Exhibiting Archaeology: Archaeology and Museums

AN39CH18-Barker ARI 12 August 2010 21:42

Exhibiting Archaeology:Archaeology and MuseumsAlex W. BarkerMuseum of Art and Archaeology, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211-1421;email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010. 39:293–308

First published online as a Review in Advance onJune 21, 2010

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online atanthro.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105115

Copyright c© 2010 by Annual Reviews.All rights reserved

0084-6570/10/1021-0293$20.00

Key Words

representation, curation, authority, interpretation

Abstract

From their beginnings, archaeology museums have reflected a complexand dynamic balance between the demands of developing, documenting,and preserving objects on the one hand and sharing knowledge, access,and control on the other. This balance has informed and inflected theways that museums present the past, including both practical aspectsof pedagogy and exhibition design as well as more critical and con-tested issues of authority, authenticity, and reflexivity in interpretation.Meeting the complex requirements of curation, deliberate collectionsgrowth, management, and conservation, as well as the need to respondto continuing challenges to the museum’s right and title to hold variousforms of cultural property, archaeological museums play an active rolein both preserving and shaping the public’s view of the past and reflectthe prospects and perils of being at once a temple to the muses and aforum for sometimes contentious public discourse.

293

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


INTRODUCTION

Museums were once the primary venue forarchaeological research, and although theacademy supplanted the museum in this roleover the course of the twentieth century (Willey& Sabloff 1980), museums are still recognizedas “the main institutional connection betweenarchaeology as a profession and discipline, andwider society” (Shanks & Tilley 1992, p. 68).By any measure, they remain powerful forcesfor the communication of archaeological infor-mation. A 2001 survey in Great Britain foundthat visiting museums and galleries was a morepopular activity than watching soccer games orany other live sporting event (MORI, p. 7), anda 2000 statistically representative survey of 1016American adults found that 88% had visitedmuseums interpreting archaeological materials(Ramos & Duganne 2000, p. 21).

Scholars differ over what constitutes a mu-seum (Ginsburgh & Mairesse 1997, Hudson1998), however, and in many respects anappropriate definition depends on the contextof the discussion and why a definition is sought(Alexander & Alexander 2008, Weil 1990). Forour purposes, I focus on informal educationalinstitutions [equivalent to Paris & Hapgood’s(2002, p. 39) informal learning environments],which hold archaeological collections andinterpret them through regular exhibitionsfor one or more audiences; I set aside entitieswhich interpret the past without the benefitof actual objects (such as science centers), andrepositories which hold objects without anexplicit charge to interpret them for the public.Many issues identified here cross these ad-mittedly arbitrary boundaries, but the need ofmuseums to balance constantly the conflictingdemands of access and interpretation on theone hand and preservation and stewardshipon the other creates a dynamic tension lessevident in these other kinds of entities, wherepriority is given to one or the other side ofthe equation. This balance also organizes thediscussion that follows, considering in turnthe changing role of museums, complexities ofinterpreting the past for multiple audiences,the epistemological dimensions of museum

interpretation, curation and conservation ofthe past’s tangible remains, and challenges tothe rights of museums to claim good title tovarious categories of cultural objects.

THE CHANGING ROLEOF MUSEUMS

Most of the earliest archaeological museumswere founded either as a byproduct of antiquar-ian research or to promote social bettermentthrough access to works of art and science [seePearce (1995) for a general history of collect-ing in the European tradition and see Swain(2007) for an abbreviated history of archaeolog-ical museum collecting]. Museums themselveshave evolved from private entities through pub-lic charities into nonstock corporations or unitsof government (Hall 1992). This shift had theeffect of moving many museums from a narrowfocus on the interests and passions of the in-dividuals who built the collection (e.g., Larson2009, McMullen 2009) to a broadly defined em-phasis on public betterment, and more recentlya better-defined emphasis on meeting the needsof specific audiences, largely owing to shifts ingovernance that placed key stakeholders in gov-ernance positions. Hudson (1998) argues that itcan be asserted

. . .with confidence that the most fundamen-tal change that has affected museums. . .is thenow universal conviction that they exist in or-der to serve the public. The old-style museumfelt itself to be under no such obligation. Itexisted, it had a building, it had collectionsand a staff to look after them. It was reason-ably adequately financed, and its visitors, usu-ally not numerous, came in to look, to wonderand to admire what was set before them. Theywere in no sense partners in the enterprise.The museum’s prime responsibility was to itscollections, not its visitors. (p. 43)

The public service and educational roles ofmuseums were articulated by late-nineteenthand early-twentieth-century museum leadersincluding John Cotton Dana (1920), William

294 Barker

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Henry Flower (1898), Franz Boas (1974[1905]), G. Brown Goode (1891), AlexanderRuthven (1931), and Harlan Smith (1912),among others. Earlier generations had im-plicitly assumed this educational role; indeedThomsen is remembered not only for thethree-age system but for his tireless educa-tional efforts. In an age when access to theBritish Museum was limited to 60 personsa day, each screened by the porter to makesure they were the right sort (Hudson 1987),Thomsen met and led tours of the DanishNational Museum by groups of every kind topromote both general knowledge of the pastand through that knowledge social bettermentof the masses. Lord Elgin took a similar viewin exporting the contested marbles from theEast pediment of the Parthenon to London,suggesting the marbles might have “somebenefit on the progress of taste” (St. Clair1998). Although more recent generations ofscholars have carefully deconstructed theseviews to examine the ideological stances andstereotypes informing them (e.g., Hamilakis1999, Hitchens et al. 1998), it is worth recallingthat the conscious motivations of these earlyantiquarians were largely educational. Morerecently, this educational role of museums hasbeen affirmed by major professional organi-zations; in Excellence and Equity, the AmericanAssociation of Museums (AAM) (1992) statedthat museums must place education—in thebroadest sense of the word—at the centerof their public service role and make theireducational role central to their activities.

This educational role is crucial to both thedevelopment of modern archaeological muse-ums and the wide range of critical approachesto them because it requires that museums movefrom passive repositories to active arbiters andinterpreters of the past. Throughout the nine-teenth century (and I suggest well into the twen-tieth) most museum archaeologists believed“in the explanatory power and epistemologi-cal transparency of objects, specimens, things”(Conn 2004, p. 117). The more subtle role ofmuseums in creating or altering perceptionsabout the past is now well established, although

one could argue that recognition of this roleis part of a logical historical progression in howthe tangible objects of the past have been under-stood and used in constructing epistemologicalframeworks (e.g., Anderson 2004).

For much of the eighteenth and nineteenthcenturies, museums were concerned with orga-nizing and arranging objects to document thetime periods and cultures that produced them(e.g., Holmes 1902). Objects were treated as in-dex fossils, whose form and character allowedarchaeologists or antiquarians to draw valid in-ferences regarding the dating of sites and theidentification of cultural complexes associatedwith the site or site component. The adventof chronometric techniques in the twentiethcentury allowed and promoted a focus on cul-tural process rather than culture history andaltered the ways in which material culture im-plicated, inscribed, and informed processualstudies. More recently, postprocessual studieshave recruited both museum objects and the in-stitutions that house them in critical reexamina-tions of how material objects were appreciatedand appropriated by agents in societies past andpresent—critiques that react against processualexcesses while to some degree premised on theepistemological emphases they established.

