artifacts. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press

37. Conkey MW. 1987. New approaches in the search for meaning? A review of research in "Paleolithic Art." J. Field Archaeol. 14:413-30

38. Da Breo H. 1989-90. Royal spoils: the museum confronts its colonial past. Fuse 13(3):28-37

39. Danto A. 1984. Defective affinities: '''primitivism' in 20th century art." Nation 239(18):590-92

40. Danto A. 1988. Artifact and art. See Ref. 39, pp. 18-32

41. Danto A, Gramly RM, Hutgren ML, Schildkrout E, Vogel S, Zeidler J. 1988. ART/artifact: African art in anthropology collections. New York: Center Afr. Art

42. Drewal HJ. 1992. Contested realities: in­ventions of art and authenticity. Response to Kasfir. Afr. Arts 25(4):24-28

ANTHROPOLOGY OF MUSEUMS 217

43. Durrans B. 1988. The future of the other: changing cultures on display in ethno­graphic museums. See Ref. 98, pp. 144-69

44. Ezra K. 1988. The Art of the Dogon: Selec­tions from the Lester Wunderman Collec­tion. New York: Metrop. Mus. Art

45. Ezra K. 1992. A view from an art museum. Response to Kasfir. Afr. Arts 25(3):20-22

46. Fabian J. 1983. TIme and the Other: How Anthropology Makes Its Object. New York: Columbia Univ. Press

47. Fabian J. 1992. Quibbles and questions. Response to Kasfir. Afr. Arts 25(3):22-24

48. Fane D, Jacknis I, Breen LM. 1991. Ob­jects of Myth and Memory: American In­dian Art at the Brooklyn Museum. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press

49. Fane D. 1992. New questions for "old things": the Brooklyn Museum's Zuni col­lection. See Ref. 18, pp. 62-87

50. Faris J. 1988. ArtIartifact: on the museum and anthropology. Curr. Anthropol. 29(5):775-79

51 . Foster H. 1985. The 'primitive' uncon­scious of modern art. October 34:45-70

52. Frisbie CJ. 1987. Navaho Medicine Bun­dles or Jish: Acquisition, Transmission, and Disposition in the Past and Present. Albuquerque: Univ. N. M. Press

53. Fuller NJ. 1992. The museum as a vehicle for community empowerment: the Ak-Chin Indian community ecomuseum project. See Ref. 89, pp. 285-326

54. Furst HJ. 1989. Material culture research and the curation process. See Ref. 155, pp. 97-1 10

55. Garfield D. 1993. Ceci n'est pas une pipe. Mus. News 72(1): 12-13 (In French)

56. Ginzberg ML. 1992. Are aesthetics real? Response to Kasfir. Afr. Arts 25(3):26

57. Gorbey K, Horgan J, Mahuika A, Simeral S. 1991 . Museum of New ZealandlTe Papa Tongarewa. Mus. Anthropol. 15(4):7-25

58. Grarnly RM. 1988. Art and anthropology on a sliding scale. See Ref. 39, pp. 33-40

59. Guedon M. 1983. A case of mistaken iden­tity (the education of a naive museum eth­nologist). In Consciouness and Inquiry: Ethnology and Canadian Realities. ed. F Manning, pp. 253-61 . Ottawa: Nat!. Mus. Canada

60. Halpin M. 1983. Anthropology as artifact. In Consciousness and Inquiry: Ethnology and Canadian Realities, ed. F Manning, pp. 262-75. Ottawa: Nat!. Mus. Canada

61. Haines R, Wright R. 1990. A TIme of Gath­ering-An Intertribal Welcome: State­ments from 35 Washington Tribes. Seattle: Burke Mus. Pub!.

62. Harny E-T. 1988. Les origines du musee d' ethnographie. Paris: Place

63. Handler R. 1985. On having a culture: na­tionalism and the preservation of Quebec's patrimoine. In Objects and Others: Essays

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

218 JONES

on Museums and Material Culture, ed. G Stocking, pp. 192-215. Madison: Univ. Wisc. Press

64. Handler R. 1 992. On the valuing of mu­seum objects. Mus. Anthropol. 1 6( 1):21-28

65. Harms V. 1990. The aims of the museum for ethnology: debate in the German-speak­ing countries. Curro Anthropol. 31 (4):457-63

66. Harrison JD. 1987. The Spirit Sings: Artis­tic Traditions of Canada 's First Peoples. Toronto: Glenbow Mus.

67. Harrison ill. 1988. 'The Spirit Sings' and the future of anthropology. Anthropol. Today 4(6):6--9

68. Hegmon M. 1 992. Archaeological research on style. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2 1 :5 17-36

69. Hinsley CM. 1981. Savages and Scientists: The Smithsonian Institution and the Devel­opment of American Anthropology 1846-1910. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Inst. Press

