309Anthropology and Education Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4, p.docx

309
Anthropology and Education Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 309–
327, ISSN 0161-7761, online ISSN 1548-1492.
© 2006 by the American Anthropological Association. All
rights reserved. Direct all requests for permission
to photocopy or reproduce article content through the
University of California Press’s Rights and
Permissions website, www.ucpress.edu/journals/rights.htm.
Displayed Objects, Indigenous Identities,
and Public Pedagogy
BRENDA TROFANENKO
University of Illinois Urbana–Champaign
In this article, I describe how one group of student examines
indigenous identity formation as
dynamic and open to reinterpretation. Drawing on field
observations and interviews with stu-
dents in a 16-month ethnographic study, I examine how one
group of students worked toward
understanding how indigenous identity was determined by
curatorial authority and histori-
cally defined museum practices. I argue that students can
question the traditional pedagogi-
cal conceptions of indigenous culture that ought to be
reconsidered within the public museum,
and that working to historicize such conceptions makes more
explicit student knowledge pro-
duction of identity. [Indigenous, identity formation, pedagogy,
public museums]

As institutions primarily dedicated to the display of cultures,
ethnology museums
have long been sites for the invention of essentialized
indigenous identities.1 The
materiality and physical presence of objects within a museum
provide the public
with perceived access to understanding the indigenous world
and, more specifically,
indigenous culture. The authority vested in the museum, as a
place to learn through
objects, labels, exhibition notes, and curatorial expertise is
responding to concerns by
indigenous groups about the absence of their presence in the
museum project.
Although museums are engaging in critical and reflexive
examinations of their man-
dates and practices, as manifested as the “new museology”
(Sherman 1994; Vergo
1989), this enduring self-reflexivity has witnessed limited
changes to the larger edu-
cational project inherent in the public museum. The public
ethnology museum
remains foremost as an institution where one attends to
understand culture through
the displays of objects. In spite of the self-reflexivity,
indigenous identities in public
museums remain essentialized, rendered ahistorical, and devoid
of subjectivities and
dynamism (Ames 1992; Cruikshank 1995; Thomas 2000),
ignoring the centuries of
social, domestic, and economic challenges facing indigenous
groups themselves.2
This has prompted questions about how, as Mieke Bal
(1992:561; cf. Macdonald 1996:86)
asks, knowledge about culture is “taken in and taken home.”

In this article, I present portions of a yearlong research project
in which students
attending an ethnology museum worked to understand
indigenous identity and its for-
mation through the traditional pedagogical conceptions of
culture as defined by the
museum, notably through the display of indigenous objects. My
focus examines the
developing consciousness the students held toward
understanding indigenous identity
as an institutional construction open to reinterpretation. This
awareness on behalf of the
students works to challenge the institutional conception of
culture presented by one par-
ticular ethnology museum that serves to regulate and control the
relationship between
the museum’s cultural artifacts and an object-based
epistemology. With the support of
their classroom teacher, who provided activities that allowed
them to think differently
about the objects displayed in the museum, the students came to
realize the limitations
of traditional curatorial practices by engaging in weeklong
activities that required
archival research and historical interpretation. The students
distinguished between the
public definitions of one particular indigenous culture as
defined by the museum
through its exhibition mandates and the contextualized
historicity of museum objects.
The Public Display of Culture

The public museum’s focus has long been defining and
constructing particular
identities through its historically defined educational mandate.
As a prestigious pub-
lic space where valued objects are held to embody essential
forms of evidence, the
ethnology museum’s display of indigenous objects serves to
capture the fascination
of viewing another culture. This premise operates from a central
historical principle
that one could capture, display, and teach something
fundamental about culture
through objects. Although indigenous objects often serve as
essential forms of mate-
rial evidence and the physical presence of indigenous groups,
absent are the condi-
tions under which such objects come to define indigenous
culture. It remains much
easier, as James Clifford (1988) noted several years ago, for a
museum to devise a dis-
play around indigenous objects as either scientific
archaeological artifacts or as aes-
thetic works of art, rather than address the politics of museum
exhibitions and the
purpose such exhibitions serve the public.
The museum’s educational authority often falls prey to the
unquestioned educational
purpose it serves society and generally remains taken for
granted but undertheorized
(Hooper-Greenhill 1999). Although the museum’s educational
imperative can be traced
to its earlier civic and pedagogical purposes (Goode 1891),
museums continue to be
predicated, as historian Steven Conn notes in his examination of
19th-century U.S.

museums, on “object-based epistemology,” or where
understanding is “ultimately
based upon . . . see[ing] objects as symbols and signs”
(1998:100). In emphasizing
how museums were implicated in the process of creating
certainty, Timothy Mitchell
argues that they also “render[ed] history, progress, culture, and
empire in ‘objective’
form” (1991:7). The physicality of the objects comes to serve as
a supposed neutral
representation that ignores, as Mary Louise Pratt notes, “their
organization or ecolog-
ical relations with each other, but also from their place in other
people’s economies,
histories, social and symbolic systems” (1992:31).
Although culture has become a term that is almost universally
used to categorize
distinct human groups, it often refers to identity, difference, and
how people live.
Although the term culture remains, as Raymond Williams
(1985:87) noted years ago,
“one of the two or three most complicated words in the English
language,” it has long
been taught in our schools in a traditional anthropological
conception. The concept
of culture has come to replace the language of race, with culture
assumed to imply a
positive celebration of difference while allowing for the
possibility for progress
among groups once considered primitive. The challenge
inherent in the concept of
culture in present-day ethnology museums is that is serves as a
viable conceptual-
ization of human difference and experience that often goes
unquestioned. In the case

of indigenous identity, culture is, as Nichols Thomas notes,
“associated primarily . . .
with a condition of permanence” (1994:116).
310 Anthropology & Education Quarterly Volume 37, 2006
Culture as publicly displayed objects remains prevalent in
ethnology museums,
where the larger educational purpose is to learn about culture
through the exhibition
and display of particular artifacts. Although such objects have
historically been cen-
tral to defining and establishing anthropological theories of
evolution, in which cul-
ture was proposed as an alternative to the concept of race in the
1930s by
anthropologist Franz Boas (Degler 1991), objects have come to
organize a particular
way of viewing its own history of use. Ethnology museums
continue to focus on
“accumulation [that] unfolds in a pedagogical, edifying manner”
(Clifford 1990:144).
Working toward affirming its pedagogical or educational intent
has resulted in the
public museum’s efforts to establish and make more obvious the
relationship between
its own missions, collections, and displays and the educational
standards defined by
school curriculum. As the public ethnology museum is
becoming more of an educa-
tional resource framed as an objective presentation of
indigenous culture, how stu-
dents engage with the issues of museum authority and power to
define a particular

culture is dependent on how the students engage with various
curatorial practices.
Although the debate about defining culture continues to rage
passionately within
and beyond the anthropology discipline (see, e.g., Clifford and
Marcus 1986; Eisenhart
2001; Sahlins 2004), such debates particular to the pedagogical
implications of eth-
nology museums and how students come to understand culture
within the limits of
the museum have remained relatively unexamined in the
education discipline.
Certainly, various educational scholars have identified the
museum as a site worthy
of studying how students learn about specific disciplinary
knowledge (see, specifi-
cally, works by Falk and Dierking [1992, 2000]), yet the
research focuses specifically
on conversational engagements, cognitive learning theories, and
utilizing discipli-
nary objects (see, e.g., Leinhaert et al. 2000; Falk 2002; and
Paris 2000, respectively).
Despite the many useful insights, in understanding how students
learn in museums;
the research has, for the most part, ignored how knowledge
produced by a museum
is understood as the “commodity that museums offer” to the
public (Hooper-
Greenhill 1992:2). That is, how can students engage in activities
to learn about the
museum’s implication in particular identity formation, and
particularly how do
ethnology museums continue to hold authority as the
penultimate institution from
which to learn about culture?

The Study and Context
I began this study with the assumption that ethnology museums
have remained
steeped in the historical specificities of colonialism—that is, a
museum continues to
collect, exhibit, and educate about culture through the display
of objects. Indigenous
identity as culture is frequently presented through the
anonymous voice of museum
authority, which is usually not indigenous. I inquired into
student understanding
specific to indigenous identity and culture, the result of my
concerns about the eth-
nology museum as a site for learning. This research was also
directed by the belief
that students can, and ought to, question how indigenous
identity is determined by
the institutional authority held by a museum. Students can learn
how the indigenous
identity authorized by the museum serves particular institutional
mandate, and that
such definitions are situated within a political context of
equitable representation, self-
determination, and repatriation of objects. I spent 16 months at
the Bowmore,3 nine
months of that within three classrooms that utilized the
Bowmore as a learning site.
Trofanenko Displayed Objects 311
During the dedicated time in the Bowmore, I examined the
museum’s curatorial,

research, exhibition, and educational mandates that directed
what knowledge the
public may gain about indigenous culture, and I observed how
teachers instruct the
students about understanding culture as a historically defined
concept. These teach-
ers developed activities to engage their students in examining
the political and social
contexts in which particular identities are defined within their
own classrooms and
in the Bowmore.
This is an ethnographic study that emphasizes students
challenging the institu-
tional authority of one museum to define indigenous identity as
culture. The locus of
such authority is the museum’s possession of the object and the
use of that object and
accompanying texts that define indigenous identity as
ahistorical, static, and situated
in the past. In the case of the Bowmore, the First Nation gallery
is physically sepa-
rated from the Western Heritage galleries. Further, First Nations
were divided by
tribal identification and geographic locales within Canada with
objects being identi-
fied by the specific years.
The Site
This research took place in the Bowmore Museum (an artifact-
based ethnology
and history museum, art gallery, archive, and library) and in
three classrooms of stu-
dents located in Calgary, Alberta, a city dominated by oil and
gas production and

