american museum of natural history and plans for improvement and northwest indians and tlingit spoons

One of the exhibits which was used as a "pass through" for people trying to get to other exhibits was the huge hall of Northwest Indians. Totemic objects, baskets, blankets and dozens of other items from these cultures fill a room that must have been 200' long and 65' wide. But, no one was ever there. I hung around in this room for several minutes just to see the patterns of people who came in and out of it. Almost no one stopped to look at any of the interesting objects. I thought this was strange given the fact that American history in the last 30 years has been "rewritten" to include the "contributions," at best, or mere existence, at worst, of hundreds of native tribes resident in the land before the European incursion. That is, when I studied American history in 1971, we began with the Puritans in New England. When I taught American history in the early 1990s we started with natives peoples. Why, then, is no one interested in the native peoples exhibit at the AMNH? I'll discard one possible answer--that the cultures developed 3000 miles away from NYC and the people looking at exhibits want to know more "local" things-- because there are lots of other exhibits of "far away" things.

But I think people breezed through the exhibits because the context to understand them is not adequately explained. Let me give two brief examples. On one of the walls was an exhibit of Tlingit spoons. There must have been 50 of them lined up in three neat rows. I looked at them for several minutes, trying to determine the difference among spoons that, for all their minute distinctions, seemed to look pretty much like spoons. There was an explanatory note that said that some spoons were made from different sources, though that didn't really excite me. Nothing else was there. So, why all the spoons then? I don't know. They appeared to be "contextless spoons." I think it would have taken some effort to create an interesting context for them in any case, but because no effort was made to do this, people simply passed by.

Well, that is an extreme example. But then there were more interesting possibilities for engagement when a ceremony, headed by a a medicine man of a tribe, was depicted. But there was little information on what this ceremony was, how it might have originated, how it fit into the society's understanding of itself, etc. What might have been a fascinating glimpse into the nature of power or social arrangements of a people was left hanging for the viewers. Rich contexts often need to be created in order for specific objects to take on meaning. Take more care in creating those contexts.

4. Tell Us the Methods/Problems/Goals of the Field Today

Because natural history isn't "static," exhibits describing natural history should also have sections telling us where the field is now. For example, one of the exhibits I most enjoyed was the hall of minerals. Arrayed on one long wall is an introduction to "systematic mineralogy," where hundreds of mineral specimens (of what the exhibit said were more than 2,500 types of minerals) are displayed according to their families (e.g., elements, halides, sulfates, sulfides, silicates, etc.). Then, in the center of the room are exhibits that deal with other subjects in the study of minerals--such as crystal structure, chatoyancy, inclusions, etc. But what is missing is the sense of how the field of mineralogy works today. In fact, there are now more than 4,000 minerals (according to my last count) that have been approved. It might have been good to tell us something about the body that approves new minerals, some of the politics over naming minerals that led to the creation of this international body, and how the study of minerals has been enhanced through the development of computer technology.

Conclusion

Thus, I am looking for a museum that is conscious of itself as being in the historical flow of life rather than giving the impression that it is giving frozen or certain knowledge about the world. One traditional way that museums try to overcome this problem is by having periodic exhibits that "update" the continuing exhibits. So, for example, the AMNH currently has a display, costing far too much to get in, which tries to bring dinosaur research "up to date." The focus of this exhibit was to describe the role that biomechanics and computer technology has played in the debate over dinosaur mobility. For example, it used to be thought (and movies portray it is true) that the T-Rex could move at a maximum speed of 40-45 mph. If Jurassic Park says it, it must be true. But, it isn't, according to current-day researchers. They not only argue from analogies today (the ostrich is sometimes the closest modern equivalent of some dinosaurs), but look at issues of bone structure, possible muscle mass and then calculate the limits on movement based on these realities. They conclude that T-Rex couldn't have moved faster than 10-15 mph. Interesting. But I think also that care should be taken to incorporate some of these insights into the continuing exhibits.

So, I left the museum late in the afternoon, and walked toward midtown along Broadway and Columbus Avenues. It seemed like some of the specimens I saw along the way could one day end up in the AMNH....

1262