Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 193.

22:201-220
Copyright 193 by Annual Reviews Inc. All rights reserved
EXPLODIG CANONS:
Te Atopology of Museums
Anna Laur Jones
Department of Anthropology, Stanford University, Stanford, Califoria 94305-2145
KY WORS: art, exhibitions, primitive, repatriation, representation
INTRODUCTION
In this review I discuss the growing chorus of criticism and controversy over
the treatment of non-Wester art and material culture in museums. I have
chosen to bypass the steady fow of solid ethnographic studies of traditional
arts and popular arts, and the emergence of new theoretical concers in these
studies for two reasons.
1
First, academic anthropologists rarely consider mu
seum anthropology as an important area for the employment of anthropolo
gists, and thus for the taining 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 taditions, the examination of colonial and
postcolonial bias in the representation of other cultures, the ethical responsibil
ities 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
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
Quick links to online content
Further
ANNUAL
REVIEWS
202 JONS
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 a
effecting changes in all areas of museum operations: research, curation, and
exhibitions, in particula. Critics from within academic anthropology are help
ing to shape these changes. This is a startling tum of events from the not-so
distant 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 I MUSEUMS
Di erences
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 non
theoretical (4:40), or as exemplifying outmoded or unfashionable theories
(such as evolutionism, see 116:491-92). Academics (and some museum cura
tors) 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 feld
research, publish in scholarly jourals, and attend conferences. In small muse
ums, 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 lage
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 concer over the efects of popular
ization on exhibition content (147).
Several authors have remarked upon the increasing vulnerability of mu
seum 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 a an interestng hybrid case, particularly when curators also serve a
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 departents ofen persist here as well.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
ANTHOPOLOGY 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 tend toward
criticism of museum practice from academic anthropologists, sociologists,
historans, and even English professors, is creating new tensions between
museums and the academy (see 67,91,92).
One might conclude that it is a diffcult time to be a curator. It is certainly a
challenging and exciting period. The potential of museums to promote multi
cultural 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 te empow
erment of those traditionally excluded from museum decision making. This
new atmosphere of relevance and accountability, a change from the isolation
and tiviality 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 te public and from their academic
colleagues.
Academics Atend Museums
STIES OF MUSEUMS Bourdieu's work on the infuence of class, educa
tion, 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 STIES 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 postmoder 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).
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
20 JONES
The British postprocessual school of archaeology (see 73-76, 151) has
revived a familia philosophical debate about whether objects have objective
qualities, and about the so-called linguistic analogy by which objects are
interreted as text (30:38-41, 73:72-73, 149, 151, 155). These radical revi
sions of common sense conventions ae 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-Wester socie
ties is that museums, particularly museums of art, continue to treat this mate
rial 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 A: Affnities of the
Tribal and the Moder" 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 moder art (e.g.
Picasso, Giacometti, and Klee), both in terms of documenting particular artists
and their exposure to specifc art objects and in terms of "affnities" of form or
meaning (128).
The exhibition was reviewed widely (39, 51, 95, 102-104). Danto de
scribed the exhibition as a "stupendously misconceived" example of
"museological manipulation" (39:590). Danto further noted that the category
of primitive a "may be as vivid a transport of cultual imperialism as the
concept of Orientalism" (p. 590) and criticized the MaMA installation of