EXPLANATION ANDPRESENTATION

Although the educational mandate of archae-ological museums is clear, whether they havebeen particularly effective achieving that man-date through exhibitions remains debatable(e.g., see articles in McManus 1996). Onesobering statistic emerged from surveys of pub-lic attitudes toward archaeology; although 88%of respondents said they had visited a mu-seum exhibiting archaeological materials, only9% reported learning anything about archaeol-ogy from museums (Ramos & Duganne 2000,p. 12). Television remains the most popularvehicle for learning about the past (Ramos &Duganne 2000), and relatively few media—even formal instructional textbooks—teachabout the past consistently. A 1990 study, for

www.annualreviews.org • Exhibiting Archaeology 295

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


example, found “textbooks from all parts of theworld that ignore contemporary understand-ings of the prehistoric past” (MacKenzie &Stone 1990, p. 3).

Available data suggest that people interpretthe past in light of their own experiences andcultural constructs; we see the past not as itwas but as we are. This mindset is more thana naıve extension of one’s own views, but anactive strategy pursued even when presentedwith seemingly authoritative information thatcontradicts these constructs (Wineburg 2001).Although it has long been recognized by mu-seum professionals that people want to play anactive role in interpreting the past and makingit meaningful, in all the complex meanings ofthe term (Davis 2000, Falk & Dierking 2000,Jameson 1997, Rosenzweig & Thelen 1998,Rowan & Baram 2004, Stone & Molyneaux1994), recent studies suggest this desire maybe crucial to learning success (e.g., Roschelle1995). Dierking (2002) argues that three over-lapping leaning contexts contribute to the waychildren (at least) interact with and apprehendobjects. The personal context includes moti-vation and expectation, interest, prior knowl-edge and experience, and dimensions of choiceand control. The sociocultural context includeswithin-group sociocultural mediation, specifi-cally social aspects of learning within the imme-diate group, and mediation facilitated by others,including parents, teachers, docents, or others.Finally, the physical context includes advancepreparation, setting and immediate environ-ment, design elements of the experience, andsubsequent reinforcing events and experience(see also Falk & Dierking 2000). Despite bestefforts, however, none of these three primarycontexts are entirely within a museum’s control.

Davis (2005) offers a constructivist approachto student learning in archaeology, identifyingsix distinct types of learning strategies. Thetypes are distinguished by whether the learnersees knowledge as constructed or acquired, thedegree of proficiency achieved in this knowl-edge, and whether they tend to articulate andprocess this knowledge as narratives or analyt-ical processes (pp. 99–103). Individual learners

may shift fluidly between strategies dependingon context, structure of information, andproficiency. Different kinds of experiences andpedagogical practices are needed to effectivelyengage students employing different learningstrategies. Museum-based programs tend tohave shorter encounter times with visitors orstudents than do other kinds of venues, theytend to be more dependent on self-guidedactivities, and they require greater knowledgeof visitor preconceptions well in advance ofexhibition creation or programmatic activities.Thus, successful programs often depend ondetailed visitor studies to understand theneeds and background of diverse audiences(p. 142). She notes that many of the techniquesshe has found successful “require significantinvestments of both time and money,” whichshe recognizes “may seem extravagant or evenimpossible, given the kinds of constraints thatmany schools and nonprofit organizations haveto contend with” (p. 160).

Pedagogical approaches in museums gener-ally focus on either objects or ideas, what Weil(1990, 1995) called emphasis on the “isness” ofobjects or their “aboutness” (see also Witcomb1997). Greenblatt (1991) united these appar-ently disparate paradigms as focusing on dif-ferent dimensions of objects, which he called“wonder” and “resonance” [wonder being theability of an object to stop the viewer in his orher tracks (read masterwork) and resonance be-ing the ability of objects to evoke a larger worldor set of cultural forces], arguing that success-ful exhibitions required elements of both andthat “the poetics and politics of representationare most completely fulfilled in the experienceof wonderful resonance and resonant wonder”(p. 54). Exhibitions, then, can succeed by of-fering elements that provide wonder and otherelements (or moments) that contextualize andembed the object through resonance.

A broad range of museum literature exam-ines the morphology or logistics of exhibitions,including such elements as traffic flow, sightlines, dwell time (or the amount of time a vis-itor spends in front of a particular element),and diligence (whether visitors fully examine

296 Barker

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


exhibit elements and signage or select a subsetof available options); treatments of both indi-vidual installations and more general best prac-tices can be found in journals including VisitorStudies Today or Visitor Behavior, Art Education,Journal of Museum Education, Curator, MuseumManagement and Curatorship, and Exhibitionist:A Journal of Reflexive Practice; see also gen-eral works on exhibit development and designsuch as Dean (1994) and Lord & Lord (2002).Pearce (1990) suggests three additional dimen-sions in archaeological exhibits. “Depth” is therelative number of distinct spaces that must becrossed to move from one exhibit element toanother. “Rings” measure the number of al-ternative paths a visitor may use to traversean exhibition without backtracking, and “en-tropy” measures the relative linearity or sim-plicity of the layout. More than measures ofvisitor behavior, however, Pearce (1990) arguesthat these dimensions directly structure howinformation is perceived by the visitor. Shal-low depth and low ring factors “present knowl-edge as if it were a map of a well-known terrainwhere the relationship of each part to the other,and all to the whole, is thoroughly understood”(p. 150). By contrast, she argues, exhibits witha high entropy value, considerable depth, andhigh ring factor “show knowledge as a proposi-tion which may stimulate further, or different,answering propositions” (p. 150).

Cotton & Wood (1996) provide a detaileddiscussion of the thinking that went into thedesign of a specific archaeological exhibition,People Before London, a prehistory installationat the Museum of London. In an intriguingtwist, curators and designers went beyond take-home messages regarding specific cultural unitsor time periods and posed direct, reflexive ques-tions to the visitor, including “Can you believewhat we say?”, to problematize the issue of au-thority in archaeological exhibitions.

AUTHORITY ANDINTERPRETATION

Museums and their use of objects have facedcritiques from feminists (Porter 1996), struc-

turalists (Bal 1992), poststructuralists (Bennett1995), postmodernists (Crimp 1995), and post-colonial theorists (Clifford 1997, Rigg 1994; seealso Sherman 1994 for a more general treat-ment of critiques of museum-as-institution)and a range of postprocessualist critiques fromwithin archaeology itself (Shanks & Tilley1992). Many of the broader anthropologicalcritiques regarding formalism, primitivism, au-thenticity, and historicism in museum settings( Jones 1993) can also be generalized to applyto archaeological museum exhibitions (see alsoCrew & Sims 1991). Bourdieu (1984) has ar-gued that museums serve primarily to maintainexisting class distinctions; although his argu-ments were originally specific to art museums,they have been expanded by other scholars andapplied to archaeological, heritage, and culturalmuseums more generally (Bennett et al. 1991,Merriman 1989). Museum exhibitions can reifyand perpetuate stereotypical understandings;Wood (1997) shows that stereotypical presen-tations of gender roles persist in many archaeo-logical museums. By contrast, Wood & Cotton(1999) carefully consider how gender was pre-sented in People Before London. The appearanceof past peoples as conjectural is also emphasizedat the Keiller Museum in Wiltshire, England,where a single figure is depicted with two verydifferent sets of clothing, hairstyles, and tattooson either side of his body. Although aptly il-lustrating the ambiguity of presentations of thepast, Swain (2007) notes that the figure “comesacross as a rather badly dressed 1980s shopdummy” (p. 214). Interpreting people of thepast also raises complex issues regarding rep-resentation and the role of living communitiesin controlling, framing, and interpreting theirown pasts (e.g., Ames 1991, 1992; Colwell-Chanthaphonh & Ferguson 2006; Hendry2005; Isaac 2005; Karp et al. 1992; Kuklick1991; Lawlor 2006; Levy 2006; Simpson 2007;Sleeper-Smith 2009; see also Peers 2007).

