When I entered The Plains Indians: Artists of Earth and Sky at the Metropolitan Museum this March, I was prepared to be dissatisfied. What I found instead was an exhibit too complex to have such a black and white reaction to. While I left the exhibit having greatly enjoyed it, I felt that there were subtle mistakes made and opportunities missed that may be symptomatic of larger issues in play, and would like to take this space to examine those.

The first example I would like to focus on is that of a an object in the second case the visitor encounters: an “ancient” buffalo effigy dating from 1600-1800 CE. Would anyone think to call a painting by Dutch artist Rembrandt (1606-1669) “ancient”? The idea seems laughable, yet, here in front of me was a piece of the same vintage being ascribed that loaded term.

A quick Google search of “ancient” turns up this definition: “belonging to the very distant past and no longer in existence. Synonyms: of long ago, early, prehistoric, primeval, primordial, primitive” (emphasis added).  This description is problematic not only because it is inaccurate, but mainly because it reinforces dangerous language and stereotypes used against Native Americans, and Native people everywhere, to this day. Such language perpetuates harmful representations and tropes, and its use in this environment allows visitors to pass through the exhibit without having their previous perceptions challenged.

Another possible  teaching moment is passed up. Beginning the section “Death of the Buffalo 1860-80” is a block of quotes from four of the exhibit’s most prevalent voices: Emma I. Hansen, Pawnee scholar, Arthur Amiotte, Oglala Lakota artist and scholar, Gaylord Torrence, curator of the exhibit, and Colin G. Calloway, scholar. What seemed to be an opportune moment to discuss the systematic slaughter of buffalo by the U.S. government and army (see article by Adrian Jawort) was passed without very explicit mention. The following quote comes closest to such a discussion:

“The horse-and-buffalo culture that Plains Indian peoples built in the 1700s and 1800s collapsed under assault from epidemic diseases, American soldiers, government agents, buffalo hunters, railroads, and settlers.”

– Colin G. Calloway, Scholar

In the same space it would have been possible to include explicit mention to the intentionality of buffalo extermination and its role in the genocide of the Plains Indians. This politicization, it seems, was decided against.

The reviews of The Plains Indians have been mostly positive. It is for this reason that I have focused on negative aspects, in order to provide a more critical take. The exhibit is not without virtues. The descriptions, for the most part, go a good job of weaving together ethnographic details with artistic analysis, crediting and providing a picture of the artist where possible. The final section of the exhibit, “Reservations and Urban Life 1910-65,” showcases works by contemporary Native artists whose work has often been left out of museums, art and anthropology alike. However, at a time when the roles of museums and their relationship to Native peoples are changing, I believe it is important to analyze even the most acclaimed exhibits with a critical eye.

References and Further Reading, Listening, and Viewing:

“Genocide by Other Means: U.S. Army Slaughtered Buffalo in Plains Indians Wars,” by Adrian Jawort, Indian Country Today

“Full Circle: Plains Indians Exhibit Takes Top Billing at Metropolitan Museum of Art,” by Theresa Braine, Indian Country Today

“Review: ‘The Plains Indians,’ America’s Early Artists, at the Met,” by Holland Cotter, New York Times

Exhibition Audio Guide

Catalogue of Exhibition Objects

Image Source:

Buffalo Effigy

The exhibition of Native Americans at the World’s Columbian Exposition in 1893 was not unique. The exhibitions, designed by some of the leading anthropologists of the day, would not have been far from home in any natural history or ethnographic museum. In fact, many of the components that made up the Native American exhibits ended up the Chicago Field Museum, and eventually other institutions through exchanges.

In designing the Native American villages of the Exposition, anthropologists focused on presenting visitors with an authentic experience. To them, this meant recreating pre-Columbian Native cultures. The result of this approach was the portrayal of Native American people and cultures as exotic, primitive, and disappearing, in keeping with predominant theories of societal evolution at the time. The same sentiments were rampant in museums, perhaps unsurprisingly since many of the anthropologists who worked on the Exposition had successful careers in that field.

Given the close relationship between the Exposition and museums, it should not be surprising that many of the pieces used in the Native American villages ended up in their collections. It is unclear, however, whether the Native communities who made props and from whom materials were collected were aware that their property was destined not to be returned.

In 1892, seventeen Haida artists (see below) were commissioned to create a replica of Skidegate village in British Columbia as it looked in 1864. The model consisted of 27 houses (all but three of which had frontal poles), two grave houses, and 17 free-standing poles. After the Exposition, the model was placed in the Field Museum of Natural History, where 10 of the house models and 22 of the poles have remained. Nineteen houses and 21 poles were exchanged or given away to other institutions, and of those 13 houses and 13 poles are unaccounted for.

In 2001, the Haida people of Skidegate, B.C. and the Haida Gwaii Museum at Qay’llnagaay collaborated with the Burke Museum (Seattle, WA) and the Field Museum to plan an exhibit of the collection at the Qay’llnagaay Heritage Centre and other venues. Despite the setting that they were created for, the model village was capable of being repurposed to tell a self-representational narrative.

The repatriation movement seeks to return not only objects, but also knowledge and representation. When paired with a Native perspective, even objects created for such an imperial purpose as the Columbian Exposition can be used to tell a decolonized narrative.

Many pieces from the Columbian Exposition remain in the Field Museum and similar institutions to this day. Repatriation of these objects would allow for them to be used by the communities by which they were made to tell a version of history that others often choose to ignore, perpetuating the violence of that era. Such action would be a step toward removing the veil of secrecy placed over the unethical history of the treatment of Native Americans by museums and similar institutions that continues to the present.

The  Haida artists: Adam Brown, Peter Brown, John Cross, George Dickson, William Dickson, Daniel Ellguwuus (‘Iljuwaas), Phillip Jackson, Joshua (Kinna-jesser), Moses McKay, Phillip Pearson, John Robson (Gyaawhllns), Amos Russ, David Shakespeare (Skilduunaas), Peter Smith, Tom Stevens (Tl’aajaang quuna), George L. Young, and Zacherias Nicholas.

Kwakwaka’wakw image source and suggested reading #1: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_43/September_1893/Anthropology_at_the_World’s_Fair

Suggested Reading #2 (discusses Haida repatriation efforts): http://www.repatriation.ca/index.html

Skidegate Village image source: http://www.burkemuseum.org/static/bhc/haida_models/exhibits/

Brooklyn Museum model image source: http://www.brooklynmuseum.org/opencollection/objects/129925/Model_of_House_of_Contentment