non-Wester 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 criti
cized it for illustrating "without consciously intending to, the parochial limita
tions of our world view and the almost autistic reflexivity of Wester
civilization's modes of relating to the culturally Other" (102:55). McEvilley's
review in Artorum initiated an extended dialogue in that joural between
McEvilley and the exhibition's curators (102-104, 126, 127, 157). The most
important issues of diference were the status of universal formal aesthetics
3
The Philip Morris Corporation's sponsorship of the exhibition also created some political
controversy (102:60).
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
AHROPOLOGY OF MUSEUMS 205
and the teatment of non-Wester 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 primi
tives as less than human, less than cultural-as shadows of a culture, their
seltood, their Otheress. wrng out of them (102:59).
McEvilley then described this as an
"
act of appropriation" (p. 60), "a need
to coopt diference into one's own dream of order, in which one reigns su
preme" (p. 59), and further as demonstating "Wester 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
Wester 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 Wester artists. the ethnocen
tricity of which history we ourselves described as manifest. .. precisely what
'prirtivism'-as opposed to 'the primitive'-signifes" (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-Wester objects in the
same manner as great art from Wester societies (p. 4).
There are two contradictory principles at issue here. Non-Wester art re
veals universal formal values; and therefore can be exhibited in the museum
context in the same way as Wester 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
Cliford (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-Wester objects in muse
ums of a, anthropology, and natural history. He suggested t hat the preoccupa
tion with the antique, the pure, and the authentic appropriates non-Wester
objects into Wester 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 te heat generated by te
critique of primitivism.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
206 JONS
The Persistence of Foralism
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 moderist aesthetics" posed by
critics of the show (152:120), museums continue to mount formalist exhibi
tions. Cliford (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 A a different history documents both the artwork's
uniqueness and the achievement of the discering 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 A, with its close ties to
collectors and the art market.
In a series of exhibitions curated by Susan Vogel, the Center for African
A has stood by the principles of universal formal aesthetics (10, 41, 150,
158-1). These exhibitions maintained the thesis that there are universal cri
teria of formal excellence. In other ways they addressed the cultural critique of
moderism. "African Aesthetics" (158) made an attempt to characterize Afri
can aesthetics, but the instalation did not refect alterative strategies of
presentation, or the depth and complexity of African philosophical systems.
The "Perspectives: Angles on African A" exhibition (10) was one of the frst
to present non-Wester art from a range of viewpoints, including that of
African artists (see critiques of this exhibition in 120; 152: 123-24, 130-35).
"The A of Collecting African A" 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 A of Seeing Afican Sculpture"
(150) was a reaffrmation of Vogel's predilection for formalism.
6
The Center for Afican A has also sponsored exhibitions that challenge
the frame of formalism. "ART/artifact: African A in Anthropology Collec
tions" (41) was an infuential exhibition that presented a series of galleries
depicting different contexts for displaying African art: "Contemporary A
Gallery," "Curiosity Room," "Natural History Museum Diorama," "A Mu
seum," and a videotape of an Afican 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 a. Te
statements are a powerful educational tool for demonstrating the influence of donors to museums,
the commodifcation of a objects, and the weanesses of formalism.
6
Vogel's contribution to the catalog, "African Sculpture-A Primer," is also a valuable contibu
tion for teaching students the techniques (and limitatons) of formal analysis (150).
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
AHROPOLOGY OF MUSEUMS 207
anthropology curators. A exhibition of contemporary art from Africa, "Africa
Explores: 20th Century African A" (160), was a further step in the direction