70. Hinsley CM. 1985. From shell heaps to stelae: early anthropology at the Peabody Museum. See Ref. 144, pp. 49-74

7 1 . Hinsley CM. 1 99 1 . The world as market­place: commodification of the exotic at the World's Columbian Exposition, Chicago, 1893. See Ref. 88, pp. 344-65

72. Hobsbawm E, Ranger T, eds. 1983. The Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cam­bridge Univ. Press

73. Hodder I. 1989. Post-modernism, post­structuralism and post-processual archae­ology. See Ref. 74, pp. 64-78

74. Hodder I, ed. 1989. The Meanings of Things: Material Culture and Symbolic Expression. London: Unwin Hyman

75. Hodder I. 1989. This is not an article on material culture as text. J. Anthropol. Archaeol. 8(3):25�9

76. Hodder I. 199 1 . Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeol­ogy. Cambridge: Univ. Cambridge Press

77. Hooper-Greenhill E. 1989. The museum in the disciplinary society. See Ref. 1 15, pp. 61-72

78. Hopkirk P. 1980. Foreign Devils on the Silk Road: The Search for the Lost Cities and Treasures of Chinese Central Asia. Lon­don: Murray

79. Horne D. 1984. The Great Museum: The Re-presentation of History. London: Pluto

80. Jacknis I. 1985. Franz Boas and exhibits. See Ref. 144, pp. 75-1 1 1

8 1 . Jacknis I. 199 1 . Heafitz Hall of the North American Indian: change and continuity, Peabody Museum, Harvard. Mus. An­thropol. 15(2):29-34

82. Jonaitis A. 1 988. From the Land of the Totem Poles: The Nortwest Coast Indian Collection at the American Museum of Natural History. Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press

83. Jonaitis A. 1992. Franz Boas. John Swanton, and the new Haida sculpture at the American Museum of Natural History. See Ref. 1 8, pp. 22-61

84. Jones JP. 1992. The colonial legacy and the community: the Gallery 33 Project. See Ref 89, pp. 221-41

85. Jules-Rosette B. 1 984. The Messages of Tourist Art: An African Semiotic System in Comparative Perspective. New York: Ple­num

86. Kaeppler AL. 1978. "Artificial Curiosi­ties": Being an Exposition of Native Man­ufactures Collected on the Three Pacific Voyages of Captain James Cook. Hono­lulu: Bishop Mus.

87. Kaeppler AL. 1992. Museums of the world: stages for the study of ethnohistory. See Ref 1 15, pp. 83-96

88. Karp I, Lavine SD, eds. 1 99 1 . Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Mu­seum Display. Washington, DC: Smithson­ian Inst. Press

89. Karp I, Mullen C, Lavine SO, eds. 1992. Museums and Communities: Debating Public Culture. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Inst. Press

90. Kasfir SL. 1 984. One tribe, one style: par­adigms in the historiography of African art. Hist. Afr. 1 1 : 163-93

9 1 . Kasfir SL. 1992. African art and authentic­ity: a text with a shadow. Afr. Arts 25(2):41-53

92. Kasfir SL. 1 992. Rejoinder. Afr. Arts 25(4):29-30, 1 00-3

93. King JCH. 198 1 . Artificial Curiositiesfrom the Northwest Coast of America. London: Br. Mus.

94. Kopytoff I. 1986. The cultural biography of things: commoditization as process. See Ref. 5, pp. 64-94

95. Kramer H. 1 984. The 'primitivism' conun­drum. New Criterion 3(4): 1-7

96. Lemonnier P. 1986. The study of material culture today: toward an anthropology of technical systems. J. Anthropol. Archaeo/. 5 : 1 47-86

97. Lilla M. 1985. The great museum muddle. New Repub. 192(14):25-30

98. Lumley R, ed. 1988. The Museum Time Machine: Putting Cultures on Display. London: Routledge

99. Lumley R. 1988. Introduction. See Ref. 98, pp. 1-15

100. Lurie NO. 1981. Museumland revisited. Hum. Organ. 40(2): 180--87

1 0 1 . Mack J. 1990. Emil Torday and the Art of the Congo. London: Br. Mus.