technology industries, with tourism also providing substantial
economic support and
identity for the city. Although an urban and cosmopolitan image
is advanced through
the city’s tourist industry, images of cattle, cowboys, and
indigenous peoples adorn
the tourism brochures that promote Calgary as the last vestige
of the Canadian west,
a frontier rich in historical traditions. The Bowmore occupies a
privileged place in
Canadian museums as the only institution devoted exclusively
to the collecting and
exhibiting of indigenous objects from the High Plains nations.4
As senior U.S. histo-
rian (frances) Kaye (Bowmore 1996:2) notes, the Bowmore is
“quite simply the defin-
ing institution for Western Canada, in much the same way that
the Smithsonian
Institute in all its branches is the defining institution for the
United States.” The ability
of the Bowmore’s authority to define a particular western
Canadian identity is evident
in promotional materials, gallery notes and catalogues, and in
the various displays.
The promotional pamphlet positions the museum as providing
the public with an
intimate experience of learning about the real West:
No trip to the Canadian West would be complete without a visit
to western Canada’s largest
museum. Explore the heritage and character of the West in
exhibitions that chronicle the peo-
ple and events that shaped this region, and encounter history
from around the world in exhi-
bitions featuring some of the finest artifacts from our expansive
collections. The visitor is

invited to discover the diversity of Canada’s First Nations from
carvings to the intricacy of
Plains quillwork and the distinctive designs created by NW
coast people. These galleries
provide a thoughtful glimpse into the diversity of First Nations’
traditional cultures. Journey
to the Real West in the Western Heritage exhibits. [Bowmore
pamphlet]
Although the Bowmore invites the visitor to “discover” and
“explore” the diver-
sity among the First Nations, such diversity is understood
primarily through object
display within the First Nations gallery. The museum has
identified western
Canadian heritage as one of its mandates. Yet, such
inclusiveness is questionable
when the physical layout of the third floor galleries is
considered. Here, the galleries
contain a designated area named the Western Heritage gallery,
which is separate and
distinct from the First Nations gallery. The physical separation
of the First Nations
from the western heritage exhibits (i.e., immigration, prairie
life, and the oil and
farming industries) suggests both an exclusion of the indigenous
presence in settling
the area, and an absence of indigenous presence in western
Canada prior to European
arrival. The indigenous identity in the Bowmore is one that is
presented as being

caught in the process of collapse and decay, and to suggest that
these people were
anything but a cultural group to be colonized. As the catalogue
notes suggest, indige-
nous objects—and, thus, indigenous identity—are tied to a
pragmatic purpose of sur-
vival. Such explanations have translated what is a fluid
indigenous identity into
essential and static, definitive objects.
Its current mission as a cultural institution is formalized
through its mandates,
directives, and policies that confirm its collection and research
directions. The
Bowmore also seeks to define itself as an educational institution
for the Calgary and
district school divisions. The Bowmore offers half-day and
daylong programs that
focus on a specific element or aspect of the museum that
dovetails with the current
elementary, junior, and senior high social studies curricula set
out by Alberta
Education. The Bowmore also offers a weeklong program—
Bowmore Open Minds
Program—in which students and teachers relocate their
classrooms to the Bowmore
to utilize the various resources made available at the Bowmore
to promote and
develop a student’s “exploration, thinking, and active learning”
(Bowmore 1998:26).
Each week is designed specifically to meet the learning objects
of the visiting school
group (which ranges from kindergarten through high school)
through meetings
between the teachers, the education coordinator, and the
education staff.5

My initial contact with the Bowmore occurred in the spring of
1999. At the sugges-
tion of an anthropologist colleague who has researched and
written about indigenous
representations in museum, I spent time with the ethnology
curator at the Bowmore
to understand how the museum worked. These informal
conversations provided me
with information about the institution, and also opportunities to
engage in depart-
ment activities. For four months, I traveled to various First
Nations communities in
Southern Alberta with members of the ethnology department.
On these trips, the
indigenous members would explain the significance particular
objects given to the
Bowmore held (or not) to the nation and to the individual who
made the object, as
well as characteristics of the objects that identified the object
maker and the nation
from which he or she belonged. I also attended bundle transfer
ceremonies during the
summer months, and worked with the curatorial staff when they
documented the
arrival of new objects into the museum collections or the
repatriation of the objects
from the museum back to the nation. Also, I completed research
in the Bowmore own
archives and library to examine the museum’s mission
statements and public docu-
ments and interviewed selected museum personnel. Collectively,
the data provided
me with a history of the museum’s development, its current-day
mandates and prac-
tices, and the tensions it experienced as a public institution

committed not only to edu-
cation broadly speaking but also in its commitment to the local
indigenous groups.
My work at the Bowmore also allowed access to three schools
that would be a part of
my research. I engaged in research over a nine-month time
period in three school class-
rooms within the Calgary public school system that attended the
Bowmore Museum
that year. I initially observed each of the three classrooms
selected for the study on a
daily basis two months prior to and one month following each
of the classrooms
attendance at the Bowmore program (September–November for
a fifth-grade class-
room from Jackson Heights School; January–March for the
third-grade classroom
from Linderside School; and April–June for the seventh-grade
classroom from All
Saints School). During each three-month period, I observed the
daily instruction and
interactions for a 2.5-hour block of time in which the students
were instructed in social
studies and language arts. I recorded daily field notes of these
observations. As group
work formed a significant basis of both the classroom activities
and the Bowmore expe-
riences, I also observed one group of students from each of the
three school sites both
in their regular classrooms and during their Bowmore

experiences. Formal and infor-
mal interviews were completed with the teachers and students
prior to, during, and
following the museum activities. A series of interviews (lasting
from 30 to 45 minutes)
were conducted with the classroom teachers and their students
who were part of this
research. The first formal interview with teachers and their
students was conducted
during the first two months of the study. The second formal
interview was conducted
at the end of the classroom observations, prior to attending the
Bowmore. A third for-
mal interview was conducted at the completion of the museum
experience. These
interviews, together with observations and analysis of student
work in the museum,
provided an understanding, awareness, and consciousness about
how students work
through the tension of identity formation as defined by museum
practices.
The Role as Researcher
Initially, my interest in conducting research at the Bowmore
was purely pragmatic.
I attended the institution during my education within the
Calgary school system, and
I maintain a residence in Calgary. My interests in issues of
public history, culture, and
identity also paralleled debates occurring within the larger
Canadian museum com-
munity specific to indigenous sovereignty over objects and
representations in museums.
As a former history teacher, I realized the significance the
Bowmore held as an educa-

tional resource. Given that the museum continued to hold both
relevance and reputa-
tion within the educational community, I was interested in how
students from the
Calgary school systems learned about western history and
indigenous culture within
an institutional setting such as the Bowmore that seeks to
broker a historically defined
cultural identity of indigenous peoples distinct from western
Canadian history.
Throughout this research project, I was perceived as both an
insider and outsider by
the Bowmore staff and the teachers and students. When in the
museum, I was an edu-
cator doing dissertation research; in the classroom I was a
researcher getting an educa-
tion. Being a former history teacher suggested that I knew the
challenges of teaching
and that I could answer questions specific to learning in the
museum. I would be asked
to comment on what I considered to be pedagogically sound
teaching practices in
both the classrooms and the museum. These questions would be
deflected, not to
suggest that a particular understanding was to be transmitted
through teaching, but
to begin to question why particular understandings seemed to be
expected.
As a European Canadian middle-class woman, I would
frequently have to address
questions from various individuals about why I was researching
“Indians.” The
derogatory statements specific to First Nations by various
individuals I encountered

within Calgary revealed to me the long-standing tension within
the Calgary area
between the European Canadian population and the First
Nations people who resided
on reservations surrounding the city and within the city proper.
This also revealed
the commonly held belief noted in the public press several years
previously that “it
has long been clear that we [Euro-Canadians] actually prefer
our native culture in
museums” (Hume 1988: B1). As a non-Native woman, I cannot
speak for indigenous
nations. Rather, I consider my role as an educator one that
questions why the above
claim continues even as public museums like the Bowmore seek
to develop their edu-
cational imperative through collaboration with local indigenous
groups.
In the school classrooms, I assumed the role of participant-
observer by working
with students individually and in groups. In this role, I was able
to ask the students
specifically about the activities they were engaged in as well as
provide information
and clarify questions the students may have had concerning
their activities. The time
spent in the school classroom was not dedicated to the
individuals whom I followed
in the museum, but included opportunities to work with and talk
to all of the students.

Translating Knowledge
In the fall of 1999, Bronwyn Ainsley, a fifth-grade teacher at
Jackson Heights
Elementary School in the Calgary public school system,
attended the Open Minds
program. The specific purpose of the weeklong visit to the
Bowmore was to further
develop student understanding about the region’s indigenous
population and
whether they were included, or not, in Calgary’s regional
history. Ms. Ainsley
worked with the students prior to attending the Bowmore,
directing them in the
classroom in utilizing various primary sources accessible from
Bowmore’s digitized
collections website. The students also worked with two
Bowmore archivists who vis-
ited the school on a regular basis. Similarly, a historian from
the local university vis-
ited the classroom on three occasions to discuss what
constitutes an archive, the
subjective nature of archives, and how they are utilized as
evidence in history.
In realizing the narrative notion of history, Bronwyn Ainsley
developed several proj-
ects through which the students were to gain an understanding
of history as an inter-
pretative process. The students worked in small groups on a
specific project within the
guidelines she established. In the following exchange, she
initiates a discussion about
the relationship between museum objects and understanding
about the past:

Ms. Ainsley: You know that we are going to the [Bowmore] in
two weeks. Before we can
go, you need to understand what purpose the museum, the
relationship the
museum has to what it is that we know and want to know about
the past.
Now remember, the past is the past. How do we know that there
was an
actual past?
Cameron: If we look just at the Bowmore then we know about
the past because of the
objects.
Ms. Ainsley: Anything specific about the objects?
Meaghan: I think he means that the object shows that there was
actually a past.
Lauren: Yeah. It tells us about the past.
Ms. Ainsley: You keep talking about the past. But when does
the past become history?
Cameron: When it has been shown in a particular way, like this
or like that.
Ms. Ainsley: How is this shown in the museum?
Brett: There are the objects. Catalogues. Panels. And those little
markers that tell
you what the object is.
Ms. Ainsley: So all of that is an interpretation. The labels, the
public catalogues, the text
panels. Even the objects. Sam?