of addressing some of the assumptions of moderism: 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 A 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 alterative 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 patons, the visions of universal formalism will continue
to be represented in major museums. The "A of the Dogon" exhibition at
MaMA in 1988 was a telling example of the power of donors to infuence
museum practice (44).
8
Clifford (30) and Kasfr (91) discuss the infuence of
donors on museum practice.
A number of authors address the implications of formalism (4:52-54; 20;
30; 102). In previous decades the a 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 "at" (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-Wester art have qualities of
both: exotic objects beautifully mounted with labels that describe some aspect
of their original context [Cliford calls this "aestheticized scientism"
(30:203)].
In the museum literature there has been a critical consideration of the issue
of context (39, 41, 6, 91:52) that may lead to innovations in exhibition
7
In her critique of Vogel's teatment 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 constuction on a later page (120:97).
8
The "A 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.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
208 JONS
design. Several major exhibitions have been credited with attempting a en
tirely new approach: the "Magiciens de la tere" exhibition in 1989 at the
Cente Pompidou in
P
aris is the most widely acknowledged [there have been
many small avant-garde installations curated by artists (see 25)J. The "Mag
iciens" installation was designed to challenge museum and a conventions:
"the process of de-defning art . . . because much of what is exhibited here is
both ar and kitsch, both fne 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, postmoder exhibitions may be
a next step (30:213).
Authenticit
A recent dialogue in African Arts
9
concering the issue of authenticity pro
vides an interesting complement to the critique of museums treating non
Wester objects as art. The editors asked Sidney Kasfr, author of an earlier
critique of the notion of "tibalism" (90), to reexamine the subject, which they
had treated in an earlier series of articles (2). Kasfr's article (91) indicted the
art world's (amazingly resilient) canon of assumptions about African a: the
"before/after scenario" that privileges precolonial objects in major collections
and exhibitions, the idea that objects collected during the early contact collect
ing period were unaffected by Wester infuence, and the persistent notion of
timeless tribal styles (pp. 41-43). The distortion of history in non-Wester
societies is an important critique of museum (and ethnographic) representation
(see 30, 46, 119).
Kasfir also argued for the inclusion of contemporary popula arts com
monly 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 defini
tion of 'authentic Aboriginal art' that we regad as defensible is .. .it is art made
by Aboriginal people" (145:205). The problem of authenticity received fresh
attention fom many authors in the 1980s (30, 31, 33, 141).
Kasfir's article stirred up a horet's nest of critics in the museum and
academic communities-some defending the usefulness of formalism (45,
122), some presenting alterative perspectives (42, 108), many in defense of
9
This joural is a disturbing example of contradictions that plague the intersection of the a
world and academia. On one hand, the articles exhibit frst-rate scholarship-some of the best
ethnographic writing on contemporary non-Wester a appears in the pages of Afican Ars.
However, the advertisements from dealers traffcking 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.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
ANTHROPOLOGY OF MUSEUMS 209
museum curators (14, 21, 42, 45, 114, 122, 134), and one in defense of
collectors (56). A few scholas supported Kasfr's view, paticulaly as applied
to museums of art (47, 114, 143).
The interesting aspects of this d!bate are the continuing defense of formal
ism, 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 boads, community concers, 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 goverment
(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 interational 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 suspi
cious circumstances, the distorted historical treatment, the use of the "culture
aea" concept, and in particular, the curators' ignorance of contemporary polit
ical issues (4:163; 154; 170:72).
The controversy surounding 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 confict 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 TIE OF GATHERING In 1989 the Thomas Burke Museum at the University
of Washington launched an exhibition, "A Time of Gathering: Native Heritage
