Museum Returns Aboriginal Skull
Nov 26th, 2009 by Olivia Peters
Aboriginal Skull Returned — Sorry I could not upload the actual video
This video shows an Aboriginal ceremony being held to mark the return of the first of a series of indigenous remains being returned to their homeland, Australia, where they’ll be kept in the National Museum of Australia. They may eventually be buried when returned to their original communities. The World Liverpool Museum agreed to give back the remains of three of the individuals being held by the National Museums Liverpool after a request by the Aboriginal group. The man performing the ceremony is the spiritual leader of the Ngarrindjeri people, Major Sumner. The Ngarrindjeri is a group of 18 clans who speak similar dialects and have family connections throughout South Australia. The other man participating in the ceremony is George Trevorrow, the leader of the Ngarrindjeri. The ‘smoking’ ceremony was to invite the spirits of everyone’s ancestors to be present and to clear away any bad spirits that might be surrounding the important event.
I found our class discussion on Museums and their representations of civilizations extremely interesting. This video shows the difference between a Museum artifact as a dead object or an actual living part of a living people and society. The director of the Museum keeps saying the return of the “remains” while Major Sumner says it is the return of the ancestor’s “spirit”.
The director says that the remains were acquired during British exploration and colonialism. He uses the specific phrase “forged an Empire” to describe the period in which human remains were removed from their burial lands and brought back to Europe. He points out that Museums are thus a large part of British culture. How interesting to think of it that way! That British culture, because of its history of colonialism and imperialism, is largely made up of cultural artifacts from other civilizations and societies. This goes to support the idea that the West is largely understood and defined by what it is not.
I also find it interesting that the director says that it’s embarrassing to still have these items. If this were actually true, why did the Ngarrindjeri people have to ask for their ancestor’s remains to be returned? Where is the line drawn between what is embarrassing to keep in a museum and what is not? What if the Ngarrindjeri people or any group for that matter claimed that other non-human remains were of equal importance to them and wanted for them to be returned? I think that this issue brings to light a big problem with museums in general as discussed in the Wainwright book. Museums like this one and the British Museum present the fall of civilizations. The Aboriginal people and culture is as much alive today as the “Mayan” culture. Mayanism is a concept that can be applied to this situation as much as it can to the “Mexico Room” at the British Museum.
This video gives a unique visual of the contrast between a “modern” people and an “ancient” people. Just look at the expressions of everyone standing around the ceremony. It seems so strange and they don’t fully understand. I wouldn’t say that this man, Major Sumner, is a subaltern but this video shows how he speaks in such a different way than we as westerners do. I’m sure he didn’t convince the Museum board to return the skull by doing a like ceremony. He probably had to focus on the fact that these were actual human remains that needed to be buried, not that the spirits of these ancestors needed to return and be put to rest in their homeland. One image that stands out most in my mind is how out of place he looks—his bare feet dancing on the concrete, everyone around him is wearing warm coats, and he is painted head to toe.
This case is one of many around the world—people are advocating more and more for Museum artifacts to be returned to their original places. It seems to be a clear decision that Aboriginal ancestral remains should be returned to their homelands and taken by awaiting tribal members. However, there are other cases today that are causing much more debate, like the marbles from the Parthenon at the British Museum. What about the Egyptian civilization for example? Why is it easier for Australian indigenous human remains at the World Liverpool Museum to be returned than for Egyptian mummies at the British Museum?
Museums were always my favorite field trips when I was younger. Seeing the set ups of Native Americans eating around a fire fascinated me. I see Museums now as trophy cases for Western civilization—I think it makes complete sense for artifacts to be returned to their rightful places and owners as a step towards changing the colonialist ways of thinking still embedded in society today. Museums as they are are representations of other civilizations through a western scope.
4 Responses to “Museum Returns Aboriginal Skull”
You make a great connection between how museums can be designed to express what “we” are not, thereby defining ourselves. At the same time I feel they could play a valuable role in getting people to appreciated both differences and similarities between people.
I do find it promising that these items are being returned. I feel the curators are taking on a weak brand of relativism I see many of my peers take on. I like to think of it as “tolerant relativism”. It’s the “that’s kinda cool I guess…” bewildered acceptance of an other’s “traditional” ways. Maybe it’s an appreciation of the “noble savage”. Maybe it’s a conditional relativism (“that’s cute as long as they don’t veer too far from MY morals”). I feel more interactive museums that provide a more holistic views of a culture may help us to move away from “tolerance” and towards “understanding”. This is overly idyllic but hopefully has some potential!
You make a great connection between how museums can be designed to express what “we” are not, thereby defining ourselves. At the same time I feel they could play a valuable role in getting people to appreciated both differences and similarities between people.
I do find it promising that these items are being returned. I feel the curators are taking on a weak brand of relativism I see many of my peers take on. I like to think of it as “tolerant relativism”. It’s the “that’s kinda cool I guess…” bewildered acceptance of an other’s “traditional” ways. Maybe it’s an appreciation of the “noble savage”. Maybe it’s a conditional relativism (“that’s cute as long as they don’t veer too far from MY morals”).
I feel more interactive museums that provide a more holistic views of a culture may help us to move away from this brand “tolerance” and towards “understanding”. This is overly idyllic but hopefully has some potential!
This class has taught me a lot about my place in the world and connections to past and present discourses of colonial power. Museums are just one example of how ignorant I was about the continued ‘othering’ that occurs in an attempt to describe what we are not. As well this idea of dead objects behind glass cages as an attempt to show a failing civilization where ours has conquered and progressed is enlightening and yet sad. Despite all this I also feel that museums, if as Jeremy commented can become more interactive, can move away from this alienation that occurs behind glass walls, can possibly provide a very informative and influential experience. Learning about other civilizations doesn’t have to be demeaning or simply tolerant. As a child I often respected aboriginal art as something that was beautiful as well as meaningful. It gave me a new connection with the environment, an alternative lifestyle that I hope we can all get closer to. In regards to the returning of traditional artifacts, perhaps I still haven’t moved away from this colonial discourse within myself but I think and sometimes fear that if all these items are returned that they will never be seen again. And while this is definitely in line with this colonial idea of dying and failing civilizations, globalization and the consequent homogenization of life is definitely real and dangerous to these cultures. Harvey explains how capitalism is imbued in the web of life and touches everyone no matter how isolated. As well where does it stop? How far back do we go returning items. This seems a relatively negative and backward solution to colonialism and the wrongs that have been done…
Great post! Museums are of particular interest to me, partly because they make claims to authoritative knowledge, though it is particularly easy to overlook that they only make claims to it, rather than actually claiming it. Before I began studying the liberal arts, I have always took them to be authoritative, and did not realize, let alone question, that they merely represented narratives rather than displayed objective knowledge, that are usually told from a singular perspective. Also, museum displays are exhibits, a spectacle of some sort, so that the narratives may have been constructed to be sensationalist, or attractive.
Even the act of displaying artefacts of First Nations historicizes their culture, representing them to be an ‘ancient race’ that has been lost, is no longer present, and perhaps even exoticizes them, by assuming that the traditional aspects of their way of living is backwards, situated outside of the linear progression towards “modernization”and “modernity” that we are all moving towards.