Sam: No. They won’t change the object. That is sort of set.
Because you go to see
the object.
Ms. Ainsley: So, let’s review. The object will tell you about the
past. The past is presented
as history through interpretation. By the curator and by the
visitor. That
would be you. How then do you want the visitor to know more
about the past
through the museum? Remember, how the past is presented is
more than
just these shiny displays that we will look at. A museum isn’t a
place just to
go and see things. It is a place where you can understand the
past, one ver-
sion of the past. What is it that you want to learn about the past
from the
museum? What questions need to be asked? To answer that I
want you to do
this exercise. I am handing out various artifacts. These are
personal objects
that I own that you will examine in order to write a narrative
about me just
from these objects. It will be titled “The Short History of Ms.
Ainsley.”
In this conversation, Ms. Ainsley spoke of distinguishing
between the past and his-
tory. She began by directing her students to understand that the
history presented in a
museum is the result of an interpretative practice directed by
the curator, and that there
was a particular purpose the museum served beyond being “just
these shiny displays.”

She noted the need for the students to recognize that the
Bowmore is more than a col-
lection of objects and of something other than the displays. In
suggesting that the
Bowmore is a place to understand the past, she suggested the
need to develop in her
students an understanding that the museum is more than its
collective elements.
Although the museum is full of artifacts, displays, and staff that
present one interpre-
tation, rather than accepting this solely as a purpose for
visiting, Ms. Ainsley seeks to
prompt the students to understand what questions “need to be
asked” regarding the
selection of artifacts, the formulating of displays, and the
contributions of staff mem-
bers. Her issue is to have the students consider the claims of
certainty about history that
museums display. Although she acknowledged the museum’s
value as an educational
resource and its attempts to preserve and display culture and
history, her main peda-
gogical concern had to do with the students’ ability to question
what is offered to them
as “true.” To this end, she directed the students prior to their
visit to introduce them to
activities that showed how texts—whether written, oral, or
visual—are an interpretive
experience for those who created the text and for those who
receive the text.
During their week of attendance at the Bowmore, I observed and
interviewed four
young students from the fifth-grade class at Jackson Heights
Elementary School:
Lauren Elliot, Jonah Lahring, Brett Rivers, and Nadia

Schurman. Once in the Bowmore
for their week’s visit, the students were expected to complete
several activities. One of
the activities was for the student groups to select an object
displayed within the
museum that was within the general topic of western expansion
and settlement. Once
they selected their object, the students were to inform Ms.
Ainsley of their selection
along with a brief rationale and justification for the specific
object. Although the
majority of the student groups identified objects within the most
obvious and specific
galleries related to the topic, those being the Western Heritage,
Immigration and
Settlement, and Farming galleries, these four students chose
one—a ceremonial jacket
displayed in the First Nations gallery. This shirt was displayed
alone in an enclosed
cabinet with a single label, “Man’s Shirt, Blood; c. 1900”
(Bowmore Collection, CN:AF
742; see Figure 1).
In checking on the students, Ms. Ainsley came across this group
sitting beside the
display case writing out the label of the ceremonial jacket, their
rationale for selecting
the jacket, and the relationship of investigating the jacket to the
larger project purpose
focusing on western settlement and expansion. When Ms.
Ainsley asked about the

selection of an indigenous object generally, and of the
ceremonial jacket specifically,
the students collectively argued for the jacket to be considered
for the assignment:
Jonah: We all agree that we should use this jacket. For the
assignment, you know.
Ms. Ainsley: The assignment was to use an object from the
Western Heritage displays.
Lauren: We know. We just kinda wandered into the first nations
area.
Ms. Ainsley: Why this jacket, then?
Figure 1.
Man’s Shirt, Blood
Jonah: You know. It’s one of those shiny objects. You know,
the ones that we are not
supposed to be dazzled by.
Brett: It’s pretty nice.
Ms. Ainsley: So that is the reason you chose it?
Brett: No. There’s more to the jacket than just its looks.
Ms. Ainsley: Like what? What else is there in the jacket?
Lauren: The jacket tells a story and the Bowmore tells a
particular story about the
jacket. But there is not a real story about the Indians even
though they were
in the area before the arrival of the army, traders, and settlers.
Nadia: So what we are saying is that the jacket is beautiful.

Which would want any-
one to look at it. But the jacket has a past that might have been
related to the
past of the settlers.
Ms. Ainsley: Any more information?
Brett: No one else is doing any Native stuff even though we are
to learn about that
by being here.
Ms. Ainsley: So I am to give you approval even though it
wasn’t a part of the assignment?
Nadia: It is a part of the assignment. The jacket isn’t just about
their culture. It is
about their past and their past related to [the Fur Trade].
The students presented arguments to Ms. Ainsley that the First
Nations were
indeed involved in western expansion and settlement, notably
their presence in the
area prior to the fur trade. The students collectively justified the
selection based on
the jacket’s unique qualities—the physical elements of the
jacket, the absence of any
indigenous objects in the concept of western heritage, and the
uniqueness of their
choice. Perhaps most significant was that the students argued
the indigenous presence
in western settlement. By indicating this, they indicate their
knowledge of how the
Bowmore separates the indigenous people from European
Canadian and culture
from western heritage.
Ms. Ainsley then provided each student with a copy of the

assignment. The students
were to investigate the object, by identifying what information
could be obtained from
the object, what information could not easily be obtained from
the display, and to iden-
tify and find additional information that would tell about the
object and the object’s
context. The students were directed to access catalogues to note
the object descriptors,
to investigate and examine the history of the object within the
Bowmore, to answer
questions specific to the provenance and ownership of the
object, and to add to the
museum’s interpretation. With the assistance of parental
volunteers, the students col-
lected this information, written it onto labels, and then taped it
to the display cases
enclosing the objects, where they remained for two weeks
following the students’
departure. They accessed the Bowmore archives (which was
located several floors
above the public galleries), the museum’s own data bank
catalogues located in the
ethnology and heritage departments, the Canadian online
catalogue source, as well
as access to the curators for the various exhibits.
Working with the archivist on the catalogue, Lauren Elliott
accessed the informa-
tion about the jacket and transcribed it onto a label form
complete with the tran-
scription date and her signature:
The jacket is made of unsmoked buckskin, long sleeved, open
sides, irregularly cut around
bottom. Quilled strips on bodice and down sleeves have an

orange background with yel-
low, horizontal bars running across and from the bars extend
sets of four long, pointed light
purple designs. Alternating with these, along the strips, are
small white crosses with a red
square in their centre. Vertical rows of black tadpole designs up
bodice and sleeves. Fringed
down back of sleeves with whole weasel skins. Neck opening
edged with red cloth. Breast
piece is triangular, has a buckskin fringe and 1.0 cm wide red
and silver beads. Two weasel
skins attach to back of neck.
Once transcribed and taped to the outside of the display case,
Lauren offered a
comment in an interview about the process, by acknowledging
the importance addi-
tional information provides when viewing the object. Lauren
positions the difference
between vision and visuality and what impact it may hold to
learning more about
indigenous groups during a discussion we had about her label.
She notes that:
Someone can see and if there aren’t any problems seeing then
we can show them how they
should see when looking. Seeing is not the same as looking.
[BT: What is the difference?] Well,
seeing is just seeing the jacket and saying “here is a jacket.”
[BT: What is looking, then?]
Looking is looking at the things that make the jacket. The parts

of the jacket. [BT: How the
jacket is made?] Yeah, how it’s made. Also what makes the
jacket what was used to make the
jacket. [BT: Like the fur and the leather?] Yeah, the fur. [BT:
What is so important about the fur?]
It isn’t white fox but weasel. Weasel is precious. To have it on
a shirt means it’s an important
shirt [BT: Important to whom?] To the one that made the shirt.
Not just to the museum.
Much meaning has been conveyed by Lauren about the
centrality of vision in
assisting the construction of knowledge about indigenous
identity in contemporary
Western societies. For Lauren, this knowledge was aided by the
physical descriptor.
She interpreted the jacket information by distinguishing
between looking and realiz-
ing what knowledge may result from looking. The listing of the
jacket materials
prompts a closer look at the shirt that will ensure, she notes,
that “you can just look
at the shirt and you can read the list but looking is not the same
as reading [the list].
It tells you where to look.” For Lauren, knowledge about the
jacket equates seeing
with acquiring knowledge, in which looking, seeing, and
knowing have become
intertwined. By knowing the materials, it also indicates the
importance of particular
materials to the maker of the jacket.
As the four students continued to research the jacket, how the
jacket came to reside
in the Bowmore became a focus. To track the history of the
object from its creation to

its place in the display, the students worked to locate
information about when the
Bowmore obtained the shirt, how it was obtained, and who
provided it to the
museum. This again involved working with the archivist who
directed the students
to examine the item catalogues in the archives to identity the
cataloging entry infor-
mation and date. With the assistance of one of the Bowmore’s
archivists, the students
discovered its ownership through photographs and school and
church records held
in the archives. The students located a photograph showing
Owns Different Horses,
a member of the Blood tribe south of Calgary, wearing the shirt,
which was then pho-
tocopied and added to the information on the jacket. Together
with various church
and school records, government documents, and contacts with
indigenous individu-
als within the museum, Brett Rivers wrote a label in which he
identified the age of
the jacket and attempted to identify who constructed the jacket:
The jacket once belonged to someone called Owns Different
Horses. This jacket is old about
100 years old. We don’t (sic) know who made it. It might have
been his wife or maybe he did
it himself. We don’t (sic) know. We know it is old but old
doesn’t mean it should be in a
museum. Old means it is fragile and needs to not be touched.