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
210 JONES
in Washington State," using an ambitious outreach program to involve indige
nous 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 Ofcer as well as
other native museum professionals to guide development of the exhibition (61,
l38, 169). The native American infuence was evident throughout the exhibition
(see l38): in the selection of artifacts, in the presentation of maps and photo
graphs, in the teatment 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 a, 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 teatment of the "transitional" period
(exemplifed in the boarding school display) was more subtle and less dra
matic in its teatment of confict, 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 defnite trend toward increasing control over repre
sentations of history, culture, and identity by native museum professionals and
tribal communities (4, 19, 32, l35).
ITO THE HEART OF AFRCA 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
offcers; a "missionary" gallery including a lanter slide show mimicking
tum-of-the-century missionary propaganda, and objects donated by missionar
ies; a gallery presenting objects in a recreated village setting; and a gallery
demonstrating contemporary cultural events with storytellers, musical and
dance groups, flms, etc. According to several reviewers, the show was innova
tive, visually interesting, and scholarly (see 113, 133).
This show, like "The Spirit Sings," created a storm of controversy: a boy
cott, a riot and arrests of demonstrators, the refusal of other museums to take
the taveling 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 han
dling of the show demonstrated lack of respect for African culture and te
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
AHOPOLOGY 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
specifc aspects of the installation and label content (117). Marlene Nourbese
Philip suggested that "a more ftting title would be Cutting Out the Heart of
Africa" (117:69).
Cannizzo's stategy 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 jouralist: "Let's call
it as it is-when Bronwyn Draine writes that the problem Afican 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 misunder
standing 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 lef 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 A 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.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
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 consul
tation 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 conficts within the scholarly community and the public contoversies
have "made many of us working in the field of ethnographic exhibi
tions . . . 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 stong 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 interational collaboration on exhibitions is also an
important opportunity for anthropologists to play a role in facilitating change
in museum practice.
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
ANHROPOLOGY 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 Histor 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 (30:135-5; 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 profling 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 Histor 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 shifed 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 "recon
textualization," and "commodifcation" (6; 30:215-51; 51:52; 52:219-55; 71;
91; 120; 149:82-99).
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
214 JNS
COLLECTING PRACTICE I a related vein, there is a growig literatur 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 (4,
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 a 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 collect
ing of Northwest Coast Indian ar at the tum of the century (36). Price's
chapter on collecting, "Power Plays," is also an eye-opener (120:68-81). A
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 interational agree
ments against trade in cultural treasures, and in the 1990 Native American
Grave Protection and Repatiation Act.
The Critique of Historicism
Despite the growing literature that criticizes the colonial context under which
most non-Wester a has been collected (30, 31, 51, 120), few museums have
deat with this aspect of the history of their collections in exhibitions and
catalogs (19). There is widespread agreement that museums served as "legiti
mizers of imperial exploitation" (43:154).
11
Reconstucting 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 paricularly confused by the treatment in Schildkrout & Keir (132) of the American