102. McEvilley T. 1984. Doctor Lawyer Indian Chief: "'primitivism' in 20th century art" at the Museum of Modern Art in 1984. Artjorum 23(3):54-61

103. McEvilley T. 1985. Response to Rubin, Varnedoe. Artforum 23(5):46--5 1

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

104. McEvilley T. 1985. Response to Rubin. Artforum 23(9):65-71

lO5. Menand L. 1993. Nietzsche in furs. "Sex, art, and American culrnre" by Camille Paglia. New Repub. 208(4):32-38

106. Merriman N. 1989. The social basis of mu­seum and heritage visiting. See Ref. 115, pp. 153-7 1

107. Michaud Y. 1989. Doctor Explorer Chief Curator. Third Text 6:83-88

108. Mudimbe VY. 1 992. A question of perspec­tive. Response to Kasfir.Aft: Arts 25(4):20-24

109. Mundine J. 1989. Aboriginal art in Aus­tralia today. Third Text 6:33-42

1 10. Nicks T, Hill T. 199 1 . Turning the Page: Forging New Partnerships between Muse­ums and First Peoples. Ottawa: Canadian Mus. Assoc.

1 1 1 . Nooter R, Nooter N, Vogel S. 1988. The Art of Collecting African Art. New York: Cen­ter Afr. Art

1 12. Orosz JJ. 1990. Curators and Culture: The Museum Movement in America, 1 773-1870. Tuscaloosa: Univ. Ala. Press.

1 13. Ottenberg S. 199 1 . Exhibition review. "Into the heart of Africa," The Royal Ontario Museum. Aft: Arts 24(3):79-82

1 14. 0ttenberg S. Scholars, and the Art Net­works. 1 992. Response to Kasfir. Aft: Arts 25(3):30-32

1 15. Pearce SM, ed. 1989. Museum Studies in Material Culture. London: Leicester Univ. Press

1 16. Pfaffenberger B. 1 992. Social anthropol­ogy of technology. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 21:491-516

1 17. Philip MN. 199 1 . The white soul of Can­ada. Third Text 14:63-78

l t8 . Poppi C. 199 1 . From the suburbs of the global village: afterthoughts on Magiciens de la terre. Third Text 14:85-96

1 19. Price S. 1989. Others art--{)ur art. Third Text 6:65-71

120. Price S. 1989. Primitive Art in Civilized Places. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

1 2 1 . Ranger T. 1983. The invention of tradition in colonial Africa. See Ref. 72, pp. 211-62

122. Ravenhill PL. 1992. On the cross-cultural appreciation of art. Response to Kasfir. Aft: Arts 25(4):19-20

123. Root D. 1 990. Exhibition review. "Hall of the North American Indian: change and continuity," Peabody Museum, Harvard University J. Am. Hist. 77(3):937-42

124. Rosaldo R. 1989. Culture and Truth: The Remaking of Social Analysis. Boston: Bea­con

125. Rubin A. 1987. Artists and workshops in northeastern Nigeria. See Ref. 124, pp. 7-22

126. Rubin W. 1 985. Letter to the Editor on "Doctor Lawyer Indian Chief: "'primiti­vism' in 20th century art" at the Museum of

ANTHROPOLOGY OF MUSEUMS 219

Modern Art in 1984."Ariforum 23(5):42-45

127. Rubin W. 1985. Response to McEvilley. Artforum 23(9):63-65

128. Rubin W, ed. 1984. Primitivism in 20th century art. New York: Mus. Modern Art

129. Ruffins PD. 1992. Mythos, memory, and history: African American preservation efforts, 1820-1990. See Ref. 89, pp. 506-611

130. Rushing WJ. 1992. Marketing the affinity of the primitive and the modern: Rene d'Harnoncourt and "Indian art of the United States." See Ref. 18, pp.191-236

1 3 1 . Schildkrout E. 1988. Art as evidence: a brief history of the American Museum of Natural History African collection. See Ref. 39, pp. 153-60

132. Schildkrout E, Keim CA. 1990. African Reflections: Art from Northeastern Zaire. SeattlelNew York: Univ. Wash. Press/Am. Mus. Nat. Hist.

133. Schildkrout E. 199 1 . Ambiguous messages and ironic twists: into the heart of Africa and the other museum. Mus. Anthropol. 15(2):16--23

134. Schildkrout E. 1992. A curator talks back. Response to Kasfir. Afr. Arts 25(3): 14-18

135. Schildkrout E. 1992. Revisiting Emil Torday's Congo: "Images of Africa" at the British Museum. Afr. Arts 25(1 ):60--69, 99

136. Schlereth TJ. 1989. Material culture re­search and North American social history. See Ref. 1 15, pp. 1 1-26

137. Silverman RA. 1987. Review. "Perspec­tives: angles on African art," Center for African Art, New York. Afr. Arts 21(1): 19-24

138. Singleton J. 1990. Exhibition review. "A time of gathering: native heritage in Wash­ington state," Thomas Burke Memorial Washington State Museum. J. Am. Hist. 77(3):943-49

