Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory, Volume 10

454 Pages·1988·33.292 MB·English

by  Michael B. Schiffer

Advisory Board
JOSE BERENGUER R. FRED PLOG
Museo Chileno de Arte Department of Sociology and
Precolombino Anthropology
Santiago, Chile New Mexico State University
Las Cruces, New Mexico
MARGARET W. CONKEY
Department of Anthropology COLIN RENFREW
State University of New York Department of Archaeology
Binghamton, New York Cambridge University
Cambridge, England
KATHLEEN DEAGAN
Department of Anthropology DAVID HURST THOMAS
University of Florida Department of Anthropology
Gainesville, Florida American Museum of Natural History
New York, New York
DON E. DUMOND
Department of Anthropology S. E. VAN DER LEEUW
University of Oregon Department of Archaeology
Eugene, Oregon Cambridge University
Cambridge, England
ROBERT C. DUNNELL
Department of Anthropology ROBERT WHALLON, JR.
University of Washington Museum of Anthropology
Seattle, Washington University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan
DONALD K. GRAYSON
Department of Anthropology J. PETER WHITE
University of Washington Department of Anthropology
Seattle, Washington University of Sydney
Sydney, New South Wales
GEORGE J. GUMERMAN Australia
Department of Anthropology
Southern Illinois University JOHN E. YELLEN
Carbondale, Illinois Program in Anthropology
National Science Foundation
WILLIAM A. LONG ACRE Washington, District of Columbia
Department of Anthropology
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
Advances in
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
METHOD AND THEORY
Volume 10
Edited by
MICHAEL B. SCHIFFER
Department of Anthropology
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
Harcourt Brace Jovanovlch, Publishers
San Diego New York Berkeley Boston
London Sydney Tokyo Toronto
COPYRIGHT © 1987 BY ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
NO PART OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY BE REPRODUCED OR
TRANSMITTED IN ANY FORM OR BY ANY MEANS, ELECTRONIC
OR MECHANICAL, INCLUDING PHOTOCOPY, RECORDING, OR
ANY INFORMATION STORAGE AND RETRIEVAL SYSTEM, WITHOUT
PERMISSION IN WRITING FROM THE PUBLISHER.
ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.
1250 Sixth Avenue, San Diego, California 92101
United Kingdom Edition published by
ACADEMIC PRESS INC. (LONDON) LTD.
24-28 Oval Road, London NW1 7DX
ISSN: 0162-8003
This publication is not a periodical and is not
subject to copying under CONTU guidelines.
ISBN: 0-12-003Π0-8 (alk. paper)
PRINTED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
87 88 89 90 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
1
The Formation of
Ethnographic Collections: The
Smithsonian Institution in the
American Southwest
NANCY J. PAREZO
Arizona State Museum
University of Arizona
Tucson, Arizona 85721
Museum collections with their array of ethnographic, archaeological, and human osteological
artifacts and remains are the entry for investigating the panorama of economic, social, and
religious responses peoples widely separated by time and space have made. Their material re-
mains and hand made artifacts are the material representation of the beliefs, ideas, and social
institutions which form the bases of anthropological generalizations about human behavior
and in cross-cultural perspective derive from this material diversity the common principles of
humanity which anthropologists have long sought.
Ford 1977:15
INTRODUCTION
Museums around the world hold countless ethnographic and
archaeological artifacts: objects that have been analyzed and are waiting to
be reanalyzed in light of recent theoretical advances. Several scholars, in-
cluding Kroeber (1954), Collier and Fenton (1965), Fenton (1974), and Ford
1
ADVANCES IN ARCHAEOLOGICAL Copyright © 1987 by Academic Press, Inc.
METHOD AND THEORY, VOL 10 All rights of reproduction in any form reserved.
2 NANCY J. PAREZO
(1977), have pointed out that, although museum collections are invaluable
for anthropological research, the anthropological community has not been
making effective use of these resources since the 1930s. Sturtevant
(1969:626) has estimated that "at least 90 percent of all museum
ethnological specimens [have] never been studied.'' Reasons for this lack of
use are many and varied. First is the higher valuation given by academic an-
thropologists to "original" fieldwork, that is, going to exotic places by
oneself and finding something new to Anglo-Americans. By definition,
museum collections are not new: they are the result of someone else's
research endeavors, second-hand data that "belong" to the original re-
searcher even if that individual did not or never will use them. This valua-
tion implies that research using museum data is the equivalent of library
research. Second, since Boas's rejection of museums (Freed and Freed 1983;
Jacknis 1985), anthropology has shifted from a museum-based to a
university-based discipline in teaching and research. Museums have become
peripheral institutions. While the number of museum anthropologists is ap-
proximately the same as it was in the 1930s, the number of nonmuseum an-
thropologists has increased dramatically (Collier and Fenton 1965:111).