For Bourdieu (Bourdieu & Johnson 1993)museums play a key role in consecrating objects,embodying and perpetuating theories of howobjects should be appropriately apprehended,understood, and contextualized. Whitehead


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


(2009), following Vergo’s (1994) notion thatmuseums create their own contexts, argues fur-ther that museums create an environment thatencourages certain kinds of theorizing (an ar-gument analogous in many respects to thereception aesthetics views of Wolfgang Iser(1980) and Hans Robert Jauss (1982) in literarytheory).

This view of objects, whether individuallyor as exhibitions, as signs that can be read re-flects a textual view of representation which hadpermeated history by the late-eighteenth andnineteenth centuries (Conn 2004), and is com-monplace in studies of museum interpretation(e.g., van Kraayenoord & Paris 2002). Pearce(1990, 1992) employs a Saussurean construct tounderstand how visitors understand and “read”archaeological exhibitions. Perhaps the most fa-miliar examples of this approach are the post-processual critiques of archaeology by Hodder(1986) and of museums by Shanks & Tilley(1992). Vogel (1991) has suggested that “thefact that museums recontextualize and interpretobjects is a given, and requires no apologies.”Instead, museums should “allow the public toknow that [museums are] not a broad framethrough which the art and culture of the worldcan be inspected, but a tightly focused lens thatshows the visitor a particular point of view.”She concludes “it could hardly be otherwise”(p. 201).

One of the most intriguing theoretical worksaffecting interpretation of archaeological arti-facts is that of the late Alfred Gell (1998). Gell’sapproach is equally radical but is based on an ut-ter rejection of meaning as an appropriate wayof understanding things and on the bankruptcyof precisely the textual approaches on whichShanks and Tilley depend as useful avenuesfor anthropological understanding of objects. “Ientirely reject,” Gell writes “the idea that any-thing, except language itself, has ‘meaning’ inthe intended sense” (Gell 1998, p. 6). InsteadGell sees objects as ways of doing something,as social entities imbued with the ability to actas ‘secondary agents,’ and examines “the prac-tical mediatory role of art objects in the socialprocess.”

Although Gell’s approach presents a seriesof interpretive problems for both scholars andthose who view displays of objects understoodfrom this perspective, it represents a bold de-parture from existing treatments of objects andtheir practical contextualization. However, thisapproach also entails the proposition that anexhibition is likewise a work of art designed tohave an effect, is itself an artifact of the kind andwith the properties of the works it presents, andshould be understood in terms of the social re-lationships it mediates—an approach that fitscomfortably within visitor-centric constructscommonly encountered in museum studies asa discipline (Black 2005).

The centrality of issues of authority andauthenticity have been apparent since thevery beginning of museums. The Library andMusaeum of Alexandria (better rememberedtoday for its destruction than for its ency-clopedic stature) received important worksto be copied, then quietly returned the copyrather than the original to the lender to ensurethe authority and authenticity of its holdings(Bagnall 2002, p. 356; Heller-Roazen 2002,p. 133). Institutions such as the Musaeum (thenand now) play an important role in nationbuilding and definition of a group’s social iden-tity (Crinson 2001, Kaplan 1994, Kohl 1998,Launius 2007, Linenthal & Engelhardt 1996),but only recently have these practices becomethe subject of direct ethnographic inquiry(Handler & Gable 1997, Davis 2005). Onesuch study examines the Musaeum itself: Butler(2007) uses ethnographic approaches to studythe new Bibliotheca Alexandrina, a joint Egyp-tian/UNESCO project completed in 2002.

CURATION ANDCONSERVATION

Collections lie at the heart of the museum,the sine qua non of the museum as an institu-tion. As Swain has argued (2007, p. 91), of allthe elements that constitute a museum (staff,buildings, donors, galleries, collections, etc.),any one could be removed without changingthe fundamental character of the institution,

298 Barker

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


except the collections. They define the profileand prospects of the institution in ways moreprofound and lasting than do mission state-ments or current circumstances. The impor-tance of appreciating why humans collect anduse tangible things to make sense of the pastis recognized both through a range of individ-ual scholarly studies (e.g., Pearce 1992, 1995,Wertsch 2002; see also articles in Knell 1999,Krech & Hall 1999, Pearce 1994) and entirejournals (e.g., Journal of the History of Collectionsor Collections: A Journal for Museums and ArchivesProfessionals, among others).

Pearce (1997) has identified six distinct kindsof objects comprising archaeological collec-tions in museums: (a) chance finds, usually re-ceived as single pieces or small groups andgenerally lacking meaningful documentation;(b) private collections amassed by individu-als, with or without accompanying documen-tation; (c) material from museum-based excava-tion projects, usually accompanied by completedocumentation; (d ) material from excavationsby other bodies or institutions, with the level ofaccompanying documentation varying by ageand quality of excavation; (e) materials acceptedfrom fieldwork or cultural resources manage-ment (CRM) projects, often through curationagreements, which should in general be accom-panied by levels of documentation specified inthe curation agreement; and ( f ) material frommetal detectorists, a category more commonlyseparable in British museums than elsewhere.

It remains unclear, however, whether all col-lections objects are equal. Thomas (cited inSwain 2007) has argued for the concept of the“total collection,” in which every object in thecollection is equally valued; Swain (2007, p. 95)by contrast argues for an implicit hierarchy inpractice in which some exhibitable or completeobjects often have greater perceived value thando others. The truth likely lies somewhere inbetween, with the relative value or utility of anobject depending on the specific purposes orneeds on which it is called to address.

Whitehead (2009) has argued that museumsare constitutive rather than reflective of theirfields; museums do not simply show art but by

doing so define its nature. Archaeological mu-seums do the same, establishing the ground onwhich (and from which) different conceptionsof the past are contested. Archaeologists do notactually study the past, but instead study thoseremains of the past that persist into the presentto make inferences about that past; time isperhaps the most salient analytical dimensionin archaeology but one which must always beinferred. Archaeological museums played acrucial role both in the development of culturehistory as an approach and in the constructionof alternative temporocultural frameworks forclassifying archaeological remains in time andspace prior to the advent of chronometric dat-ing techniques (Lyman et al. 1997). Althoughthe importance of museums and museum-affiliated archaeologists (including, amongothers, Thomsen, Worsaae, Holmes, Wissler,Flinders Petrie, Uhle, Lothrop, Kidder,Woolley, Phillips, McKern, Ford, and Willey)is generally understood in this regard, the pro-found importance and immediacy of collectionsare not fully appreciated. Thomsen is widelycredited with the three-age system, but it hadbeen previously proposed for Scandinavianarchaeology by Vedel-Simonsen and secondedby both Magnus Bruzelius (prior to Thomsen’sreorganization of the National Museum collec-tions) and Sven Nilsson. Heizer (1962) tracesa long continental ancestry, including mentionin the works of Mercati, Eccard, Borlase,Rothe, Pennant, Hodgson, Busching, andGoguet, among others. It was less the proposalof the three-age system (which after all couldbe pressed earlier to the times of Hesiod andLucretius) than its application to physical mu-seum collections by Thomsen in 1836 and G.C.Friedrich Lisch in 1837, with its utility con-firmed through excavations by J.J.A. Worsaaein Denmark published in the 1840s, that makesThomsen’s contribution a watershed. Laterin the nineteenth century the same logic—buta different set of organizing principles—wereused by Otis Mason to organize the archaeo-logical material in the Smithsonian. Instead ofa threefold system based on the stuff of whichbladed weapons were made, Mason used Lewis


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Henry Morgan’s evolutionary sequence fromsavagery through barbarism to civilization toprovide both a context for understanding mate-rial variability and a rationale for the direction-ality of change (Sullivan & Childs 2003, pp. 5–6;later Mason was instrumental in defining NewWorld culture areas in a continuing attempt tobetter map changes in material form onto bothtime and later space). McKern’s developmentof the midwestern taxonomic method wassimilarly a museum-based iterative process oforganizing data—largely physical collections—into units that could be meaningfully discussedand compared by archaeologists; it differedfrom the systems of Thomsen and Otis (amongothers) in being explicitly nonevolutionaryin character. Precisely because McKern wasinterested in understanding temporal andhistorical relationships, he explicitly excludedthem from the classificatory framework.