In writing this label, Brett Rivers identified what information
specific to object
ownership he was able to obtain through the various sources.
Ironically, Brett identi-
fied the shirt as a personal item not always belonging to the
Bowmore. The distinction
between ownership and creator suggests an understanding about
role differentiation
between males and females and that the owner and creator may
have been the same
person. Within the brevity of the label, Brett makes a reference
to the relationship
between age and the Bowmore’s purpose for protecting objects.
He supports the idea
that “old means that it is fragile” and that this fragility—not its
age—secures its rea-
son for display at the Bowmore. This is something Brett
realized and referred to in a
conversation:
[BT: You say that the jacket is old. What does old mean you?]
You mean how old is old? [BT:
The jacket was made 100 years ago] Yeah. The coat is old. [BT:
And it means it should be here
because it’s old?] No, it should be here because it should be
taken care of because it is so old
and maybe not in such good shape and needs to be by itself so it
isn’t ruined. [BT: And the
Bowmore will take care of it.] Yeah.
For a third label, the students were asked to describe how the
shirt came to be owned
by the Bowmore. This information gained from the archives
confirmed for the students
the idea of an association between the philanthropist who began
the Bowmore and the

anthropologist who purchased the jacket from the family of the
First Nation owner.
Nadia Schurman completed the label based on correspondence
in 1964 between the
Bowmore director and the museum, again obtained from the
museum’s archives:
The coat came to the Bowmore in 1965. The jacket was once at
the Peyton [a museum within
an hour’s drive of the Bowmore]. It was bought in 1955 by Sam
Peyton. He sold it to the
Bowmore for $10.00 (here is a picture of the receipt). This shirt
is not just a shirt. It became
something more valuable.
In acknowledging how the jacket was an object purchased and
sold by individuals
different from those who originally owned it suggests Nadia
realizes how objects con-
tinued to be items of exchange between museums, often at the
exclusion of indigenous
involvement to authorize the exchange. In providing a copy of
the receipt that shows
the transaction between the director at the time and the
anthropologist from the
Peyton museum, Nadia provides evidence of when and where
the Bowmore obtained
the object. What is significant in this label is Nadia’s notation
that the exchange of the
object, from a smaller museum into the Bowmore, suggests the
increased value the
jacket held once placed in an institution like the Bowmore. She
further explains how
objects become valuable in a further conversation:
[BT: So this jacket only cost $10?] Yeah, it isn’t very much.

[BT: It might have been back then.]
Yeah but even then it wasn’t much. [BT: So the Bowmore got a
good deal?] It is worth more
than $10! [BT: Really?] Yeah, it is worth more than that, now
it’s here. [BT: Here in the
museum?] Yeah it’s [worth] more or it won’t be here. [BT:
Because the museum considers it
valuable?] Yeah. I don’t think I have anything that the
(museum) would want to buy. Some
things are just worth more by being here.
Nadia’s interest in the value of the object—in what role it will
serve to the larger com-
munity that comes to the museum—paralleled that of the
traditional museum pur-
pose. However, unlike the traditional museum visitor, she
realized that the presence
of the shirt in the museum defines indigenous identity. In light
of how the Bowmore
is silently implicated in defining culture, Nadia differentiates
between the material
culture held in the collections from that told by First Nations.
Although she does not
refer to the museum’s cultural constructions as part of what
should be included in
either public display or educational programming, she implies
that the museum con-
tinues its object-based role.
Although this shirt became an object through which they
learned not only about

the history of indigenous peoples in the area but also about the
Bowmore’s interpre-
tation of indigenous culture, the students understood, mostly
through the discus-
sions with the indigenous curator—Clayton Big Plume—that the
object was also
displayed to show the intricate beading, various materials used,
the ceremonial pur-
pose the shirt held, and what the object came to mean to the
Bowmore. The students
understood the shirt as ceremonial dress rather than an exemplar
of First Nations
craft, as indicated by this label written by Jonah Lahring:
The beading [is] colourful and with patterns and many colours.
It looks like a special jacket
not like the others that are plain for wearing everyday maybe. It
is like something to wear at
a special event. This is my thinking about it after I spoke with
Clayton Big Plume. Clayton
talks about it often. He will tell people who look at it all about
why it is there and why they
should look at it. It tells of the importance certain objects have
for certain people. Being in
the Bowmore, the shirt becomes important for the museum.
This shirt is set apart from other shirts and suggests to the
viewer its singular
importance. Jonah realized that personal narratives about
objects positions material
culture against first-person accounts. In the attempt to leave any
potential under-
standing gained from viewing the object as ambiguous, the
object is often isolated
from any additional contextual information. The absence of
sufficient contextual

information in this case allows the object to be considered an
aesthetic work of art
rather than an object layered with colonial history. In other
words, by allowing the
object to, in a sense, speak for itself without additional
curatorial intervention
through interpretive text would allow the viewer to form their
own knowledge about it.
If objects are displayed according to a criterion of aesthetic
value, then considering
the objects from that perspective forecloses the possibility of
understanding and
advancing a complex political engagement with questions about
the object itself. This
is especially relevant when understanding how the object is
converted, as John Urry
(2000) argues, into a “commodified identity” once placed in a
museum, moving
beyond the dichotomy of ethnological object versus art, or as
souvenir (Phillips
1999a; 1999b) or as a hybrid object (Coombes 2003; Thomas
1999, 2000).
Yet Jonah realizes in his label the very tension facing
indigenous groups about
what the public learns from their displayed objects. He realizes
the personal nature
of the jacket and also the importance the ceremonial jacket
holds to the museum. As
one may expect, he neither discusses the lobbying by local
indigenous groups about
the repatriation of objects nor the tension museums face when
displaying particular
objects. Rather, he suggests that by being in the museum, the
ceremonial jacket then
becomes important for the museum.

At the completion of the activity, the fifth-grade students from
Jackson Heights
Elementary School held a gallery walk, with the student groups
sharing information
with their classmates. Lauren was chosen by her group to be the
spokesperson for the
ceremonial jacket. This commentary illustrates a moment when
Lauren, speaking on
behalf of her group, explains the flexible nature of culture as
defined in a museum.
Lauren: We selected this jacket because we know that the First
Nations were a part of the
area even before the settlement of new Canadians came to the
Calgary area. This jacket,
called a ceremonial jacket, is beaded with rare types of fur. It
was owned by an indigenous
person from the Blood First Nations and we show here pictures
of him wearing it. The jacket
came to the Bowmore after being in another museum. And it is
one example of First Nations
ceremonial dress.
At the end of her explanation, she was asked by a student what
the jacket meant
to western expansion and settlement, with the student noting it
was “just another
Indian thing.” Lauren paused and looked to her group a moment
before she
responded. Her reply: “Sure, it’s a jacket. It was made by a
person who was here

before western expansion and settlement. It isn’t all of First
Nations culture. It isn’t
all of the past. It is thing from the past that can tell us more
about other times.” In this
brief explanation, Lauren confronted the traditionally held
belief of what objects hold
to indigenous identity within a museum.
Reconsidering a Pedagogical Purpose
In this article, I sought to describe the educational activities of
one group of students
within an ethnology museum. I examined how the students
utilized various sources to
further understand information particular to one indigenous
object. Although the pub-
lic museum continues to draw on its inherent educational
purpose as a means to jus-
tify particular definitions of culture through object displays,
this study shows how
students can hold a critical stance about the larger pedagogical
project served by the
public museum and the educational limits placed on displayed
objects. What is evident
in the students’ comments and conversations is a
counterexample of how knowledge
about indigenous identity is equated with specific objects. If we
consider the public
museum, as Susan Crane notes, “so omnipresent and considered
so valuable” (2000:1)
that it has become an increasingly familiar institution, then it is
important to realize
how these four students challenge the specific educational
purposes a museum holds.
How do the students come to realize that the ceremonial jacket
is not an exemplar of

indigenous culture as what is commonly suggested through
museum practices? What
does it mean for students to learn about indigenous culture in a
museum that affirms
its authority and value in teaching the public about indigenous
culture through its very
presence? Such questions prompt consideration of how two such
stances can determine
what is expected from students in learning about culture in a
museum.
The Multiplicity of Culture
Recognizing that the four students did not accept the
Bowmore’s definition of
indigenous culture without question is a hopeful sign of their
understanding about the
partial nature of culture and its relationship to identity
formation. The students showed
evidence of knowing how objects can become subjects of
further investigation.
Through the act of labeling the ceremonial jacket, the students
provided a point of
promising inquiry. This act challenges the suggestion of Grewal
(1996:107) that a
museum label, like a museum guidebook, is a “control of
referentiality.” The students
showed how the label provides meaning about the object beyond
its origin or initial
intent. The label’s simplicity is both an interpretation by the
less-known contributions
that various individuals such as curators provide, as well as an
objective description of
the object. It is the limited information that restricts the
representation of First Nations

cultures that Bronwyn Ainsley directed to her students, to
understand the absent het-
erogeneity of information and the possibilities it provides for
student understanding.
According to Helen Coxall, labels are “not to convey implicit,
intentional means”
(1999:215); every label is inherently subjective in what
information is and mediates
meaning between the writer (in this case, fifth-grade students),
the Bowmore, and the
viewer. The more extensive labels provided more explicit
knowledge about the cere-
monial jacket that had once been unavailable to the public.
Although the label is a more
prosaic object of a museum, it provided the students with an
invitation to investigate
what is considered indigenous culture in a museum and to move
beyond framing cul-
ture as a static element in a museum. Rather, the students
showed their understanding
of culture as amorphous and wide ranging with flexible objects
and knowledge.
The writings and conversations these four students provided are
significant in sup-
porting how students can work within the limits of normalized
understandings of cul-
ture. These students enable us to see the flexible nature of
culture and clarify the
process whereby the students can incorporate their own learning
activities into their
self-definitions about indigenous identity and, when possible,

challenge and critique
the indigenous identities that have been reproduced and
perpetuated in the public
space. The students show an awareness of the incongruity
between the explicit mes-
sage of what is displayed (indigenous peoples exist in a timeless
past, where they once
lived in colorful and vibrant cultures) and the implicit message
(indigenous peoples
do not exist as thriving cultures with contemporary problems).
Indeed, from the stu-
dents’ perspectives, recognizing the information to be gained
from the archival work
calls for contextualizing and illuminating indigenous presence
not only within the
museum itself but also as a presence within the history of the
region to further ques-
tion the political concerns of identity formation. Rather than
using archival documents
as isolated information marginal in its effects, the students
showed how different
knowledge comes from different sources to represent different
interests and values.
The Politics of Public Pedagogy
In rethinking the context of the museum from the concerns of
present educational
imperatives, it is clear that what distinguishes the Bowmore
museum is not its effort
to account for the cultural identity formation of indigenous
peoples in the area. Rather
than the mere display of indigenous objects and curatorial
labels, what is at stake in
ethnology museums is making more evident the production of
indigenous identity as