Museum of Natural History's (A) 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 Refectons: A from Northeaster
Zaire" was widely praised as dealing frmly 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 wer 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
rview of pranent exhibits at the A, Bal suggests that there are troubling contradictions in
the museum's teatment of colonialism (9:579-83).
11
Many museums display the attitude Rosaldo describes as "imprialist nostalgia ... mouing for
what one has destoyed" (124) in their lamenting of "lost" a and "extnct" poples. Rosaldo's
allusion to "the white m's burden" reminded me aso of one of the aguments against repatria
tion of sacred objects in museum colletions, spcifcally the claim of having saved objects from
certain destuction at the hands of caeless natives (who even now cannot b tusted to presere
their cultural hertage).
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
ATHOPOLOGY 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 domi
nated this trend of historicism, are hardly the heady stuff of "historical self
consciousness" (see 19, 30:229).
Recent efforts to interpret the conquest of the Americas-in film, in Co
lumbus Day parades, and in Quincentennary programs-are showing the po
tential 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 colonial
ism and has benefted 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 tend 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
Wester 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 earli
est stages, and with efective 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 pateralistic 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 anthro
pology.
CONCLUSION
This review has presented some of the problems and opportunites 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 altera-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
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,
a, 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 commu
nity) for educating me about museum issues. Space limits me to acknowledg
ing Phyllis Rabineau and the staf 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, Berard Siegel, Gregory Starrett, John Rck, and Tom Wilson.
Thanks also go to Julia Hammett, who offered valuable editorial advice, and to
Michael Lowry for his support and encouragement.
Literture 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 a. AJ.
Arts 9(3):20-31;48-74
3. Aes M. 1991. Biculturlism in exhibi
tions. Mus. Anthropol. 15(2):7-15
4. Ames M. 1992. Cannibal Tours and Glass
Boxes: The Anthrpology of Museums.
Vancouver: Univ. British Columbia Press
5. Appadurai A, ed. 1986. The Social Life
of Tings: Commodities in Cultural Per
spective. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ.
Press
6. Appadurai A. 1986. Introduction: com
modities and the politcs of value. See Ref.
5,pp.3-63
7. Arnoldi MJ. 1992. A distorted mirror: the
exhibiton of the Herbert Ward Collection
of Africana. See Ref. 89, pp. 428-57
8. Assembly of First Nations and the Cana
dian Museums Association. 1992. Task
force report on museums ad first peoples.
Mus. Anthrpol. 16(2):12-20
9. Bal M. 1992. Telling, showing, showing
of. 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. A
11. Baber L. 1980. The Heyday of Natural
Histor 1820-1870. London: Cape
12. Deleted in proof
13. Bayly C. 1986. The origins of swadesbi
(home industry): cloth and Indian soiety,
1700-1930. See Ref. 5, pp. 285-321
14. Beidelman TO. 1992. Authenticity and ap
propriation. Response to Kasik AJ. Arts
25(3):24-26
15. Ben-Amos PG. 1980. The Art of Benin.
New York: Thames & Hudson
16. Ben-Amos PG. 1989. Afcan visual arts
from a social perspective. Afr Stud. Rev.
32(2):1-53
17. Berlo JC. 1992. Introduction: the formative
years of Native American art history. See
Ref. 18, pp. 1-21
18. Berlo Je, ed. 1992. The Early Years of
Native AmericanArt Histor. Seattle: Univ.
Wash. Press
19. Berlo lC, Phillips R. 1992. "Vitalizing the
things of the past": museum representa
tions of Native North American a in the
1990s. Mus. Anthropol. 16(1):29-3
20. BIier SP. 1988-1989. Art systems and sem-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
iotics: the question of art, craf, and colonial
taxonomies in Afica. Am. J. Semiot.
6(1):7-18
21. Bler SP. 1992. Shadow plays: reading b
tween the lines in postmodernist criticism.
Response to Kasfir. Afr. Arts 25(3):26 30
22. Bouquet M. 1991 . Images of artefacts. Crit.
Anthropol. 1 1(4):333-56
23. Bourdieu P 1 984. Distinction: A Social
Critique ofthe Judgement ofTaste. Cam
bridge: Harvard Univ. Press
24. Bourdieu P, Darbel A, Schnapper D. 1991.
The Love ofArt: Eurpean Art Museums
and Teir Public. Stanford: Stanford Univ.
Press