Whereas archaeological curators wrestlewith the problem of how best to documentand depict time, archaeological conservationattempts to forestall its effects. Cheating timeis only partially effective at best, but enormousstrides have been made in both the theory andthe practice of conservation, both in field (Sease1994) and in laboratory (Cronyn & Robinson1990, May & Jones 2006). As part of a largertendency to foreground museological pro-cesses, numerous exhibitions and publicationshave discussed and described how archaeolog-ical materials are conserved. For the most part,these works have addressed technical issues ofpreserving objects from deleterious chemicalchanges and inhibiting inherent vice (Podany& Maish 1993), but a growing number of workshave discussed the balance between the preser-vation of objects on the one hand and naturalprocesses of decay or weathering on the other,which may have been integral to their functionwithin the communities which produced them(Bernstein 1992, Hull-Walski & Flynn 2001).This growing conservation literature detailsboth consultation and compromise betweentraditional academic forms of conservation andcommunity-based standards of care and treat-ment, which emphasize the social dimension

of archaeological objects (Clavir 2002, Kreps2003). Literature written by and for indigenousgroups and tribal museums has also begun toaddress museological conservation, object han-dling protocols, and collections managementissues (see articles in Ogden 2004).

A broad and growing literature examinesappropriate collections management and cu-ratorial procedures (Buck et al. 2007, Cassar1995, Fahy 1995, Knell 1994, Simmons 2006),and specific treatments aimed at archaeolo-gists or that examine specific kinds of archaeo-logical remains have appeared (Cassman et al.2007, Pearce 1990, Sullivan & Childs 2003,Swain 2007). Although these contributions pro-vide guidance regarding conceptual issues andbest practices, for the most part they presumethat adequate resources in time, space, staff,and funding are available—an enviable posi-tion rarely found in practice. Curation of ar-chaeological collections has been described asin a state of crisis since 1982 (Bawaya 2007,Marquardt et al. 1982, Thompson 1999,Trimble & Marino 2003; see also Owen 1999for a critique of the role of museums in field-work), with few immediate prospects for reliefin sight. This crisis, coupled with high rates ofsite destruction, has led some to ask whether itis ethical to excavate new sites if extant museumcollections are sufficient to address a given re-search question (Barker 2003).

TITLE AND CULTURALPROPERTY ISSUES

Another central challenge facing archaeo-logical museums in the twenty-first centuryinvolves the question of title to cultural objects(Messenger 1989). Traditionally, the processof accessioning objects intrinsically involvedan assertion of title, an approach deeply rootedin Lockean notions of private property andownership (Malaro 1998). Changing legal andethical frameworks have problematized theseassumptions, however. The Native AmericanGraves Protection and Repatriation Act(NAGPRA) (McKeown et al. 1998,McLaughlin 2004, Trope & Echo-Hawk

300 Barker

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


2000) challenged both the right of museumsto hold certain categories of objects andwhether goodness of title could be asserted forobjects acquired from groups where individualownership—and hence the ability of an individ-ual to convey good title—could not be assumed.The development of the so-called McClaindoctrine, which allows foreign countries fromwhom objects have been looted to seek dam-ages in U.S. courts under the National StolenProperty Act under certain circumstances,has also problematized the degree to whichmuseums can assert good title to objects forwhich full provenance cannot be established.The McClain doctrine holds that antiquitieswhose ownership is clearly vested in foreigngovernments may be stolen property if theywere excavated illegally and removed withoutappropriate permissions; for the doctrine toapply, the antiquities must have been recov-ered within the borders of the nation-statebringing action, the antiquities laws vestingownership in the state must be sufficiently clearto give notice to U.S. citizens that removal ofantiquities is illegal, and finally the antiquitiesmust have been excavated or removed afterthe effective date of the statutes vesting own-ership in the state (Gerstenblith 2004, Yasaitis2005).

Although the McClain doctrine, NAGPRA,and related legal precepts provide legal founda-tions for various kinds of claims, many instancesof restitution to foreign governments are basedless on litigation than on leverage. The well-publicized case of the Euphronios krater isone example. The Metropolitan Museum pur-chased the vessel in 1972 for what was then arecord sum, giving it pride of place in its gal-leries as expressing a crucial moment in the de-velopment of representational art. The Italiangovernment had long sought its return, claim-ing the vase had been looted from the GreppeSant’Angelo near Cerveteri, Italy, within a yearor so of its purchase. In 2006, the Metropoli-tan agreed to return the Euphronios krater andseveral other contested objects to Italy in re-turn for a series of long-term loans of com-parable objects (Watson & Todeschini 2006).

The threat of litigation and continued nega-tive publicity led the Metropolitan’s leadershipto decide a negotiated settlement was prefer-able to establishing an unpalatable precedent(Waxman 2008). Other museums have resistedcalls for the return of putatively stolen objects.Egypt claims that a funerary mask of Ka NeferNefer was stolen from one of its store roomsand purchased by the St. Louis Art Museum,but despite the apparent presence of the itemin a 1953 Egyptian inventory the Museum has,to date, declined calls for the mask’s return.

Applicable ethical guidelines under whichmuseums acquire antiquities have undergonesignificant changes in recent years. Throughthe 1990s, the primary requirements were thatobjects not be illegally acquired or have beenimported illegally into the country in which themuseum is located. Particularly for U.S.-basedmuseums, this ethical standard set a relativelylow bar because export restrictions and foreignpatrimony laws were generally not observed indetermining the legality of import of objects. In2004, the Association of Art Museum Directors(an organization representing the 200 largestart museums in the United States, Canada,and Mexico) introduced guidelines that rec-ommended museums not acquire objects thatcould not be shown to have left their sourcecountries at least 10 years before acquisition bythe museum (AAMD 2004). These guidelineswere widely criticized by a number of archae-ological groups, including the ArchaeologicalInstitute of America, the Council for MuseumAnthropology, the Society for AmericanArchaeology, and the Archaeology Division ofthe American Anthropological Association asproviding a blueprint for the allowable sale oflooted antiquities rather than restricting theirtrade. These organizations instead called onmuseums to require that antiquities be shownto have left their country of probable originprior to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on theIllegal Sale and Trafficking in Cultural Objectsor be accompanied by documentation showingthat they had been legally imported into theUnited States and legally exported from theircountry of origin. In 2008, the American


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Association of Museums recommended newguidelines for American museums in general,which required transparency in acquisitionsguidelines, research on provenance of newlyacquired objects, and determination that ob-jects had left their country of probable originprior to the 1970 UNESCO Convention date(AAM 2008). The Association of Art MuseumDirectors (AAMD) revised its standards as well,allowing more room for interpretation than theAmerican Association of Museums (AAM) butsimilarly adopting the fixed 1970 date for prove-nance of antiquities and establishing a Web-based registry for listing of artifacts with poten-tially problematic provenance (AAMD 2008).