culture within the competing expectations and orientations of
those individuals who
attend. As Annie Coombes suggests, culture “does not stand
apart from the socially
organized forms of inequality, domination, exploitation, and
power that exist in society”
(1991:191). For the students to develop a more compassionate
understanding of pub-
lic definitions of culture, it is necessary for them to be
presented with opportunities to
recognize the systematic way in which public institutions
including ethnology muse-
ums are representative of a dominant colonial culture. In
addition, this will allow
them to understand how the institutions operate in multiple
dimensions to perpetuate
public attitudes that are rooted in a complex, always partial,
vision of the world—one
that is profoundly shaped by past and present colonial
experience.
What is hopeful about these student conversations is that it
leaves room to make
more obvious the political possibilities for questioning and
advancing the knowledge
presented by the museum and other authoritative sources like
libraries and archives,
and school and classroom texts. The students have shown the
potential for doing crit-
ical work about culture and, no less, offer direction to ways in
which educators can

further engage students in understanding and becoming critical
about the role pub-
lic educational institutions hold in defining knowledge.
The struggles over indigenous self-determination of defining
culture are contested
through a reworking of the actual practices of the museum and
the types of knowl-
edge that are allowed to count as evidence of a particular racial
group. The blurring
of contextual boundaries between the object as a museum icon
and the object as a
pedagogical source calls into question the broader educational
role that the museum
plays. It also brings into question how students do struggle with
object displays and
identity formation and how culture is defined. The idea that
knowledge about
indigenous people is singular, that it is possible to characterize
indigenous cultures
within one framework, has been superseded by the idea that
knowledge is multiple
and meaning open-ended. When the historical and cultural
practices that determine
the relationship between culture and identity come to be
questioned and brought into
public view, as well as made subject to critical examination
both within and beyond
in classrooms, the public practices and constructions begin to be
denaturalized and
appear as consciously historical constructions.
In this article, I speak, if indirectly, to what work and research
is needed in the
classroom. As public museums are quickly becoming an
important site for educa-

tion, more critique needs to be focused on how students are
currently engaged in
learning in a museum (see Trofanenko 2006). It demonstrates
the possibilities and
readiness for the issues and tensions between culture and
identity to become edu-
cational topics that have the potential to further the democratic
ideals of education.
This offers new possibilities for teachers and students to engage
with ways of
rethinking the world. I suggest that there is a need to
reconceptualize how objects
are negotiated, questioned, and supported. I argue that museums
are public institu-
tions that define what comes to be considered public knowledge.
The role of muse-
ums will remain pedagogical in nature; what is needed from
educators are more
questions about what it means to learn in a public institution
and how do these insti-
tutions reaffirm the political nature of knowledge. This
questioning would require,
as Henry Giroux suggests in discussing public pedagogy,
“subjecting the specifici-
ties of such meanings to broader interrogations and public
dialogue” (2000:143)
between museums and educational institutions, and among staff,
teachers, students,
and academics.
Brenda Trofanenko is an Assistant Professor at the University
of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign
([email protected]). She is engaged in research that examines
identity formation within the
public sphere, and specifically how youth are engaging in
resistance activities particular to eth-

nic and racial identities.
Notes
Acknowledgments. I would like to acknowledge the support for
this research from the Govern-
ment of Alberta. I am grateful to the staff of the Bowmore and
to the teachers and students who
were a part of this study. I wish to thank Teresa McCarty for
her support in its publication, for her
constructive comments and insights, and to Ian Westbury for his
intellectual acumen.
1. To identify themselves, First Nations people in Canada use a
variety of context-dependent
terms, including Native, First Nations, and Aboriginal.
Throughout this article I use the term
indigenous to identify Canadian Aboriginal communities.
Michael M. Ames, in examining the
politics of interpretation in museums, says that “no single term
for the Aboriginal peoples of
North America is universally accepted” (1992:173). I use the
term indigenous interchangeably
with the term First Nations because both acknowledge the
sovereignty claims currently being
advocated by indigenous peoples in Canada.
2. I am limiting the discussion within this article to the
challenge presented by students to
the curatorial authority of a particular museum. Certainly,
discussions about issues of sover-
eignty and repatriation are beyond the scope of this article;

however, the issues remain current
particularly to the collection and display of indigenous objects
within ethnology museums.
See, for example, the Canadian Museum Association position
papers (1994a, 1994b) on the rela-
tionship between museums and First Nation people in Canada
and calls for the collaboration
between museums and indigenous groups for the repatriation of
sacred objects. There remains
a more substantive public debate occurring in Australia and
Aotearoa–New Zealand particu-
lar to Aboriginal representation and cultural patrimony in the
national museums. See, for
example, the Council of Australian Museums Association
(1993) policy paper, and articles by
Jon Altman (2004), Pat Gordon (1998), and Linda Kelly and Pat
Gordon (2002), who address
issues of reconciliation in Australia.
3. The decision to identify the institution by a pseudonym rather
than utilizing its proper
name is influenced by several factors. The Bowmore has a
strong institutional identity, and is
recognizable. However, in keeping with ensuring anonymity for
the students and the schools,
I have elected to use a pseudonym. By utilizing such, it is not
possible for individuals to track
the references specific to the Bowmore. Any scholar wishing to
know how to access the
museum’s actual annual reports, please contact me at
[email protected]
4. During my time at the Bowmore, I participated in various
activities that involved the
Chevron Open Minds Bowmore Museum School. I observed the
members of three different
schools and their activities in the museum. I interviewed six

teachers, three of whom I had fol-
lowed through their yearlong experience, and 12 students, all of
whom I observed in their
weeklong program and in their regular classrooms, with
interviews before, during, and fol-
lowing their museum experience. See Trofanenko 2001 and
2006 for further descriptions of the
larger research project from which this article draws.
5. Approximately 28 classrooms attend the Bowmore Open
Minds Museum School each
year with about 3,900 students, teachers, and visitors attending
this particular program.
References Cited
Altman, Jon
2004 Indigenous Affairs at a Crossroads. Australian Journal of
Anthropology 15(3):306–308.
Ames, Michael M.
1992 Cannibal Tours and Glass Boxes: The Anthropology of
Museums. Vancouver, BC:
University of British Columbia Press.
Bal, Mieke
1992 Telling, Showing, Showing Off. Critical Inquiry
18(3):556–594.
Bowmore
1996 Celebrating Community Partners: Bowmore Annual
General Report 1996. Calgary:
Bowmore.
1998 Connecting with Communities: Bowmore Annual General

Report 1998. Calgary:
Bowmore.
Canadian Museum Association
1994a Cultural Diversity and Museums: Exploring Our
Identities. Ottawa: Canadian
Museum Association.
1994b Task Force Report on Museums and First Peoples.
Ottawa: Canadian Museum
Association.
Council of Australian Museums Association
1993 Previous Possessions, New Obligations: Policies for
Museums in Australia and Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander People. Canberra: Council of
Australian Museums Association.
Clifford, James
1988 Predicament of Culture: Twentieth-Century Ethnology,
Literature, and Art. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
1990 On Collecting Art and Culture. In Out There:
Marginalization and Contemporary
Cultures. R. Ferguson, M. Gever, T. T. Minh-Ha, and C. West.
Pp. 141–169. Cambridge,
MA: MIT Press.
Clifford, James, and George Marcus

1986 Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography.
Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Conn, Steven
1998 Museums and American Intellectual Life, 1876–1926.
Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.
Coombes, Annie
1991 Reinventing Africa: Museums, Material Culture, and
Popular Imagination in Late
Victorian and Edwardian England. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press.
2003 History after Apartheid: Visual Culture and Public
Memory in a Democratic South Africa.
Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
Coxall, Helen
1999 Museum Text as Mediated Message. In The Educational
Role of the Museum. 2nd edition.
E. Hooper-Greenhill, ed. Pp. 215–222. London: Routledge.
Crane, Susan
2000 Museums and Memory. Stanford: Stanford University
Press.
Cruikshank, Julie
1995 Imperfect Translations: Rethinking Objects of
Ethnographic Collections. Museum of
Anthropology 19(1):25–38.
Degler, Carl

1991 Research of Human Nature: The Decline and Revival of
Darwinism in American
Social Thought. New York: Oxford University Press.
Eisenhart, Margaret
2001 Changing Conceptions of Culture and Ethnographic
Methodology: Recent Thematic
Shifts and Their Implication for Research on Teaching. In The
Handbook of Research on
Teaching. 4th edition. Virginia Richard, ed. Pp. 209–255.
Washington, DC: American
Educational Research Association.
Falk, John
2002 Foreword. In Perspectives on Object-Centered Learning in
Museums. S. Paris, ed. Pp.
ix–xiii. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Falk, John, and Linda Dierking
1992 The Museum Experience. Washington, DC: Whalesback.
2000 Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the
Making of Meaning. Walnut
Creek: AltaMira.
Giroux, Henry
2000 Public Pedagogy as Cultural Politics. In Without
Guarantees: In Honour of Stuart
Hall. P. Gilroy, L. Grossberg, and A. McRobbie, eds. Pp. 134–
137. London: Verso.
Goode, George B.
1891 The Museums of the Future. In U.S. National Museum,

Annual Report, 1889. Pp.
427–445. Washington, DC: National Museum.
Grewal, Inderpal
1996 Home and Harem: Nation, Gender, Empire, and the
Cultures of Travel. Durham, NC:
Duke University Press.
Hooper-Greenhill, Eilean
1992 Museums and the Shaping of Knowledge. London:
Routledge.
1999 Education, Communication and Interpretation: Towards a
Critical Pedagogy in
Museums. In The Educational Role of the Museum. Pp. 3–27.
New York: Routledge.
Hume, Stephen
1988 The Spirit Weeps. Edmonton Journal, February 14: B1.
Kelly, Linda, and Pat Gordon
2002 Developing a Community of Practice: Museums and
Reconciliation in Australia. In
Museums, Society, Inequality. R. Sandell, ed. Pp. 153–174.
London: Routledge.
Mitchell, Timothy
1991 Colonizing Egypt. 2nd edition. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Paris, Scott, ed.