This means that a smaller proportion of anthropologists has a direct interest
in the use of museum collections (J. Mason 1960).
This chapter suggests another reason for the lack of use of museum col-
lections—most researchers have understood neither the procedures
employed in making the collections nor the assumptions and decisions that
surrounded and informed their construction. If these processes are
understood, we can and will make better use of our collections.
People have the impression that museum collections, like museum ex-
hibits, "just happen," but museum collections are formed in a variety of
ways. The processes by which museum collections are formed are analogous
to the processes of site formation. Not all objects used by a prehistoric
culture have made it into the archaeological record. Similarly, not every ob-
ject used by an ethnographic group has made it into museum collections.
Most objects are simply discarded by the people who made and used them.
Furthermore, no researcher collects, or is able to collect, "everything" a
culture makes and uses, let alone a representative example of every object
produced by a culture. In fact, to preserve everything is an impossible goal
that is rarely seriously considered. Many objects, though saved for posteri-
ty, are scattered in private collections around the world and are largely inac-
cessible to researchers. Museum collections, like the objects found in an ar-
chaeological site, represent only a portion of the objects made and used by a
society.
The question, "How representative is my sample?" is relevant not only
to archaeologists studying objects recovered from a site (Moore and Keene
1983: 15-17), but also to anthropologists doing research with museum col-
THE FORMATION OF ETHNOGRAPHIC COLLECTIONS 3
lections. A museum collection is never a randon sample: it is always biased.
The problem is to determine what sort of explicit or unacknowledged
sampling procedure was used in the formation of an ethnographic collec-
tion. We may generally assume that systematic collections were meant to be
representative, but representative of what is not always clear. Were the col-
lectors seeking a range of objects that reflected temporal and spatial varia-
tion, individuality, ethnicity, or some other variable? Were the objects col-
lected the most common artifacts, or were they unique items of exceptional
craftsmanship and beauty? What objects were available to be collected?
How did the native group view the anthropologist and the collecting activi-
ty? What was happening to the native group in terms of larger historical and
socioeconomic contacts during the collecting period? Did the collector com-
mission or solicit artifacts? How were the objects obtained—through barter
or cash exchange? Finally, what objects were not collected, and for what
reasons? All these questions are important because the decisions of all
previous generations of collectors affect what is available as potential
research data today. Therefore, it is crucial that we study the an-
thropological collectors themselves in order to use existing collections in-
telligently.
Sampling bias is relevant at two different stages in the history of a collec-
tion: when it is being gathered in the field and transported to the museum,
and after its arrival, when it is accessioned, cataloged, stored, used, and
often separated as objects are transferred to other institutions. The research
potential of the objects in a collection is constrained by the quality of
documentation on each stage. Most crucial are the data obtained by the col-
lector in the field. Field notes may provide information on temporal,
spatial, and cultural provenience; on the physical condition and use of the
object; and, ideally, on the maker and user from whom the object was ob-
tained.
In addition, documentation must include extensive information on the
collectors who gathered the objects, the circumstances under which a collec-
tion was made, and the reasons why it was made. Objects housed in
museums reflect the biases and preconceptions of the collectors. The re-
searchers' theoretical orientations, their research problems and goals, their
views on ethnographic populations, their ideas on progress, their aesthetic
preferences, and the time frame in which they worked have affected what
was collected and when it was collected.
Understanding the nature of museum collecting is, of course, a long and
difficult task, as anyone who has worked with museum collections and
museum records is well aware, and we can only begin to consider the topic
in this chapter. First, I will outline some basic principles of museum collect-
ing and of the use of objects in museums. Then, I will use these principles to
examine the collecting activities of one institution in a particular time and
4 NANCY J. PAREZO
place: collecting by the Smithsonian Institution in the American Southwest
in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Finally, I will discuss
some of the reasons why Smithsonian anthropologists collected objects;
why they went about their task in the way they did; how they justified ex-
penditure of public funds for collecting; and, briefly, how their activity af-
fected the material culture of the groups from which they collected.