25. Brett G. 1 989. Eath and museum-local
and global? Tird Text 6: 89-96
26. Cannadine D. 1983. The context, peror
mance and meaning of ritual: the Britsh
monarchy and the 'invention of taditon,'
c. 1820-1 977. See Ref. 72, pp. 101-64
27. Canzzo J. 1989. Into the Heart ofAfica.
Toronto: Royal Ontario Mus.
28. CannizzoJ. 1991. Letter to the Editor. Mus.
Anthrpol. 15(4):5-6
29. Chapman W. 1985. Arranging ethnology:
A. H. L. F Pitt Rivers and the typological
tradition. See Ref. 144, pp. 15-48
30. Cliford J. 1988. Predicament ofCulture.
Cambridge: Harvard Univ. Press
3 1. Cliford J. 1989. The others: beyond the
salvage paradigm. Third Text 6:73-78
32. Cliford J. 1991. Four northwest coast mu
seums. See Ref. 88, pp. 212-54
33. Co 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. 1 65-210
35. Cohoas 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
Scrmble for Northwest Coast Artifacts.
Seattle: Univ. Wash. Press
37. ConkeyMW. 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 affnities:
'''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 Af. A
42. Drewal H. 1992. Contested realities: in
ventions of a and autenticity. Response
to Kasf Af Arts 25(4):24-28
ANHROPOLOGY OF MUSEUMS 217
43. Durrans B. 1988. The future of the other:
changing cultures on display in ethno
graphic museums. See Ref. 98, pp. 144-69
44. Ezra K. 1988. The Art ofthe Dogon: Selec
tions fom the Lester Wunderman Collec
tion. New York: Metrop. Mus. A
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 Unv. Press
47. Fabian J. 1992. Quibbles and questions.
Response to Kasfr. Afr. Arts 25(3):22-24
48. Fane D, Jacknis I, Breen LM. 1991. Ob
jects ofMyth and Memor: American In
dian Art at the Brooklyn Museum. Seattle:
Univ. Wash. Press
49. Fane D. 1992. New questions for "old
things": the Brooklyn Museum's Zuni col
lection. See Ref. 18, pp. 62-87
50. Faris J. 1988. ArtIartifact: on the museum
ad athropology. Curr. Anthropol.
29(5):775-79
51. Foster H. 1985. The 'primitive' uncon
scious of modern art. October 34:45-70
52. Frisbie CJ. 1987. Navaho Medicine Bun
dles or Jish: Acquisition, Trnsmission,
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. Se
Ref. 89, pp. 285-326
54. Furst HJ. 1989. Material culture research
and the curaton proess. 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 Kafr. Afr. Arts 25(3):26
57. Gorbey K, Horgan J, Mahuika A, Simeral
S. 1991 . Museum of New Zealadle Papa
Tongarewa. Mus. Anthropol. 15(4):7-25
58. Gray R. 1988. Art and anthropology
on a sliding scale. See Ref. 39, pp. 33-40
59. Guedon M. 1983. Acase ofmistaken iden
tity (the education of a naive museum eth
nologist). In Consciouness and Inquiry:
Ethnology and Canadian Realities. ed. F
Manning, pp. 253-61. Ottwa: Nat!. Mus.
Caada
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. 1 990. A Tme ofGath
ering-An Intertribal Welcome: State
ments fom 35 Washington Tribes. Seattle:
Burke Mus. Pub!.
62. Hay E-T. 1988. Les origines du musee
d' ethnographie. Paris: Place
63. Handler R. 1985. On having a culture: na
tionalism and the preservaton of Quebec's
patrimoine. In Objects and Others: Essays
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
21 8 JONS
on Museums and Material Culture, ed. G
Stocking, pp. 192-215. Madison: Univ.
Wisc. Press
6. Handler R. 1 92. On the valuing of mu
seum objects. Mus. Anthropol. 1 6( 1): 21-
28
65. Harms V 199. The aims of the museum
for ethnology: debate in the Ger-spak
ing countres. Curr Anthrpol. 31 (4):457-
63
66. Harrison JD. 1987. The Spirit Sings: Artis
tic Traditions of Canada's First Peoples.
Toronto: Glenbow Mus.
67. Harrison i. 1988. 'The Spirit Sings' and
the fture of anthropology. Anthrpol.
Today 4(6):6-9
68. Hegmon M. 1 992. Archaeological research
on style. Annu. Rev. Anthrpol. 21 :5 17-36
69. Hinsley CM. 1981. Savages and Scientists:
The Smithsonian Institution and the Devel
opment ofAmerican Anthrpolog 1846
1910. Washington, DC: Smithsonian Inst.
Press
70. Hinsley CM. 1985. From shell heaps to
stelae: early anthropology at the Peabody
Museum. Se Ref. 144, pp. 49-74
71 . Hinsley CM. 1 991 . The world as market
place: commoifcation of the exotc at the
World's Columbian Expositon, Chicago,
1893. See Ref. 88, pp. 344-65
72. Hobsbawm E, Ranger T, eds. 1983. The
Invention of Tradition. Cambridge: Cam
bridge Univ. Press
73. Hodder I. 1989. Post-modernism, post
stucturalism and post-proessual archae
ology. See Ref. 74, pp. 64-78
74. Hoder I, ed. 1989. The Meanings of
Things: Material Culture and Symbolic
Epression. London: Unwin Hyman
75. Hodder I. 1989. This is not an article on
material culture as text. J. Anthropol.
Archaeol. 8(3):259
76. Hodder I. 1991 . Reading the Past: Current
Appraches t Interpretation in Archaeol
ogy. Cambrdge: Univ. Cambridge Press