The use of Web-based information reg-istries for objects of this kind is not new. In2000, AAM and AAMD had developed andlaunched the Nazi Era Provenance InternetPortal in consultation with the Presidential Ad-visory Commission on Holocaust Assets in theUnited States (PCHA) to provide informationto potential claimants of objects in U.S. muse-ums that changed hands in continental Europebetween 1933–1945, along with detailed pro-cedures for conducting provenance research onsuch objects (Yeide et al. 2001).

These represent only some of the challengesto the right of museums to hold good title toparticular objects or kinds of cultural property.Hutt (2004) has identified six perspectives onobjects from the past, which inform and inflectboth legal cases and public debate regardingcultural property claims. Moralist perspectivesgenerally use normative rather than legallanguage to argue for a particular position per-ceived as the right or honorable resolution to acontested claim. Nationalist perspectives holdthat cultural property is inalienable, hence anentity accepting a nation’s patrimony can neverhold good title. Internationalist perspectives,which she alternatively names “paternalisttheory,” argue just the opposite, that signif-icant objects of cultural property transcendnationalist laws and are the common propertyof humankind, and those who can control themshould. Property law perspectives focus on

identifying who among competing claimantshas the right of ownership, regardless of othermoral or scientific claims. Scientific perspec-tives appeal to the public benefit of inquiryand the loss of knowledge by all if inquiriesare prevented. The market theory perspectivefocuses on private property interests and thepromotion of free trade in objects and em-phasizes mechanisms that permit goodness oftitle to be restored to objects to facilitate theirexchange.

While Hutt’s (2004) identification of differ-ent perspectives is a useful heuristic vehicle, theperspectives reflect a particular viewpoint orbias with which many theorists and legal schol-ars might take issue, notably the premise thatnative claimants are prima facie rightful ownersof cultural property under common law, thatpatrimonial rights and property law perspec-tives are the same (common law would gen-erally view property rights as a more complexand separable bundle of rights allowing no suchsweeping generalizations), and that nationalistperspectives hold that cultural property is in-alienable, rather than the more limited claimthat national laws vesting ownership of antiqui-ties in the nation-state should be internationallyrespected. She presents an intriguing diagram(2004, p. 31) showing possible relationships be-tween the various perspectives and notes thatthe scientific perspective might be able to es-tablish the validity of nationalist claims, but shedoes not suggest that scientific analysis couldsimilarly warrant the validity of patrimonialclaims by putative descendants.

Increasing rates of site destruction and aseries of high-profile restitution cases have in-tensified debates over the role of the antiquitiestrade, licit and illicit, in looting, site destruc-tion, and loss of cultural heritage (Atwood2004, Bogdanos & Patrick 2005, Carman 2005,Renfrew 2006, Watson & Todeschini 2006,Waxman 2008). For some, the role of lootingand the illicit (and sometimes legal) trade inantiquities is plain (Brodie et al. 2001), whereasothers see such criticisms as a direct or indirectattack on private collecting (Fitz Gibbon 2005).

302 Barker

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Just as individual scholars find themselvescaught between ethical prohibitions againstpublication of unprovenanced material on theone hand and the loss of information from suchmaterials on the other (e.g., Owen 2005), somemuseum staff feel caught between the ethicalprohibition against accepting unprovenancedantiquities and the loss of these objects to theprivate market. These concerns have been mostwidely voiced by advocates of so-called ency-clopedic art museums, such as the MetropolitanMuseum in New York, the British Museumin London, and the Art Institute in Chicago(Cuno 2008, 2009). Apologists for encyclopedicmuseums cast the antiquities debate as pittingarchaeologists against museums (e.g., Watt2009), although much of the debate really cen-ters on whether archaeological contexts havesignificant value in art museum contexts, a de-bate less between archaeologists and museumsthan between disciplinary emphases on differ-ent kinds of contexts within different kinds ofmuseums. Art historians emphasize assignedor assumed contexts based on extrinsic classi-fication of the object (e.g., Boardman 2009),whereas archaeologists focus on observedcontexts that allow the validity of extrinsicclassifications to be assessed (Barker 2004).The former view privileges the authority of themuseum or museum curator, whereas the latterdecenters that privileged position by allowingsignificance to be determined through multiplekinds of contexts (archaeological, aesthetic,

pedagogical patrimonial, etc.), which may beassigned by different entities or individuals.

PROSPECTS

McLean (1999) has succinctly depicted the ter-rain in which archaeological museums now op-erate: “Our times seem to be framed by anincreasingly complex and layered dialectic ofprivilege, expert knowledge, and prescriptivemeaning-making on the one hand, and access,popular culture, and the negotiation of meaningon the other” (p. 103). To this might be addeda decentering of the privileged place museumshave held as keepers of cultural property andmyriad economic and governance challenges.To some, this perspective suggests a bleakfuture.

But although the terrain may be difficult,it should seem familiar. The tension betweenthe dual aspects of the museum—responsiblefor both holding collections and making themavailable for its publics—has always lain at theheart of the museum enterprise. Museums areat once sacred groves and public attractions( Jeffers 2003), consecrated as temples to theMuses on the one hand and committed to ser-vice as a public forum on the other. Like ourunderstandings of the past and our needs asa diverse and disparate society, museums willcontinue to change. That is and will continueto be their nature, suggesting a bright ratherthan bleak future for the keepers of the past.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that mightbe perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Archaeology and museums each represent dynamic disciplines with wide-ranging and growingfields of associated scholarship. Their intersection is broad and deep, and only its outlines aresketched here. I humbly apologize to my colleagues whose many significant and stimulatingcontributions have not been included here owing to limitations of space; it is remarkable howrapidly the assigned space goes from impossible to fill to woefully inadequate. I am grateful to LeeLyman and Lana Coggeshall for their thoughtful comments on some of the issues presented here


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


and to my colleagues in the Council for Museum Anthropology for much fruitful and enjoyablediscussion.

LITERATURE CITED

Alexander EP, Alexander M. 2008. Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and Functions of Museums.Lanham, MD: AltaMira

Am. Assoc. Mus. 1992. Excellence and Equity: Education and the Public Dimension of Museums: A Report.Washington, DC: American Association of Museums

Am. Assoc. Mus. 2008. Standards regarding archaeological material and ancient art, American Association ofMuseums. Int. J. Cult. Prop. 15:401–3

Ames M. 1991. Biculturalism in museums. Mus. Anthropol. 15:7–15Ames M. 1992. Cannibal Tours and Glass Boxes: The Anthropology of Museums. Vancouver: Univ. B.C. PressAnderson G. 2004. Reinventing the Museum: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Paradigm Shift.

Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMiraAssoc. Art Mus. Dir. 2004. Report of the AAMD Task Force on the Acquisition of Archaeological Material and

Ancient Art. New York: Association of Art Museum DirectorsAssoc. Art Mus. Dir. 2008. Report of the AAMD Subcommittee on the Acquisition of Archaeological Materials and

Ancient Art. New York: Association of Art Museum DirectorsAtwood R. 2004. Stealing History: Tomb Raiders, Smugglers, and the Looting of the Ancient World. New York: St.

Martin’sBagnall R. 2002. Alexandria: library of dreams. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 146:348–62Bal M. 1992. Telling, showing, showing off. Crit. Inq. 18:556–94Barker A. 2003. Archaeological ethics: museums and collections. See Zimmerman 2003, pp. 71–84Barker A. 2004. Stewardship, collections integrity and long-term research value. In Our Collective Responsibility:

The Ethics and Practice of Archaeological Collections Stewardship, ed. ST Childs, pp. 25–42. Washington, DC:Soc. Am. Archaeol.

Bawaya M. 2007. Archaeology: curation in crisis. Science 317:1025–26Bennett T. 1995. The Birth of the Museum. New York: RoutledgeBennett T, Bulbeck C, Finnane M. 1991. Accessing the Past. Brisbane: Inst. Cult. Policy Stud.Bernstein B. 1992. Collaborative strategies for the preservation of North American Indian culture. J. Am. Inst.

Conserv. 31:23–29Black G. 2005. The Engaging Museum: Developing Museums for Visitor Involvement. London: RoutledgeBoardman J. 2009. Archaeologists, collectors, and museums. See Cuno 2009, pp. 107–24Boas F. 1974 [1905]. The educational functions of anthropology museums. In The Shaping of American

Anthropology, 1883–1911; A Franz Boas Reader, ed. GW Stocking, pp. 297–301. New York: Basic BooksBogdanos M, Patrick W. 2005. Thieves of Baghdad: One Marine’s Passion for Ancient Civilizations and the Journey

to Recover the World’s Greatest Stolen Treasures. New York: BloomsburyBourdieu P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London: Routledge & Kegan PaulBourdieu P, Johnson R. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. New York: Columbia

Univ. PressBrodie N, Renfrew C, Doole J, McDonald Inst. Archaeol. Res., eds. 2001. Trade in Illicit Antiquities: The

Destruction of the World’s Archaeological Heritage. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for ArchaeologicalResearch

Buck RA, Gilmore JA, Am. Assoc. Mus. 2007. Collection Conundrums: Solving Collections Management Mysteries.Washington, DC: American Association of Museums

Butler B. 2007. Return to Alexandria: An Ethnography of Cultural Heritage, Revivalism, and Museum Memory.Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast

Carman J. 2005. Against Cultural Property: Archaeology, Heritage and Ownership. London: DuckworthCassar M. 1995. Environmental Management: Guidelines for Museums and Galleries. London/New York:

Routledge

304 Barker

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Cassman V, Odegaard N, Powell JF. 2007. Human Remains: Guide for Museums and Academic Institutions.Lanham, MD: AltaMira

Clavir M. 2002. Preserving What Is Valued: Museums, Conservation, and First Nations. Vancouver: Univ. B.C.Press

Clifford J. 1997. Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.Press

Colwell-Chanthaphonh C, Ferguson TJ. 2006. Memory pieces and footprints: multivocality and the meaningsof ancient times and ancestral places among the Zuni and Hopi. Am. Anthropol. 108:148–62

Conn S. 2004. History’s Shadow: Native Americans and Historical Consciousness in the Nineteenth Century. Chicago:Univ. Chicago Press

Cotton J, Wood B. 1996. Retrieving prehistories at the Museum of London: a gallery case-study. See McManus1996, pp. 53–71

Crew SR, Sims JE. 1991. Locating authenticity: fragments of a dialogue. See Karp & Lavine 1991, pp. 159–75Crimp D. 1995. On the Museum’s Ruins. Cambridge, MA: MIT PressCrinson M. 2001. Nation-building, collecting and the politics of display. J. Hist. Collect. 13:231–50Cronyn JM, Robinson WS. 1990. The Elements of Archaeological Conservation. London/New York: RoutledgeCuno JB. 2008. Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle over our Ancient Heritage. Princeton,

NJ/Woodstock, UK: Princeton Univ. PressCuno JB. 2009. Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate over Antiquities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton

Univ. PressDana JC. 1920. The New Museum. Woodstock, VT: Elm TreeDavis ME. 2005. How Students Understand the Past: From Theory to Practice. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMiraDavis P. 2000. Museums and the promotion of environmental understanding and heritage conservation. In

Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary Society: Perspectives on Managing and Presenting the Past, ed.FP McManamon, A Hatton, pp. 310–18. London: Routledge

Dean D. 1994. Museum Exhibition: Theory and Practice. London/New York: RoutledgeDierking LD. 2002. The role of context in children’s learning from objects and experiences. See Paris 2002,

pp. 3–18Fahy A. 1995. Collections Management. London/New York: RoutledgeFalk JH, Dierking LD. 2000. Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. Walnut

Creek, CA: AltaMiraFitz Gibbon K. 2005. Who Owns the Past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law. New Brunswick, NJ:

Rutgers Univ. PressFlower WH. 1898. Essays on Museums, and Other Subjects Connected with Natural History. London: MacMillanGell A. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford/New York: ClarendonGerstenblith P. 2004. From Steinhardt to Schultz: the McClain doctrine and the protection of archaeological

sites. See Richman & Forsyth 2004, pp. 100–18Ginsburgh V, Mairesse F. 1997. Defining a museum: suggestions for an alternative approach. Mus. Manag.

Curatorship 16:15–33Goode GB. 1891. The Museums of the Future. Washington, DC: Gov. Print. Off.Greenblatt S. 1991. Resonance and wonder. See Karp & Lavine 1991, pp. 42–56Hall PD. 1992. Inventing the Nonprofit Sector and Other Essays on Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Nonprofit

Organizations. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. PressHamilakis Y. 1999. Stories from exile: fragments from the cultural biography of the Parthenon (or “Elgin”)

marbles. World Archaeol. 31:303–32Handler R, Gable E. 1997. The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg.

Durham, NC: Duke Univ. PressHeizer RF. 1962. The background of Thomsen’s three age system. Technol. Cult. 3:259–66Heller-Roazen D. 2002. Tradition’s destruction: on the Library of Alexandria. October 100:133–53Hendry J. 2005. Reclaiming Culture: Indigenous People and Self-Representation. Houndsmills, UK/New York:

Palgrave MacmillanHitchens C, Browning R, Binns G. 1998. The Elgin Marbles: Should They Be Returned to Greece? London/New

York: Verso


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Hodder I. 1986. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge, UK/NewYork: Cambridge Univ. Press

Holmes WH. 1902. Classification and arrangement of the exhibits of an anthropology museum. Science 16:487–504

Hudson K. 1987. Museums of Influence. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge Univ. PressHudson K. 1998. The museum refuses to stand still. Mus. Int. 50:43–50Hull-Walski D, Flynn GA. 2001. Merging traditional indigenous curation methods with modern museum

standards of care. Mus. Anthropol. 25:31–40Hutt S. 2004. Cultural property law theory: a comparative assessment of contemporary thought. See Richman

& Forsyth 2004, pp. 17–36Isaac G. 2005. Mediating knowledges: Zuni negotiations for a culturally relevant museum. Mus. Anthropol.

28:3–18Iser W. 1980. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. PressJameson JH, ed. 1997. Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths. Walnut Creek, CA: AltamiraJauss HR. 1982. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. PressJeffers CS. 2003. Museum as process. J. Aesthet. Educ. 37:107–19Jones AL. 1993. Exploding canons: the anthropology of museums. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 22:201–20Kaplan FS, ed. 1994. Museums and the Making of “Ourselves”: The Role of Objects in National Identity. London:

Leicester Univ. PressKarp I, Kreamer CM, Lavine S. 1992. Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture. Washington,

DC: Smithson. Inst. PressKarp I, Lavine S, eds. 1991. Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display. Washington, DC:

Smithson. Inst. PressKnell SJ. 1994. Care of Collections. London/New York: RoutledgeKnell SJ. 1999. Museums and the Future of Collecting. Aldershot, UK/Brookfield, VT: AshgateKohl PL. 1998. Nationalism and archaeology: on the constructions of nations and the reconstruction of the

remote past. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 27:223–46Kraayenoord CEv, Paris SG. 2002. Reading objects. See Paris 2002, pp. 215–34Krech S, Hail BA, eds. 1999. Collecting Native America, 1870–1960. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. PressKreps CF. 2003. Liberating Culture: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Museums, Curation, and Heritage Preservation.