At least in the initial stages of research, our understanding of collections
and collecting must be grounded in specific institutions and in the thoughts
and actions of specific individuals (for examples of this approach see Stock-
ing 1968, 1981; and Wade and McChesney 1980). This approach is conve-
nient as well, because the documents necessary to our task are embedded in
institutions. The Smithsonian is a good place to begin because of the size of
its collections and because of the influence of this museum on other institu-
tions that followed it into the field. The period to be covered is important as
well. The collecting of ethnographic and archaeological artifacts during the
late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (ca. 1875-1920) played an im-
portant role in the professionalization of anthropology. The collecting and
study of material culture were not peripheral to the recording of non-
material aspects of culture. Instead, ethnographic objects were considered
"an essential part of the provision of basic documentation on human
cultures at specific points in time and space, quite comparable to the record-
ing, in written form, of data on the nonmaterial aspects of these cultures"
(Sturtevant 1977:1). Collecting was viewed as an activity essential to
understanding non-European peoples. Every anthropologist studied
material culture and did some collecting, and the results of their efforts
form the core of almost every major anthropological museum in the coun-
try.
The reader may be wondering what a chapter on ethnographic collections
is doing in an archaeological publication. Admittedly, this topic will be of
only indirect interest to individuals who consider archaeology to be the
study of past and not living peoples. Many archaeologists, however, have
been and continue to be interested in the material culture of all groups, that
is, in all physical objects that can be used to reconstruct and interpret
human behavior. Ethnologists, however, do not have to rely upon material
objects to learn about culture, and many have little or no training in the
study of objects. With a few notable exceptions (for example, Richardson
1974; Glassie 1975; Graburn 1976; Babcock 1982), ethnologists have often
ignored material culture or treated it as of only descriptive or curiosity
value, of little use for theoretical arguments (Wissler 1914; Fenton 1974;
Thompson and Parezo 1987). Spindler and Spindler (1975:i) contend that
"probably no significant area of human behavior has been more seriously
neglected by contemporary ethnography than material culture." This is a
loss for ethnology and anthropology in general because, as Ford (1977:1)
THE FORMATION OF ETHNOGRAPHIC COLLECTIONS 5
has noted, "without material objects much that we know about our culture,
the culture of other peoples, and the evolution of the diversity of human
societies would be lost."
Archaeologists have noted this "neglect" of material culture by
ethnologists and have taken up the slack with studies of ethnohistory and
ethnoarchaeology (for example, Adams 1973; Donnan and Clewlow 1974;
Gould 1978; Kramer 1979); historical archaeology (Dethlefsen and Deetz
1966; Deetz 1977; Ferguson 1977); and modern material culture (Gould and
Schiffer 1981; Rathje 1974). To these individuals, archaeology is "the
science of technology" (Leone 1973:125), whose aim is "the discovery and
extension of general principles of human behavior vis-a-vis materials"
(Gould and Schiffer 1981 :xvi) regardless of time or space. The expansion of
the domain of archaeology to fill the void left by ethnographers will prob-
ably continue. Although disquieting to an ethnologist like myself who is in-
terested in material culture, this development is appropriate, because ar-
chaeologists are trained to study material culture, and ethnologists typically
are not. Hence, I predict that, on the whole, it will be archaeologists,
ethnoarchaeologists, ethnohistorians, and regionalists who are ar-
chaeological ethnographers, rather than cultural anthropologists, who will
advance the study of material culture and make the greatest use of existing
ethnographic museum collections.
PRINCIPLES OF MUSEUM COLLECTING
The scientific value of museum objects varies with the method by which
they were collected and the amount and type of documentation accompany-
ing each object. Objects without basic documentation such as cultural context
are of little or no research value; they are curiosities only. Collecting is a pro-
cess of displacement, of changing cultural contexts and uses, and of the loss
and gain of information. It involves taking objects from one situation and
embedding them in another. This process consists of two stages: (1) artifact
collection in the field and transportation to the museum and (2) museum use
and storage. All collections consist of both objects themselves and the
documentation that accompanies each stage of an object's life.
Stage 1: Collecting
Most museum collections are of two types, passive or active, reflecting the
general method of acquisition. A "passive collection" is one acquired by
donation or gift, not initially sought out by museum professionals or re-
searchers. The objects making up the collection were originally obtained from
the maker's cultural setting for a reason other than to be placed in a
6 NANCY J. PAREZO
museum, usually as souvenirs from trips, decorations for the home, fine
art, or investments. Artifacts given to the museum as single objects, which
may have been sitting in a basement for years, with the result that the
donors have no idea where they came from and give them to the museum to
rid themselves of a burden, are of little scientific value. (A museum might
consider accepting such undocumented objects for use in a teaching collec-
tion.) Occasionally such objects have aesthetic value, or they may be kept
because the curator recognizes a type specimen that the museum lacks or an
object that is an especially fine example of craftsmanship. Of greater impor-
tance for research are donations that may have been collected as souvenirs
or objects of art by either an amateur or a professional, but that have some
provenience information. Such objects may or may not have scientific
value, depending on the state of documentation. They may serve as type ob-
jects or be analyzed in and of themselves and are likely to be used for
museum exhibits that require aesthetic quality (e.g., a pot by Maria Mar-
tinez of San Ildefonso for which the date of manufacture is unknown).