2002 Perspectives on Object-Centered Learning in Museums.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Phillips, Ruth
1999a Art History and the Native-Made Object: New
Discourses, Old Differences? In
Native American Art in the Twentieth Century. W. Jackson
Rushing III, ed. Pp. 97–112.
New York: Routledge.
1999b Introductory Remarks. In Unpacking Culture: Art and
Commodity in Colonial and
Post-Colonial Worlds. R. Phillips and C. Steiner, eds. Pp. 3–19.
Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Pratt, Mary Louise
1992 Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation.
London: Routledge.
Sahlins, Marshall
2004 Apologies to Thucydides: Understanding History as
Culture and Vice Versa. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Sherman, Daniel, and Irit Rogoff
1994 Museum culture: Histories, Discourses, Spectacles.
London: Routledge.
Thomas, Nichols
1994 Colonial Culture: Anthropology, Travel and Government.
London: Thames and
Boulanger.

2000 Technologies of Conversion: Cloth and Christianity in
Polynesia. In Hybridity and Its
Discontents: Politics, Science, Culture. A. Brah and A. E.
Coombes, eds. Pp. 198–215.
London: Routledge.
Trofanenko, Brenda
2001 The Educational Imperative of a Museum. Ph.D.
dissertation, Faculty of Graduate
Studies, University of British Columbia.
2006 Interrupting the Gaze: Reconsidering Authority in the
Museum. Journal of Curriculum
Studies 38(1):46–65.
Urry, John
2000 Sociology Beyond Societies: Mobilities for the Twenty-
First Century. London:
Routledge.
Vergo, Peter
1989 The New Museology. London: Reaktion Books.
Williams, Raymond
1985 Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. Rev.
edition. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
section 1

introduction: the spatial Politics of the
Museum Frontiers
i foreground this book with two powerful Black voices.1 First
let us look at a piece
of creative writing taken from the nobel prize-winning toni
Morrison’s novel The
Bluest Eye, which highlights a subtle but pernicious racism,
arising from the lived
experience of daily life. Morrison states:
it had begun with Christmas and the gift of dolls. the big, the
special, the
loving gift was always a big, blue-eyed Baby doll. … adults,
older girls, shops,
magazines, newspapers, window signs – all the world agreed
that a blue-eyed,
yellow-haired, pink-skinned doll was what every girl child
treasured. “here,”
they said, “this is beautiful, and if you are on this day ‘worthy’
you may have
it.” … i could not love it. But i could examine it to see what all
the world said
was lovable. … it was as though some mysterious all-knowing
master had given
each one a cloak of ugliness to wear, and they had each
accepted it without
question. the master said, “You are ugly people.” they looked
about themselves
and saw nothing to contradict the statement; saw, in fact,
support for it leaning at
them from every billboard, every movie, every glance. “Yes,”
they had said you
are right. (Morrison 1990: 13, 14, 28) [my emphasis]

Morrison’s The Bluest Eye speaks of the awful negative power
of racism to
adversely impact on the identity of the young Black child.
racism like colonialism
objectifies people. It forces the Black ‘other’ to act not as agent
but as subject –
passively. racism sees only limited aspects of the other –
humanity the whole
complex human being in social relationships is reduced to black
skin. as Franz
Fanon testifies:
i found that i was an object … the glances of the other fixed me
there … like a
chemical dye. i was indignant, demanding an explication. …
nothing happened.
i burst apart. now the fragments have been put together again by
another self.
(Fanon 1993: 109) [my emphasis]
1 i employ the capital ‘B’ to describe Black people throughout
my writing. this marks
an act of political allegiance to address historic wrongdoing and
denigration of ‘others’ as
not only inferior but less than human in times of slavery.
golding book.indb 1 01/06/2009 12:06:41
Learning at the Museum Frontiers2
reading Morrison and Fanon from the perspective of the
museum,2 ethical and
existential questions arise. What is the role of the contemporary
museum? how

can museum professionals act to combat racism and its
pernicious effects today?
Who will take responsibility and ‘speak truth to power’ when it
diminishes our
fellows? (said 1993: 63-75). these questions are focal points for
all citizens living
in the post-modern world and in my museum career with
anthropology collections
i have found Black writers offer a productive way forward,
which i demonstrate
in Learning at the Museum Frontiers: Identity, Race and Power.
overall the book
argues that museums can hold up a hope for challenging racist
mindsets essentially
through respectful dialogical exchange that i term feminist-
hermeneutics. My
intention is to guide the reader through unfamiliar philosophical
terrain that has
proved useful to progress learning in the museum as eilean
hooper-greenhill
and hugh genoways have notably shown (hooper-greenhill 2006;
genoways
2006). at this early point in the book it is only necessary to
point out that i have
developed feminist-hermeneutics from the politically mindful
Black feminist
thought of writers including Patricia hill-Collins, audre Lourde
and bell hooks
with the more abstract philosophical hermeneutics of hans georg
gadamer
(hill-Collins 1991; Lorde 1996; hooks 1992, 1994; gadamer
1980, 1981, 1986).
Basically feminist-hermeneutic practice is akin to Fanon’s
notion of ‘authentic
communication’, which urges ‘Why not simply attempt to touch
the other, to feel

the other, to reveal myself to the other?’ (Fanon 1993: 231).
such communication
in the museum is neither an easy task nor one we might simply
fix forever like a
mathematical equation, but it is worth striving towards and has
an enduring value
that lies in learning about the other and most importantly about
the self – the self
who does not remain unchanged.
in other words, what i want to do in this book is to look at the
way in which the
meaning of certain pernicious ideas about ‘other’ peoples and
their cultures, which
appear to be based on obvious factual evidence can change
when they are questioned
in between locations, at the frontiers of traditional disciplinary
boundaries, and
beyond the confines of institutional spaces. Specifically I
present a view of the
museum frontiers – a spatio-temporal site for acting in
collaborative effort with
other institutions, which provides a creative space of respectful
dialogical exchange
for promoting critical thought, for questioning taken-for-granted
ideas in general
and for challenging racist and sexist mindsets in particular.
ultimately i argue that
frontier museum work can progress lifelong learning,
‘intercultural understanding’
and what is known in the uK as community cohesion (golding
2006a, 2006b, 2007).
in this i build on the work to further the social role of the
museum and progress a
more inclusive society undertaken by richard sandell, Jocelyn
dodd and david

Fleming (sandell 2007, 2004, 2003; dodd and sandell 2001;
Fleming 2004). i
also refer to the White Paper on Intercultural Dialogue,
launched in 2008 by the
2 ‘Museums’ is a generic term used throughout the book that
follows american practice
and includes art museums, which are commonly referred to as
art galleries in the uK.
Introduction: The Spatial Politics of the Museum Frontiers 3
Council of europe in strasborg
(<http://www.coe.int/t/dg4/intercultural/source/
White%20Paper_final_revised_EN.pdf> accessed on
28.11.2008).
Whether the museum holds some power to effect change in
society is a large
claim that may be questioned (appleton 2001). Yet we certainly
see museums
increasingly present in the mass media, with stories often
sparking intensive
campaigns: urging the ‘nation’ to save ‘our’ treasures such as
raphael’s ‘Madonna
of the Pinks’ for example in the uK and generally to be more
‘family friendly’ –
both calls meeting high degrees of success (rCMg 2007; Birkett
2006). alongside
this public attention, the academic literature on museology
continues to expand
at a rapid pace to serve the increasing demand for places on

degree courses in
museum related studies, as well as the changing needs of the
profession over the
last two decades since Peter Vergo called for a ‘radical re-
examination of the role
of museums’ or a ‘new museology’ (Vergo 1989: 3; Macdonald
2006, 1996: 8).
Learning at the Museum Frontiers: Identity, Race and Power
bridges these
public professional and academic worlds by joining the
academic texts on
museology with praxis, that is my own theoretically grounded
educational work
in the field and at the borderlands beyond the walls of the
museum building. I
draw on specific examples largely from my 10 year period as
Head of Formal
education at the horniman Museum, in south London, working
primarily with
the notable and nationally designated anthropology collection of
material culture
from sub-saharan africa. this personal focus highlights vital
issues of relevance
to museums around the world, such as the contested ownership
of cultural property
and the representation of indigenous knowledge, which have
recently become
the subject of much public debate and interest in the
professional, academic and
general press (simpson 1996; Kreps 2003).
Thus while the book interrogates significant themes that I have
grappled with
at a local level and which are evident in the title, it considers
these key ideas

throughout from international perspectives and aims to show the
wider relevance
of an audience-focused learning lens beyond the UK. I shall
now briefly elucidate
the key themes of the book: power, learning, race and
‘frontiers’.
Power. i contend the museum has in part a history of power.
Museums have
demonstrated the power of wealth and privilege – of the church,
the king and
the merchant since their inception, which in the Western world
can be traced
to fifteenth-century Florence, when the Medici family came to
prominence and
established their Palace (hooper-greenhill 1992; Bennett 1995).
a new power –
of the nation and the citizen – can be traced to the establishment
at the end of
the eighteenth century, with the French revolution and the
formation from the
princely collection of the Louvre in 1789, to ‘stand for the
republic and its ideal of
equality’ (duncan 1995: 35). the historical power of the museum
can be seen not
only to confirm conventional social hierarchies, but also to
mark the overturning of
older orders of control, and this would appear to lie at the heart
of the widespread
and continuing growth reported by unesCo (the united nations
educational,
Scientific and Cultural Organisation), at a staggering rate of 90
percent since 1946
(unesCo 1995: 184).

in today’s age of globalisation, museums around the world
retain the
older powers of treasure house, place of knowledge, sanctuary
and shrine, in
combination with a newer role as a forum and a vital role in
democracy, which
it is a central concern to examine in this book. While this
democratic exchange
can spark bitter controversy, since the museum in the socio-
cultural landscape
of the twenty-first century can be perceived as an icon of
western colonialism in
particular contexts, this effect is often in contradistinction to
curatorial intentions.
For example at the royal ontario Museum’s exhibition Into the
Heart of Africa,
where african Canadians protested against the museum as a
storehouse of imperial
loot, tainted by a colonial past, an anachronism, and at the
smithsonian where the
Enola Gay was viewed as of no use or even a hindrance in
developing a cohesive
community (Philip 1994; reigel 1996; schildkrout 1991; gieryn
1998). Learning
at the Museum Frontiers argues the opposite. the museum, as it
will show, has
the potential to function as a ‘frontier’: a zone where learning is
created, new
identities are forged; new connections are made between
disparate groups and
their own histories (Philip 1992). in some cases, collections are

shown to have a
new and more positive power: to help disadvantaged groups, to
raise self-esteem
and even to challenge racism by progressing learning.
Learning is a major theme and thread running through the book.
Currently in
the uK, education in the museum is widely distinguished by a
focus on the learner,
with the department of museum education often renamed the
department of museum
learning and the education policy renamed learning policy. this
practice mirrors the
child-centred or learner-centred approaches to education long
pioneered notably
by John dewey and Paulo Freire, which challenged views of
education as a ladder
with incremental steps of knowledge that must be acquired and
measured by testing
at various stages (dewey 1968; Freire 1985, 1996, 1998).
Learning for dewey
and Freire emphasises individual potential and takes metaphors
from the garden –
nourishment, growth, blossoming. this is distinct from the
approach adopted
by more conservatively minded educators, whose major concern
lies with the
authority of the professional educator and takes metaphors from
the marketplace –
the banking system, competition, assessment. i approve the
direction towards
learning in the museum today, which clearly does not denigrate
the vital role of
the museum educator. Contrariwise, the educator works hard
building bridges that
close the knowledge gap between the museum and the museum

visitor; addressing
the complex issues of diversity and developing theoretically
grounded and creative
approaches to learning with new audiences.
Furthermore, in the museum recent terminological changes most
importantly
reflect a whole museum approach to the visitor learning
experience. The V&A
(Victoria and albert Museum) is one prime examples of the
education department
responsible for driving education policy and strategy throughout
the whole
museum since the early 1990s (<http://www.vam.ac.uk>
accessed on 30.11.2008).
The V&A operates with a broad definition of learning:
Learning is a process of active engagement with experience; it
is what people
do when they want to make sense of the world. it may involve
the development
or deepening of skills, knowledge, understanding, awareness,
values, ideas and
feelings, or an increase in the capacity to reflect. Effective
learning leads to change,
development and the desire to learn more.
(<http://www.inspiringlearningforall.
gov.uk> accessed on 30.11.2008)
this view of learning, in the context of the museum, vitally

places the learner
at the heart of provision. it recognises that since different
people have preferred
styles of learning they can be engaged in the learning process in
diverse ways with
a variety of stimuli throughout their lives – literally from the
cradle to the grave
(<http://www.inspiringlearningforall.gov.uk> accessed on
30.11.2008).
Race. While it can be argued that the ‘inspiring’ definition does
not pay
sufficient attention to the socio-political context of learning –
the economic
poverty and racism in society, which prevents all our children
from flourishing
and developing their full potential – with its emphasis on
lifelong learning it is
especially helpful for museum educators concerned with
inclusion in general and
antiracism in particular, since it prioritises a place for
individuals who have not
achieved according to the usual timings through the school
system. in the uK a
disproportionate number of Black children are included in this
group as Baroness
Catherine ashton, Parliamentary undersecretary of state for
early Years and
schools standards notes, in the report of the 2002 conference,
Towards a Vision of
Excellence: London schools and the Black Child.
We cannot ignore the fact that the education service as a whole
is clearly still
not meeting the needs of many black children. there has been
some recent

improvement, but it remains the case that black pupils are more
likely than white
pupils to be excluded from school, and are half as likely to
leave school with five
a-C gCses as their peers from some of the groups. the position
for our black
boys is even more worrying. (ashton 2002: 11)
It is almost 30 years since Rampton first highlighted the ‘under-
achievement’
of african Caribbean pupils in uK schools, which in recent
government reports
is seen to persist today (rampton 1981; scarman 1981: 9, 1996;
gillborn and
gipps 1996; ashton 2002). in Learning at the Museum Frontiers i
contend
that the museum can help to tackle this problem, by taking the
responsibility to
examine our ‘policies and methods’ for signs of the
‘institutionalised racism’
such as that which the Macpherson report uncovered when
investigating the
racist murder of the teenager stephen Lawrence in south London
(Macpherson
1999: 6.18). Macpherson follows Stokely Carmichael in
defining institutional
racism as originating ‘in the operation of anti-black attitudes
and practice’, which
he underlines as playing a role in this failure of society
(Macpherson 1999:
6.22). Following Macpherson, multiethnic collaboration is key
to success here.
Collaborative case study examples demonstrate the need for a
multiethnic team,

‘visibly committed to antiracism’, to both develop and deliver
the museum/school
curriculum jointly (Gillborn and Gipps 1996). Specifically case
study collaboration
with Black school and university educators, creative writers,
musicians and
storytellers is seen to enable more creative approaches to
education and learning
as a useful part of antiracism at the museum frontiers.
throughout the museum case studies presented, practical ideas
are shown
to reinforce the recommendations of reports such as
Macpherson’s in the uK,
as well as global initiatives that also highlight the need for
institutions to form
alliances and tackle injustice, such as the international
Convention on the rights
of the Child (CrC) 1989, where certain articles highlight basic
human rights and
responsibilities. For example the right ‘to preserve identity,
including nationality,
name and family relations’ (article 8); the right to ‘freedom of
expression …
either orally, in writing … in the form of art or through any
other medium of
the child’s choice’ (article 13); and the right of ‘ethnic,
religious or linguistic
minorities or persons of indigenous origin … to enjoy his or her
own culture, to
profess and practice his or her own religion, or to use his or her

own language’
(article 30) which are vital to all museum collaboration as will
become clear in
subsequent chapters (<http://uniCeF> accessed on 29.11.2008).
these tenets are
crucial to new ways of working at the museum frontiers.
the last of the major themes running through this book is the
notion of the
museum ‘frontier’. it is vital to the book’s antiracist intention.
the ‘frontiers’
refers to an effective sharing of ideas and the development of
programmes both
inside and outside of the Museum. it is elucidated within
‘feminist-hermeneutics’
that brings together distinct viewpoints. gadamer’s
philosophical hermeneutics
helps us to understand how in a ‘fusion of horizons’ – the
museum visitor’s and the
museum object’s – ‘meaning’ or sense is made in a process of
dialogical exchange,
which is akin to deep respectful conversation. to engage in such
dialogue the
‘partners’ in the exchange need to regard each other as equals,
in terms of ‘i’ meeting
‘thou’, which demands a recognition of individual ‘prejudices’
or prejudgements
that inevitably arise from specific histories or ‘traditions’
(Gadamer 1981). It is
only by acknowledging our historical prejudices and traditions
in the ‘i-thou’
dialogue, which can ‘fuse our horizons’ in understanding that
future possibilities
may be expanded. additionally gadamer’s privileging language
use in ways that
echo Wittgenstein is important for progressing understanding

and learning in
the museum, similarly employing the concept of ‘play’ and
‘language games’ or
understanding as a ‘linguistic event, a game with words’
(gadamer 1981: 446-7;
Wittgenstein 1974). he also crucially highlights the lifelong and
life-wide nature
of understanding when he states ‘language games are where we,
as learners – and
when do we cease to be that? – rise to the understanding of the
world’. Perhaps most
critically he stakes a ‘claim to special humane significance’ for
creatively entering
the play of word games, which he highlights as ‘a discipline of
questioning and
research, a discipline that guarantees truth’ (gadamer 1981:
447).
While gadamer stoutly re-values the truth-telling of the arts and
importantly
defends subjectivity, noting the ‘reflective appropriation’ of
tradition, rather than
the dogmatic ‘scientific’ objective ‘opposition and separation’
from histories, he
assumes an unproblematic access to such appropriation
(gadamer 1977: 28).
however these apolitical notions work well with postcolonial
and Black feminist
theory, which offers new ways of seeing the relationships

between dominant and
marginalised or disadvantaged groups (hill-Collins 1991; Lorde
1996; hooks
1992, 1994; gadamer 1980, 1981, 1986). Most importantly the
concept of the
museum frontiers marks a major revaluing of Black knowledge,
not simply by
‘adding on’ previously marginalised or excluded discourses in
the temporary
exhibition space – to leave the classic canon basically preserved
– but rather to
locate Black perspectives right at the heart of theory building.
While the notion of
the museum frontiers resonates in Mary Louise Pratt and James
Clifford’s idea of
the museum as a ‘contact zone’ that permits connection between
individuals and
communities through facilitating connections – between peoples
and cultures –
across time and across space; it is a new theoretical positioning
within feminist-
hermeneutics, i argue, which in turn may more fundamentally
transform the
museum at the level of theory-based practice (Pratt 1992;
Clifford 1999: 435-457).
this distinction will be more fully explained in the case study
examples. here i
offer Figure 1 to clarify these notions with reference to the
collaborative research
with the Caribbean Women Writer’s alliance (CWWa) and
during ‘inspiration
africa!’ that underpins section 1 and section 3.
Perhaps the enduring appeal of this frontier notion lies in part
in the value
of theory-based practice for individuals working within

educational institutions,
including the museum, at all levels of management. at the
university of Leicester,
department of Museum studies we do not attempt to impart a
‘rule book’ of
essential theory for students to follow slavishly when they leave
us to pursue their
careers around the world, but rather attempt to nurture deeper
critical thought as
a vital underpinning to future ‘situated’ practice (haraway
1991b). thus, while
in this book insights from the Foucauldian discourse, into the
relation between
space and power, might be shown to reinforce feminist-
hermeneutic practice in
London, england, insights from Marx, Confucius or the Prophet
Mohamed ‘peace
be upon him’ may well prove pertinent at other locations. the
website The Spirit
of Islam: Experiencing Islam through Calligraphy at the
Museum of anthropology
(Moa) in Vancouver, Canada provides a wonderful example of
best practice –
an online curriculum that consists of six lessons each providing
practical, easy
to use tools for educators to build their knowledge and
understanding of islam
while introducing students to a rich variety of related images,
ideas, audio and
text. Most impressively many tools are designed specifically to
address issues of
stereotyping
(<www.moa.ubc.ca/spiritofislam/resources/educationoverview.h
tml>
accessed on 06.09.2008). this Moa achievement has built on
long collaborative

relationships with First nations people, which proved fruitful
for representation in
the museum and countered the ‘cannibalistic’ tendency to trap
the ‘other’ behind
‘our’ glass case displays and frame their knowledge according
to western criteria
(ames 1995: 3-4).
What needs emphasising here is that theoretically grounded
practice can further
our understanding of how the museum has functioned
hierarchically in the past and
point to ways in which traditional power structures can be
subverted in the present,
which can benefit all our futures. In other words, the museum
that traditionally
marginalised or excluded certain groups such as Black women
need not – through
adhering to frontier practice – continue to do so. Most
importantly, the strong
theoretical grounding of the new ways of working and the
emphasis on research
can allay fears in the profession that standards will slip and
vital scholarship lost,
Learning at the Museum Frontiers demonstrates the contrary, a
commitment to
truth and an enhancement of knowledge.
in looking at these four major themes, i have been outlining
some rather

complex notions in the abstract, but at each chapter of Learning
at the Museum
Frontiers I offer specific museum examples to illustrate my
argument. Since a
3. Interpretation
and Understanding
progressed in
the Present
I –Thou Dialogical
Exchange and
Action
4. Experiences
and Anomalies
Challenge
Prejudices in
the Present
Play of Language
Games
5. Self-reflection
and Change.
Openness to New
Explanations and
Possibilities for
Future Lives
2. At the Frontiers

Horizons Fuse
Histories and
Traditions in the
Present
Collaborative
Data Collection
1. Prejudices from
Past Histories and
Traditions brought
to the Frontiers For
Collaboration
and Programme
Design
Figure I.1 Feminist-hermeneutic research circle of
interpretation and understanding
number of chapters draw on the horniman Museum, London uK,
perhaps it will
be helpful at this early point to introduce this key field site.
A Brief History of Education at the Horniman Museum
Frederick John horniman (1835-1906) founded his collections in
the second half

of the nineteenth century – ‘the boom time in the establishment
of museums’
(Vergo 1989: 8). Frederick entered the family tea firm at 14
years old. He married
rebekah emslie at the age of 23 and moved to the site of the
present-day museum,
surrey house, 100 London road, se23, from where he also took
on the duties
of a Liberal MP for Falmouth and Penryn (1895-1904). his
collections were
displayed and shared with visitors to surrey house or the ‘surrey
house Museum’
as it was affectionately known in the media. in 1889 the
horniman family, which
included a daughter annie and a son emslie, moved their home
to another house
in the gardens, Surrey Mount. On Christmas Eve 1890 the
objects were officially
opened to the general public in the ‘horniman Free Museum’ at
the London road
house. the Museum was initially opened from 2.00-9.00pm on
Wednesdays and
saturdays with Mr Watkins employed as the naturalist and Mr
Quick employed as
Curator. richard Quick was originally trained as an artist and
his efforts to impose
a rational order onto Frederick’s collections largely consisted of
constructing
huge scrapbooks, where he pasted bills, letters and his own
sketches of recent
acquisitions. he speaks of aesthetics: ‘rearranging’ and
‘relining’ certain display
cases ‘with a light green paper, which is found to make a good
background’
(annual report 1896: 9).

Fred was not an academic university-educated scholar but a
passionate collector
of ‘curios’ as they were called at the time and purchased vast
numbers from friends
in the missionary and colonial services (duncan 1972: 3-6).
according to nicky
Levell, Frederick had amassed approximately 7,920 objects by
1901 (Levell 1997).
the breadth and diversity of objects he desired and his ‘method’
of collection is
explained in a letter Mrs Keddie wrote to richard Quick in 1896,
from gaya
Bengal. she states. ‘Mr horniman has asked me to send a lot of
curiosities. … he
said all sorts of things’ (Quick 1896: 45). Perhaps his business
eye attracted him
to the diversity of objects, which we see him warmly lampooned
with in media
cartoons (see Plate 1).
Plate 1 Tea traits: Hornimania. Media cartoon of Fred Horniman
dressed
in Chinese costume near one of the tea chests, from which the
family fortune derived, and surrounded by a wealth of
‘Oriental’
and other‘curios’, including the butterfly originally
discovered in
his collection and named after him
Source: © Horniman Museum, cuttings file, 1888-1891.

the richness of these collections ranging from a spanish torture
chair (a fake),
mummy hands, human skeletons and gods, elizabethan, african
and Japanese
rooms as well as the special displays of live creatures including
a pair of live
bears and an east african monkey called nellie – certainly
proved tremendously
popular with the public. Plate 2 shows Frederick and rebeka
horniman (second
and forth from left) with two friends and the curators Quick and
Watkins (third
and sixth from left) in the ‘african and Japanese room’ or
ethnographical saloon
of the Surrey House Museum in 1892. Quick’s first Annual
Report of 1891
notes the museum made ‘arrangements for the reception of
schools, societies
and Clubs, in large and small numbers’. From 1891-1892, a
‘total attendance of
1,070’ individuals from 41 institutions, took advantage of the
‘Free’ admittance,
and ‘catalogue guide’ which was ‘supplied gratis’ (annual
report 1892: 8).
horniman’s generous and enthusiastic nature is evident in the
regular invitations
he extended to children from the local board schools and
orphanages, to attend
organised events and activities such as races in his spacious
grounds. For example

on 6 July 1893 ‘about 100 children [from 4 local orphanages] …
were shown over
the museum, and afterwards passed onto the lawn at the back,
where lemonade and
buns were discussed, and greatly appreciated’ (annual report
1893: 7). Plate 3
shows richard’s Quick’s children posing with parts of the
collection as they might
with toys at the zoo and may hint at the tactile multisensory
approaches adopted by
horniman and Quick at this time – a theme i return to in section
3.
Plate 2 Ethnographical saloon of the Surrey House Museum c.
1982 showing
Frederick Horniman with wife Rebeka, friends and colleagues
Source: © horniman Museum.
in 1897, the diamond Jubilee Year of Queen Victoria, 90,383
people visited
the horniman Free Museum and 120,210 visited the gardens.
Frederick was
inspired to commission a purpose-built museum in 1898. two
years later harrison
townsend’s art-nouveau design in doulting stone, with anning-
Bell’s decorative
mosaic panel adorning the entrance, was completed at a cost of
about £40,000.
On 1 May 1901, in an act of great benevolence the Museum was
officially given

as a gift to ‘the people of London for ever, as a free museum,
for their recreation,
instruction and enjoyment’, according to the inscription on the
entrance plaque
which expresses an emphasis on the twin educational and
recreational functions
of his museum. Plate 4 shows the new museum. horniman states
as his aim for the
collections, to: ‘interest and inform others who may not have
had the opportunity
to visit other places’, illustrating a democratic concern for the
educational potential
of the objects and a liberal view that education may lead people
to a better life
(annual report 1901: 4).
Plate 3 Curator Richard Quick’s children, Richard and Louise,
posing with parts of the collection c. 1901
Plate 4 Entrance to the Horniman Museum c. 1901, showing the
original
building with the clock tower

the London County Council were responsible for administering
horniman’s bequest
and immediately enlisted dr alfred Cort haddon, an esteemed
anthropologist
from Cambridge university as advisory Curator (1902-1915),
and dr herbert
spencer harrison as resident Curator (1904-1937). haddon was
concerned to
make ‘the museum an educational centre of great value, as well
as a place of
recreation’ and began to organise the ethnographic artifacts
according to the new
‘scientific’ principles of anthropology (Duncan 1972: 14;
L.C.C. Report 1903).
this science applied darwin’s biological theory of organic
evolution to account
for the different social structures around the world. the
technical achievements
of societies were regarded as manifest in the products of their
material culture
and this provided evidence of their position on the social
evolutionary scale: from
the most advanced and civilised or european societies, to the
most ‘primitive’
and least technically accomplished or non-european societies.
Plate 5 shows the
comparative displays in the south hall, 1904.
haddon and harrison who were originally trained as biologists
rapidly transformed
the displays in accordance with the evolutionary thought which
general Pitt
rivers was developing at this time, whereby ‘the privileged
evidence was to be
that based on the comparison of artefacts’ (Chapman 1984: 22).

a popular series of
saturday Lectures and handbooks on the collections reinforced
the museum’s new
educational message of rational classification from an
evolutionary perspective.
Plate 5 Comparative displays of material culture c. 1901
at this time the Curator’s educational programmes for adult
visitors perfectly
complemented the museum display. alongside this adult service
an L.C.C.
appointed supply teacher organised school visits to the museum
and arranged for
the ‘instruction’ of school pupils, until January 1949 when a
full-time teacher was
seconded from the permanent teaching service of the L.C.C.
in the 1950s the museum teacher worked with the
schoolchildren and their
class-teachers in a small room off the north hall. the room was
quite inadequate;
lacking proper storage and display space for the children’s work
but the service
grew in response to demand and 18,619 pupils attended the
museum as part of
a school visit in 1968. These school visitor figures led to the
construction of a
two storey education Centre and the appointment of a second

309Anthropology and Education Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4, p.docx

309Anthropology and Education Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4, p.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 309Anthropology and Education Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4, p.docx

Similar to 309Anthropology and Education Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4, p.docx (20)

More from gilbertkpeters11344

More from gilbertkpeters11344 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

309Anthropology and Education Quarterly, Vol. 37, No. 4, p.docx