London/New York: RoutledgeKuklick H. 1991. Contested monuments: the politics of archaeology in Southern Africa. In Colonial Situations:

Essays in the Contextualization of Ethnographic Knowledge, ed. G Stocking, pp. 135–69. Madison: Univ. Wis.Press

Larson F. 2009. An Infinity of Things: How Sir Henry Wellcome Collected the World. New York: Oxford Univ.Press

Launius RD. 2007. American memory, culture wars, and the challenge of presenting science and technologyin a national museum. Public Hist. 29:13–30

Lawlor M. 2006. Public Native America: Tribal Self-Representations in Casinos, Museums, and Powwows. NewBrunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press

Levy J. 2006. Prehistory, identity, and archaeological representation in Nordic Museums. Am. Anthropol.108:135–47

Linenthal ET, Engelhardt T. 1996. History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for the American Past. NewYork: Metrop. Books/Henry Holt

Lord B, Lord GD. 2002. The Manual of Museum Exhibitions. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMiraLyman RL, O’Brien MJ, Dunnell RC. 1997. The Rise and Fall of Culture History. New York: PlenumMacKenzie R, Stone P. 1990. Introduction: the concept of the excluded past. In The Excluded Past: Archaeology

in Education, ed. PG Stone, R MacKenzie, pp. 1–11. London: Unwin HymanMalaro MC. 1998. A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections. Washington, DC/London: Smithson. Inst.

PressMarquardt WH, Montet-White A, Scholz SC. 1982. Resolving the crisis in archaelogical records curation.

Am. Antiq. 47:409–18

306 Barker

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


May E, Jones M. 2006. Conservation Science: Heritage Materials. Cambridge, UK: R. Soc. Chem.McKeown TC, Murphy A, Schansberg J. 1998. Ethical and legal issues: complying with NAGPRA. In The

New Museum Registration Methods, ed. RA Buck, JA Gilmore, pp. 311–20. Washington, DC: AmericanAssociation of Museums

McLaughlin RH. 2004. NAGPRA, dialogue, and the politics of historical authority. See Richman & Forsyth2004, pp. 185–201

McLean K. 1999. Museum exhibitions and the dynamics of dialogue. Daedalus 128:83–107McManus PM. 1996. Archaeological Displays and the Public: Museology and Interpretation. London: Inst. Archaeol.,

Univ. Coll. LondonMcMullen A. 2009. Reinventing George Heye: nationalizing the Museum of the American Indian and its

collections. See Sleeper-Smith 2009, pp. 65–105Merriman N. 1989. Museum visiting as a cultural phenomenon. In The New Museology, ed. P Vergo, pp. 149–71.

London: ReaktionMessenger PM, ed. 1989. The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property. Albuquerque: Univ. N. M. PressMORI. 2001. Attitudes Towards the Heritage: Research Study Conducted for English Heritage. London: English

HeritageOgden S. 2004. Caring for American Indian Objects: A Practical and Cultural Guide. St. Paul: Minn. Hist. Soc.

PressOwen D. 2005. An archaeological dilemma. Science 309:1816Owen J. 1999. Who is steering the ship? Museums and archaeological fieldwork. See Knell 1999, pp. 132–40Paris SG, ed. 2002. Perspectives on Object-Centered Learning in Museums. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumParis SG, Hapgood SE. 2002. Children learning with objects in informal learning environments. See Paris

2002, pp. 37–54Pearce SM. 1990. Archaeological Curatorship. Leicester, UK/New York: Leicester Univ. PressPearce SM. 1992. Museums, Objects and Collections: A Cultural Study. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. PressPearce SM. 1994. Interpreting Objects and Collections. London/New York: RoutledgePearce SM. 1995. On Collecting: An Investigation into Collecting in the European Tradition. London/New York:

RoutledgePearce SM. 1997. Archaeology as collection. In Representing Archaeology in Museums, ed. GT Denford. Soc.

Mus. Archaeol. 22:6–12Peers LL. 2007. Playing Ourselves: Interpreting Native Histories at Historic Reconstructions. Lanham, MD: Al-

taMiraPodany TC, Maish SL. 1993. Can the complex be made simple? Informing the public about conservation

through museum displays. J. Am. Inst. Conserv. 32:101–8Porter G. 1996. Seeing through solidity: a feminist perspective on museums. In Theorizing Museums: Repre-

senting Identity and Diversity in a Changing World, ed. S Macdonald, G Fyfe, pp. 105–126. Oxford, UK:Blackwell

Ramos M, Duganne D. 2000. Exploring Public Perceptions and Attitudes About Archaeology. Washington, DC:Soc. Am. Archaeol.

Renfrew C. 2006. Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership: The Ethical Crisis in Archaeology. London: DuckworthRichman JR, Forsyth M, eds. 2004. Legal Perspectives on Cultural Resources. Walnut Creek, CA: AltamiraRigg V. 1994. Curators of the colonial idea: the museum and the exhibition as agents of bourgeois ideology

in nineteenth-century New South Wales. Public Hist. Rev. 3:188–203Roschelle J. 1995. Learning in interactive environments: prior knowledge and new experience. In Public

Institutions for Personal Learning, ed. JH Falk, LD Dierking, pp. 37–51. Washington, DC: AmericanAssociation of Museums

Rosenzweig R, Thelen DP. 1998. The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life. New York:Columbia Univ. Press

Rowan Y, Baram U, eds. 2004. Marketing Heritage: Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past. Walnut Creek,CA: Altamira

Ruthven AG. 1931. A Naturalist in a University Museum. Ann Arbor, MI: Privately printedSease C. 1994. A Conservation Manual for the Field Archaeologist. Los Angeles: Inst. Archaeol., Univ. Calif.


Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.


Shanks M, Tilley CY. 1992. Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. London/New York: RoutledgeSherman DJ. 1994. Quatremere/Benjamin/Marx: art museums, aura and commodity fetishism. In Museum

Culture: Histories, Discourses, Spectacles, ed. DJ Sherman, I Rogoff, pp. 123–43. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn.Press

Simmons JE. 2006. Things Great and Small: Collections Management Policies. Washington, DC: American Asso-ciation of Museums

Simpson MG. 2007. Charting the boundaries: indigenous models and parallel practices in the development ofthe post-museum. In Museum Revolutions: How Museums Change and are Changed, ed. S Knell, S MacLeod,S Watson, pp. 235–49. London: Routledge

Sleeper-Smith S. 2009. Contesting Knowledge: Museums and Indigenous Perspectives. Lincoln: Univ. Neb. PressSmith HI. 1912. The educational work of a great museum. Science 36:659–64St. Clair W. 1998. Lord Elgin and the Marbles. Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. PressStone P, Molyneaux BL, eds. 1994. The Presented Past: Heritage Museums and Education. London: RoutledgeSullivan LP, Childs ST. 2003. Curating Archaeological Collections: From the Field to the Repository. Walnut Creek:

AltamiraSwain H. 2007. An Introduction to Museum Archaeology. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. PressThompson RH. 1999. The crisis in archaeological collections management. CRM 23:4–6Trimble MK, Marino EA. 2003. Archaeological curation: an ethical imperative for the twenty-first century.