77. Hopr-Greenhill E. 1989. The museum in
the disciplinary soiety. See Ref. 1 15, pp.
61-72
78. Hopkirk P. 1980. Foreign Devils on the Silk
Road: The Searh for the Lost Cities and
Treasures of Chinese Central Asia. Lon
don: 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. 14, pp. 75-1 1 1
81 . Jacknis I. 1991 . Heafitz Hall of the North
American Indian: change and contnuity,
Peabody Museum, Harvard. Mus. An
thrpol. 15(2):29-34
82. Jonaitis A. 1 988. From the Lnd of the
Totem Poles: The Nortwest Coast Indian
Collection at the American Museum of
Natural Histor. 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 Galler 33 Project. Se
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: Ple
num
86. Kaeppler A. 1978. "Articial Curiosi
ties": Being an Exposition ofNative Man
ufactures Collected on the Three Pacifc
Voyages of Captain James Cook. Hono
lulu: Bishop Mus.
87. Kaeppler A. 1992. Museums of the world:
stages for the study of ethnohistory. See
Ref 1 15, pp. 83-96
88. Karp I, Lavine SD, es. 1 991 . Ehibiting
Cultures: The Poetics and Politics ofMu
seum Display. Washington, DC: Smithson
ian Inst. Press
89. Kap I, Mullen C, Lavine SO, eds. 1992.
Museums and Communities: Debating
Public Culture. Washington, DC:
Smithsonian Inst. Press
90. Kasfr SL. 1 984. One tibe, one style: par
adigms in the historiogaphy of African a.
Hist. Af. 1 1 : 163-93
91 . Kasfr SL. 1992. African a and authentic
ity: a text with a shadow. AfArts 25(2):41-
53
92. Kasfr SL. 1 992. Rejoinder. Af. Arts
25(4):29-30, 1 0-3
93. King JCH. 1981 . Artifcial Curiositiesfrm
the Northwest Coast ofAmerica. London:
Br. Mus.
94. Kopytof I. 1986. The cultural biography
of things: commoditzaton as proess. See
Ref. 5, pp. 64-94
95. Kramer H. 1 984. The 'primitvism' conun
drum. New Criterion 3(4): 1-7
96. Lemonnier P. 1986. The study of material
culture today: toward an anthroplogy 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 01 . Mack J. 1990. Emil Tordy and the Art of
the Congo. London: Br. Mus.
102. McEvilley T. 1984. Dotor Lawyer Indian
Chief: "'primitvism' in 20th century a" at
the Museum of Moern Art in 1984.
Artorum 23(3):54-1
103. McEvilley T. 1985. Response to Rubin,
Vanedo. Arorum 23(5):4-51
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
104. McEvilley T 1985. Response to Rubin.
Artorum 23(9):65-71
lO5. Menand L. 193. Nietzsche in furs. "Sex,
a, and American culrre" by Camille
Paglia. New Repub. 208(4):32-38
106. Merriman N. 1989. The soial basis ofmu
seum and heritage visitng. See Ref. 115,
pp. 153-71
107. Michaud Y 1989. Doctor Explorer Chief
Curator. Third Text 6: 83-88
108. Mudimb VY. 1 992. A queston of prspec
tve. Respnse to Kasfr. Af: Arts 25(4):20-
24
109. Mundine J. 1989. Aboriginal art in Aus
talia today. Third Text 6:33-42
1 10. Nicks T, Hill T. 1991 . Turing the Page:
Forging New Partnerships between Muse
ums and First Peoples. Ottawa: Canaian
Mus. Assoc.
1 1 1 . Nooter R, Nooter N, Vogel S. 1988. Te Art
ofCollecting African Art. New York: Cen
ter Afr. Art
1 12. Orosz JJ. 1990. Curators and Culture: The
Museum Movement in America, 1773-
1870. Tuscalosa: Univ. Ala. Press.
1 13. Ottenbrg S. 1991 . Exhibition review. "Into
the heart of Africa," The Royal Ontario
Museum. Aft Arts 24(3):79-82
1 14. 0ttenbrg S. Scholars, and the A Net
works. 1 992. Response to Kasfr. AfArts
25(3):3032
1 15. Pearce SM, ed. 1989. Museum Studies in
Material Culture. London: Leicester Univ.
Press
1 16. Pfafenbrer B. 1 992. Soial anthropol
ogy of technology. Annu. Rev. Anthrpol.
21:491-51 6
1 17. Philip MN. 1991 . The white soul of Can
ada. Third Text 14:63-78
l t8. Poppi C. 1991 . 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 21 . Ranger T. 1983. The invention of taditon
in colonial Africa. See Ref. 72, pp. 211 -2
122. Ravenhill PL. 1992. On the cross-cultural
appreciation of art. Response to Kasfr. Af
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):937-2
124. Rosaldo R. 1989. Culture and Truth: The
Remaking ofSocial Analysis. Boston: Bea
con
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: "'primiti
vism' in 20th centu art" at the Museum of
ATROPOLOGY OF MUSEUMS 219
Modern A in 1984."Ariorum 23(5):42-
45
127. Rubin W 1985. Response to McEvilley.
Artorum 23(9):63-65
128. Rubin W, ed. 1984. Primitvism in 20th
centuy art. New York: Mus. Modern A
129. Rufns P. 1992. Mythos, memory, and
history: Afican American prservation
eforts, 1820-190. See Ref. 89, pp. 50-
611
130. Rushing WJ. 1992. Marketing the afnity
of the primitive and the modern: Rene
d'Harnoncourt and "Indian art of the
United States." See Ref. 18, pp. 191-236
1 31 . Schildkout E. 1988. A as evidence: a
brief history of the American Museum of
Natural History Afcan collection. Se
Ref. 39, pp. 153-6