An "active collection" is one obtained by museum personnel through
purchase or collecting activities. It may be a single object obtained to fill a
hole in an existing collection, or a group of objects that are obtained at one
time. The objects may be purchased from intermediaries such as traders, at
auctions, or directly from the group that made and used them. They may be
amassed in a coherent fashion or haphazardly, by chance and circumstance.
A collection that has been put together in a logical, comprehensive, and
organized fashion in order to increase anthropological knowledge is called a
"systematic collection" (Smith 1902; Sturtevant 1977). Whether it was put
together by an amateur or a professional, and whether a museum had a
passive or an active role in obtaining it, a systematic collection is "unified
by a central theme which gives it an internal cohesiveness" (Ford 1977:5).
"Systematic collections may be synchronic or diachronic; they may be from
a single culture or cross-cultural; they may illustrate an industry or process,
an artifact type, or an entire cultural inventory" (King 1983:5). Collections
gathered by professionals tend to be of more use than those collected by
amateurs because of higher standards of documentation, and, one would
hope, because the collection was made to solve some anthropological ques-
tion. "A systematic research collection has intrinsic potential for an-
thropological research based on objects themselves, the documentation of
the objects, the history of circumstances which created the collection, or the
subsequent importance that collection contributed in the development of
knowledge" (Ford 1977:5). These collections are representative of the way
of life of the people being studied and, ideally, contain objects diagnostic of
the cultural norms and internal variation of the group. They have the most
potential for answering contemporary research questions. Because of this
potential, I will concentrate on systematic collections in this paper.
THE FORMATION OF ETHNOGRAPHIC COLLECTIONS 7
The second part of collecting involves transporting the objects from the
site of collection to the loading dock at the museum. The problem of pack-
ing and shipping objects is overwhelming, even today. In situations with
wagons, no roads, and a lack of protective packing materials, it would have
been even worse. Perishable materials are usually the first to go, breakage is
a problem, and some items are likely to be misplaced. It is probably the ex-
ception rather than the rule for all objects to make it to the museum intact.
Finally, the transportation of collections is extremely expensive.
Stage 2: Storing and Using Collections
The second stage in the history of a collection concerns how the objects
have fared since being placed in a museum. When an artifact enters a
museum it is accessioned, cleaned, and catalogued. It is then placed on ex-
hibit or in storage until it is needed for research or interpretative purposes.
Records are made and filed, and each museum has its own system of record
keeping. One must be aware of how museum records are created and how
they have changed in the last hundred years. In addition, museum research
requires an understanding of storage techniques, the museum's use of ob-
jects, and restoration and conservation processes (see Freed 1981 for an ex-
ample of how a ceramic design analysis went astray because an inadequate
record had been kept when a vessel was extensively restored). Objects are
stored by different systems, and collections are often separated so that
similar types of materials can be stored together.
Upon arriving at a museum, the researcher would like to find collections
that are in pristine condition, complete, and with documentation intact.
This is rarely the case, however. Objects deteriorate in museum settings; the
goal of conservation is to make them last as long as possible, but no object
is timeless. Even with the best of care, some items are broken, and others
are stolen. In addition, "new" objects show up in museum collections.
These are artifacts that were never catalogued or that, through
typographical error, bear a number different from that on the correspond-
ing catalog cards. Some objects "migrate" to new shelves, seemingly of
their own accord. There is also the occasional catastrophic loss of objects.
For example, early Hopi kachina dolls were destroyed in a fire in an exhibit
case in the U.S. National Museum, a division of the Smithsonian Institu-
tion, in the 1950s because of faulty wiring. Perishable archaeological
materials were destroyed in the early 1900s because of a fire in the storage
collections. While there is occasionally money to collect objects it is, unfor-
tunately, a truism that there is never enough money to care for them.
It is rare for all objects that come to a museum to remain there. Objects
move from museum to museum as gifts, exchanges, and temporary and
permanent loans. For example, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth