Our knowledge of human evolution is continually shifting – a single piece of excavated bone can cause long-accepted theories to be shredded overnight.
Museum curators are required to display the history of human evolution in an understandable, jargon-free way, but also to keep up with the latest developments in the field. When museums set up permanent displays, they tend to mean it. That is, new developments in a discipline don’t usually trigger immediate changes on the gallery floor. With frequent new discoveries, scientific advances and theoretical shifts in the field of human evolution, it is more important than usual that displays are kept up to date.
I remember visiting the Royal Museum of Central Africa outside Brussels, and thinking how archaic their displays on evolution were, but then again, this is a museum that prides itself in being an unreconstructed relic of empire; and at the Cinquantinaire Museum in the city, is a spanking new exhibition hall on evolution and prehistory.
At the National Museum of Scotland in Edinburgh, a mood-lit gallery devoted to evolution would have looked very swish in the 1980s, and the unusual architecture is still intriguing, but much has changed since then, while the displays and labels have not. The Oxford University Museum of Natural History is another old skool institution, but it has kept up with the times when it comes to explaining revisions in evolutionary theory - the recently discovered Homo Floresiensis already features in its display cases.
Curators of prehistory should be preparing for more change, as scientists in Germany claim they are close to cracking the Neanderthal genetic code. Channel 4 News carries a report on the research, which centres on DNA extracted from a tiny fragment of leg bone of a 38,000 year old Neanderthal found in Croatia. The results could have great significance for understanding the relationship between humans and our ancestors, and for various aspects of human development including language.
In a complex field where academic disagreements and ideological clashes can encourage confusion and myth-making, it is vital that museums present clear and timely explanations of the current science.
November 20, 2006 at 8:22 pm
To complicate matters. Seeing a picture of the bone in question, processed by scientists, I was left somewhat disenchanted. So much for non-destructive techniques in archaeological analysis: a gaping hole remained in this particular bone. Apparently we have to create gaps, in order to fill the gaps in our knowledge.
November 20, 2006 at 11:48 pm
Yes, I saw the picture – it looks more like a rusty metal bar than a bit of bone, with that strange slice cut out of it. So are you saying the bone should have been kept intact as a ‘relic’? If you watch the report, you see the sacred fragment being held in a plastic bag by a scientist in protective clothing, behind a thick pane of glass.
November 21, 2006 at 4:32 am
No, I don’t mind the lateral damage to this particular bone for the sake of the creation of new archaeological knowledge. It’s just the paradox of care and ‘destruction’ in scientific analysis beautifully captured in the picture, which leaves me a bit confused: on the one hand, there’s the need to avoid contamination in the lab environment (our DNA is everywhere), which gives the impression of dealing with a sacred object, as you say; on the other, there’s this gaping hole in the bone of ‘destructive’ but at the same time creative work in progress.
Another reason why I was struck by the picture, is that it is not normal practice to show ‘destructive’ work in progress. There might even exist a taboo on it in the discipline, i.e. not to show this kind of pictures, striving, as archaeologists are, to show the complete picture (fancy reconstructions, complete objects etc.), denying the fragmentary state of their sources, let alone their self-inflicted fragmentation. This taboo forces archaeologists into making a big mistake: if they are supposed to be educating their discipline, they leave the wrong impression here, I think. It’s not so much the end result that needs to be made public (we all like fancy reconstructions, goodies), as the work in progress: archaeologists are not (supposed to be) treasure hunters, they are (supposed to be) scientists who piece together the fragments creatively. Unfortunately, there are too many treasure hunters in the name of science who give archaeology a bad name. Not this picture: it doesn’t romanticise the discipline, it disenchants, archaeology is not simple, it’s hard work.
November 21, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Well, I suppose archaeologists have often tended to downplay the destructive nature of their profession, and focus on the constructive, or re-constructive. But reconstructions are often short-lived (that’s why i included the picture of those ghastly models in the National Museum of Scotland).
You are right that the practice and process of archaeology is hidden from view. (intentional or subliminal)? Rather like in a theatre, you don’t see what goes on off-stage. I wonder if this has anything to do with preserving the mystique of archaeology? I think some advances have been made in de-mystifying it, but this can lead to populism which glosses over the ‘hard work’ that has to put in.
I am all in favour of making archaeology accessible, and archaeologists must be constantly aware of why they are doing what they are doing, and for whom – i.e. something more than the accumulation of empirical data. The problems come when archaeology is presented in say the sphere of TV, or for that matter the internet, and there is a desire to conform with the orthodoxies of that medium. For instance, Time Team having to dig up a Roman fort in two days flat… or else! Surely this is not the way to go, even if it does make the practice of excavation fieldwork more exciting and accessible.
November 21, 2006 at 8:45 pm
I was hoping that this would have been your reply, so that we can focus on your post again. Here I think you are right in drawing attention to normal practice in museum displays of leaving implicit the changing of views within the discipline, either by curating out-dated displays or replacing them altogether. The state of the art approach doesn’t leave room for the accumulative and changing nature of knowledge production. Human evolution displays are forced to keep up with the ever updated knowledge, but the same should be the case with displays of other areas of archaeology, I would say. Maybe there is a future for me in the museum business, after all.
November 21, 2006 at 10:11 pm
I don’t quite see you as an ‘exhibitions consultant’ somehow. You’ll have to re-style yourself as an ‘interpretational guru’ or something!
It is an inherent problem in the ‘permanence’ of museum displays that new data, and changing (or multiple) approaches cannot be quickly incorporated. I have found postmodern, interpretation-based solutions have even less longevity than say chronological or thematic approaches. All displays are ideological – but the fact that they are should not be the focus of the display. This can lead to misleading, and sometimes downright daft results, and in the end is even less accessible, and more elitist than traditional approaches.
In many ways this discussion could be about any area of archaeology. I just read a critique of post-processual landscape archaeology, which includes criticising the notion of archaeology as a ‘performance’. This is a message that museums need to hear. I don’t mean to sound conservative, but I do think that dumbing down has partly been facilitated by sloppy relativism. Temporary exhibitions can and should experiment with lots of approaches, but permanent galleries need to be both based on a sound theoretical frameworks, and be open to adaptation as required.
I am also not against the ‘museum of the museum’ (we could call it the ‘pickled museum’). I made a mistake in my initial posting, and confused the Pitt Rivers with the Museum of Natural History (in the same building). The Pitt Rivers, like the Teylers, or the Museum of Central Africa, are preserved as relics themselves, and god forbid, don’t need some po-mo re-jig.
November 27, 2006 at 2:00 am
I agree with you on the ‘pickled museum’ which should be preserved as a relic in itself. And I don’t see myself as an ‘exhibitions consultant’, but am curious what I would come up with myself when put in that position. Hopefully, not a piece of “sloppy relativism”, as you call it, which leaves too much (or is it: too less) to be desired from the imagination of visitors. Then again, I’m not an object-oriented visitor myself, but can only marvel about exhibitions as concepts, rather than be bemused by oddities. I always feel sorry for the objects caged in and exposed for the second time, after their initial recovery by archaeologists, treasure hunters or who ever. It’s like a zoo, a 19th century world fair, for that matter.