132. Schildkrout E, Keim CA. 1990. Arican
Refections: Art fom Northeaster Zire.
SeattleNew York: Univ. Wash. Pess/Am.
Mus. Nat. Hist.
133. Schildkrout E. 1991 . Ambiguous messages
and ironic twists: into the heart of Africa
and the other museum. Mus. Anthrpol.
15(2): 16 23
134. Schildkout E. 1992. A curator talks back.
Response to Kasfr. Ar Arts 25(3): 14-18
135. Schildkout E. 1992. Revisiting Emil
Torday's Congo: "Images of Africa" at the
British Museum. Afr. Arts 25(1 ):60-9, 99
136. Schlereth T. 1989. Material culture re
search and North American social history.
See Ref. 1 15, pp. 1 1-26
137. Silverman R. 1987. Review. "Perspe
tves: angles on African art," Center for
African A, New York. Afr. Arts 21(1): 19-
24
138. Singleton J. 199. Exhibiton review. "A
time of gathering: native heritage in Wash
ington stat," Thomas Burke Memorial
Washington State Museum. J. Am. Hist.
77(3):943-9
139. Skramstad H. 1993. Excellent inequites.
Mus. News 72(1):50-51
140. Smith B. 1985. European Vsion and The
South Pacifc. New Haven: Yale Univ.
Press
141. Sponer 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
a. Afr. Arts 24(1 ): 38-43, 100
143. Steiner C. 1992. Fake masks and faux mo
dernity: the crisis of misrepresentation. Re
sponse to Kasfr. 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. Sur
vival, regeneration, and impact. In Dream
ings: The Art ofAboriginal Australia, ed.
PSutton, pp. 180-212. New York: Braziller
146. Tchen JK. 1992. Creating a dialogic mu-
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.
220 JONES
seum: the Chinatown History Museum ex
priment. See Ref. 89, pp. 285-326
147. Terrell J. 1991 . Disneyland and the future
of museum anthropology. Am. Anthropol.
93: 149-52
148. Thomas N. 1989. Material culture and co
lonial power: ethnological collecting and
the establishment of colonial rule in Fiji.
Man 24(1):41-56
149. Thomas N. 1991 . Entangled Objects: E
change, Material Culture, and Colonial
ism in the Pacifc. Cambridge: Harvard
Univ. Press
150. Thompson J, Vogel S. 1990. Closeup: Les
sons in the Art ofSeeing Afican Sculpture
fom an American Collection and the
Horstmann Collection. New York: Center
Afr. Art
1 51 . Tilley C, e. 1990. Reading Material Cul
ture; Structuralism, Hermeneutics and
Post-structuralism. Oxford: Blackwell
152. TorgovnickM. 1 990. Gone Primitive; Sav
age Intellects, Modem Lives. Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press
153. Trevor-Roper H. 1983. The invention of
tradition: the highland tradition of Scot
land. See Ref. 72, pp. 1 5-42
154. Trigger BG. 1988. Reply to Harrison. An
thropol. Today 4(6):9-10
155. van Beek G. 1991. Words and things: a
comment on Bouquet's 'Basil images and
artefacts' . Crit. Anthrpol. 1 1(4):357.0
156. van Keuren DK. 1989. Cabinets and cul
ture: Victoria anthropology and the mu
seum context. J. Hist. Behav. Sci. 25:26-39
157. Varnedoe K. 1985. Letter to the Editor on
"Doctor Lawyer Indian Chief: 'primiti
vism' in 20th century a" at te Museum of
Modern Art in 1984. Ariforum 23(5):45--6
158. Vogel S. 1986. African Aesthetics: The
Carlo Monzino Collection. New York:
Center Af. Art
159. Vogel S. 1988. Introduction. See Ref. 41,
pp. l 1-17
160. Vogel S, ed. 1991. Africa Explores; 20th
Centur Afican Art. New York: Center Afr.
Art
1 61 . Vogel S, N'diaye F 1985. African Master
piecesfrm the Musee de [ 'Homme. New
York: Center Afr. Art
162. Wade E. 1 985. The ethnic art market in the
southwest 1880-1980. See Ref. 144, pp.
167-91
1 63. WaltlmanM. 1991 . Exhibition review. "Af
rica explores: 20 century African art,"
Center for African Art, New York. Mus.
Anthropol. 15(4):30- 31
164. White R. 1992. Beyond a: toward an un
derstanding of the origins of material rep
resentation in Europe. Annu. Rev. An
thropol. 21:537-61
165. Williams EA. 1985. Ar and arifact at the
Troadero: Ars Americana and the primi
tivist revolution. Se Ref. 144, pp. 146-66
166. WilsonD. 1989. The British Museum; Pur
pose and Politics. London: Br. Mus.
167. Wilson TH, Erasmus G, Penney DW. 1992.
Museums and first peoples in Canada. Mus.
Anthrpol. 1 6(2):6-11
168. Wright RK. 1 991 . Intoduction. See Ref.
169, pp. 15-28
1 69. Wright RK, ed. 1991 . A TIme ofGathering:
Native Heritage in Washington State. Seat
tle: Univ. Wash. Press
170. Young Man A. 1990. Review. 'The Spirit
Sings: Artstic Traditons of Canada's First
Peoples," the Glenbow Museum, Toronto.
Am. Ind. Q. 14(1): 71-73
A
n
n
u
.

R
e
v
.

A
n
t
h
r
o
p
o
l
.

1
9
9
3
.
2
2
:
2
0
1
-
2
2
0
.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

f
r
o
m

w
w
w
.
a
n
n
u
a
l
r
e
v
i
e
w
s
.
o
r
g
b
y

U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
d
a
d
e

F
e
d
e
r
a
l

d
o

R
i
o

d
e

J
a
n
e
i
r
o

o
n

1
0
/
2
8
/
1
4
.

F
o
r

p
e
r
s
o
n
a
l

u
s
e

o
n
l
y
.