See Zimmerman 2003, pp. 99–114Trope JF, Echo-Hawk WR. 2000. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: background

and legislative history. In Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains?, ed. DA Mihesuah,pp. 123–68. Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press

Vergo P. 1994. The rhetoric of display. In Towards the Future of the Museum: New European Perspectives, ed. RMills, L Zavala, pp. 149–59. London: Routledge

Vogel S. 1991. Always true to the object, in our fashion. See Karp & Lavine 1991, pp. 191–204Watson P, Todeschini C. 2006. The Medici Conspiracy: The Illicit Journey of Looted Antiquities, from Italy’s Tomb

Raiders to the World’s Greatest Museums. New York: Public Aff.Watt JCY. 2009. Antiquities and the importance—and limitations—of archaeological contexts. See Cuno

2009, pp. 89–106Waxman S. 2008. Loot: The Battle over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World. New York: Times BooksWeil SE. 1990. Rethinking the Museum and other Meditations. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. PressWeil SE. 1995. A Cabinet of Curiosities: Inquiries into Museums and their Prospects. Washington, DC: Smithson.

Inst. PressWertsch JV. 2002. Epistemological issues about objects. See Paris 2002, pp. 0.113–18Whitehead C. 2009. Museums and the Construction of Disciplines: Art and Archaeology in Nineteenth-Century

Britain. London: DuckworthWilley GR, Sabloff JA. 1980. A History of American Archaeology. San Francisco: FreemanWineburg SS. 2001. Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past.

Philadelphia: Temple Univ. PressWitcomb A. 1997. One the side of the object: an alternative approach to debates about ideas, objects and

museums. Mus. Manag. Curatorship 16:383–99Wood B. 1997. Does size matter? Effective presentation of archaeology in small museums. In Representing

Archaeology in Museums, ed. GT Denford. Soc. Mus. Archaeol. 22:6–12Wood B, Cotton J. 1999. The representation of prehistory in museums. In Making Early Histories in Museums,

ed. N Merriman, pp. 28–43. Leicester, UK/New York: Leicester Univ. PressYasaitis KE. 2005. National ownership laws as cultural property protection policy: the emerging trend in

United States v. Schultz. Int. J. Cult. Prop. 12:95–113Yeide NH, Walsh A, Akinsha K, Am. Assoc. Mus. 2001. The AAM Guide to Provenance Research. Washington,

DC: American Association of MuseumsZimmerman LJ, Vitelli KD, Hollowell JJ, eds. 2003. Ethical Issues in Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira

308 Barker

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

AR424-FM ARI 12 August 2010 19:29

Annual Review ofAnthropology

Volume 39, 2010Contents

Prefatory Chapter

A Life of Research in Biological AnthropologyGeoffrey A. Harrison � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Archaeology

Preindustrial Markets and Marketing: Archaeological PerspectivesGary M. Feinman and Christopher P. Garraty � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 167

Exhibiting Archaeology: Archaeology and MuseumsAlex W. Barker � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 293

Defining Behavioral Modernity in the Context of Neandertal andAnatomically Modern Human PopulationsApril Nowell � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 437

The Southwest School of Landscape ArchaeologySeverin Fowles � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 453

Archaeology of the Eurasian Steppes and MongoliaBryan Hanks � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 469

Biological Anthropology

Miocene Hominids and the Origins of the African Apes and HumansDavid R. Begun � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �67

Consanguineous Marriage and Human EvolutionA.H. Bittles and M.L. Black � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 193

Cooperative Breeding and its Significance to the Demographic Successof HumansKaren L. Kramer � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 417

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

Enactments of ExpertiseE. Summerson Carr � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �17

vii

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

AR424-FM ARI 12 August 2010 19:29

The Semiotics of BrandPaul Manning � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �33

The Commodification of LanguageMonica Heller � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 101

Sensory ImpairmentElizabeth Keating and R. Neill Hadder � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 115

The Audacity of Affect: Gender, Race, and History in LinguisticAccounts of Legitimacy and BelongingBonnie McElhinny � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 309

Soundscapes: Toward a Sounded AnthropologyDavid W. Samuels, Louise Meintjes, Ana Maria Ochoa, and Thomas Porcello � � � � � � � � � � 329

Ethnographic Approaches to Digital MediaE. Gabriella Coleman � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 487

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Peopling of the Pacific: A Holistic Anthropological PerspectivePatrick V. Kirch � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 131

Anthropologies of the United StatesJessica R. Cattelino � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 275

Sociocultural Anthropology

The Reorganization of the Sensory WorldThomas Porcello, Louise Meintjes, Ana Maria Ochoa, and David W. Samuels � � � � � � � � � � � �51

The Anthropology of SecularismFenella Cannell � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �85

Anthropological Perspectives on Structural Adjustment and PublicHealthJames Pfeiffer and Rachel Chapman � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 149

Food and the SensesDavid E. Sutton � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 209

The Anthropology of Credit and DebtGustav Peebles � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 225

Sense and the Senses: Anthropology and the Study of AutismOlga Solomon � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 241

Gender, Militarism, and Peace-Building: Projects of the PostconflictMomentMary H. Moran � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 261

viii Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

AR424-FM ARI 12 August 2010 19:29

Property and Persons: New Forms and Contestsin the Era of NeoliberalismEric Hirsch � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 347

Education, Religion, and Anthropology in AfricaAmy Stambach � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 361

The Anthropology of Genetically Modified CropsGlenn Davis Stone � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 381

Water Sustainability: Anthropological Approaches and ProspectsBen Orlove and Steven C. Caton � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 401

Theme I: Modalities of Capitalism

The Semiotics of BrandPaul Manning � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �33

The Commodification of LanguageMonica Heller � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 101

Anthropological Perspectives on Structural Adjustmentand Public HealthJames Pfeiffer and Rachel Chapman � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 149

Preindustrial Markets and Marketing: Archaeological PerspectivesGary M. Feinman and Christopher P. Garraty � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 167

The Anthropology of Credit and DebtGustav Peebles � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 225

Property and Persons: New Forms and Contests inthe Era of NeoliberalismEric Hirsch � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 347

The Anthropology of Genetically Modified CropsGlenn Davis Stone � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 381

Theme II: The Anthropology of the Senses

The Reorganization of the Sensory WorldThomas Porcello, Louise Meintjes, Ana Maria Ochoa and David W. Samuels � � � � � � � � � � � �51

Sensory ImpairmentElizabeth Keating and R. Neill Hadder � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 115

Food and the SensesDavid E. Sutton � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 209

Sense and the Senses: Anthropology and the Study of AutismOlga Solomon � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 241

Contents ix

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

AR424-FM ARI 12 August 2010 19:29

Soundscapes: Toward a Sounded AnthropologyDavid W. Samuels, Louise Meintjes, Ana Maria Ochoa, and Thomas Porcello � � � � � � � � � � 329

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 30–39 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 507

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volume 30–39 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 510

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found athttp://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

x Contents

Ann

u. R

ev. A

nthr

opol

. 201

0.39

:293

-308

. Dow

nloa

ded

from

ww

w.a

nnua

lrev

iew

s.or

gby

Sta

nfor

d U

nive

rsity

- M

ain

Cam

pus

- L

ane

Med

ical

Lib

rary

on

09/2

8/12

. For

per

sona

l use

onl

y.

Documents

Exhibiting Archaeology: Archaeology and Museums