139. Skramstad H. 1993. Excellent inequities. Mus. News 72(1):50-5 1

140. Smith B. 1985. European Vision and The South Pacific. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press

141 . Spooner B. 1986. Weavers and dealers: the authenticity of an Oriental carpet. See Ref. 5, pp. 1 95-235

142. Steiner C. 1 991 . The trade in West African art. Afr. Arts 24(1 ):38-43, 100

143. Steiner C. 1992. Fake masks and faux mo­dernity: the crisis of misrepresentation. Re­sponse to Kasfir. Afr. Arts 25(3): 1 8-20

144. Stocking G, ed. 1985. Objects and Others: Essays on Museums and Material Culture. Madison: Univ. Wise. Press

145. Sutton P. Jones P. Hemming S. 1988. Sur­vival, regeneration, and impact. In Dream­ings: The Art of Aboriginal Australia, ed. P Sutton, pp. 180-212. New York: Braziller

146. Tchen JK. 1992. Creating a dialogic mu-

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

220 JONES

seum: the Chinatown History Museum ex­periment. See Ref. 89, pp. 285-326

147. Terrell J. 199 1 . Disneyland and the future of museum anthropology. Am. Anthropol. 93: 149-52

148. Thomas N. 1989. Material culture and co­lonial power: ethnological collecting and the establishment of colonial rule in Fiji. Man 24(1 ):41-56

149. Thomas N. 199 1 . Entangled Objects: Ex­change, Material Culture, and Colonial­ism in the Pacific. Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press

150. Thompson J, Vogel S. 1 990. Closeup: Les­sons in the Art of Seeing African Sculpture from an American Collection and the Horstmann Collection. New York: Center Afr. Art

1 5 1 . Tilley C, ed. 1990. Reading Material Cul­ture; Structuralism, Hermeneutics and Post-structuralism. Oxford: Blackwell

152. Torgovnick M. 1 990. Gone Primitive; Sav­age Intellects, Modem Lives. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

153. Trevor-Roper H. 1983. The invention of tradition: the highland tradition of Scot­land. See Ref. 72, pp. 1 5-42

154. Trigger BG. 1988. Reply to Harrison. An­thropol. Today 4(6):9-10

155. van Beek G. 199 1 . Words and things: a comment on Bouquet's 'Basil images and artefacts' . Crit. Anthropol. 1 1 (4):357...Q0

156. van Keuren DK. 1989. Cabinets and cul­ture: Victorian anthropology and the mu­seum context. J. Hist. Behav. Sci. 25:26-39

157. Varnedoe K. 1 985. Letter to the Editor on "Doctor Lawyer Indian Chief: 'primiti­vism' in 20th century art" at the Museum of Modern Art in 1984. Ariforum 23(5):45--46

158. Vogel S. 1986. African Aesthetics: The Carlo Monzino Collection. New York: Center Afr. Art

159. Vogel S. 1988. Introduction. See Ref. 41, pp. l 1-17

160. Vogel S, ed. 1991. Africa Explores; 20th Century African Art. New York: Center Afr. Art

1 6 1 . Vogel S, N'diaye F. 1985. African Master­piecesfrom the Musee de [ 'Homme. New York: Center Afr. Art

1 62. Wade E. 1 985. The ethnic art market in the southwest 1880--1980. See Ref. 144, pp. 167-91

1 63. Waltlman M. 1 99 1 . Exhibition review. "Af­rica explores: 20th century African art," Center for African Art, New York. Mus. Anthropol. 15(4):30--3 1

164. White R . 1 992. Beyond art: toward a n un­derstanding of the origins of material rep­resentation in Europe. Annu. Rev. An­thropol. 2 1 :537-61

165. Williams EA. 1985. Art and artifact at the Trocadero: Ars Americana and the primi­tivist revolution. See Ref. 144, pp. 1 46-66

166. Wilson D. 1989. The British Museum; Pur­pose and Politics. London: Br. Mus.

167. Wilson TH, Erasmus G, Penney DW. 1992. Museums and first peoples in Canada. Mus. Anthropol. 1 6(2):6-11

168. Wright RK. 1 99 1 . Introduc tion. See Ref. 169, pp. 1 5-28

1 69. Wright RK, ed. 1 99 1 . A TIme of Gathering: Native Heritage in Washington State. Seat­tle: Univ. Wash. Press

170. Young Man A. 1990. Review. 'The Spirit Sings: Artistic Traditions of Canada's First Peoples," the Glenbow Museum, Toronto. Am. Ind. Q. 14(1):7 1-73

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 199

3.22

:201

-220

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Uni

vers

idad

e Fe

dera

l do

Rio

de

Jane

iro

on 1

0/28

/14.

For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.