Civilizations on Display: The Penn Museum’s Role in Anthropological Publicity

On this week’s excursion, I traveled to the Penn Museum of anthropology on the University of Pennsylvania’s campus.  It was the second time I entered the museum, but the first time I explored many of the exhibits.  I saw them from a modern perspective, but the opinions which the objects were displayed to present may have been similar to when it first opened in 1899. 

The museum began as the second attempted showcase of anthropological artifacts.  The first attempt began during the 1893 Chicago World’s Fair.  Known as the Field Museum, it mainly displayed objects from Native American cultures.  This flaw became the reason for its downfall.  Although, it occupied the Fair’s fine arts building; to locals, this space was culturally significant to the city’s history (Conn 78).    

Established six years later, the Penn Museum inhabited a building of European design.  Modern visitors can still recognize the dominance of European style in the architecture.  This design alludes to the foundational importance of European power and their continued dominance over other nations or ‘cultures’ today (Conn 83).  It sets a president for the displays organized inside as before and after the invention age (Conn 91).  Their organization portrays European superiority but also teaches the public to appreciate earlier cultures (Conn 100).  Many of the objects found in the museum were collected from Europe during the late 19^th century and displayed for the American public (Conn 85).  Each section seems meaningfully placed in a corresponding room.  The "Mummies/Egypt" artifacts are displayed in an enlongated domed room that eerily immitates a sarcophagus.  The room where the mummies reside also alludes to the layout of an Egyptian pyramid's passageways.  Originally, visitors could descend to the first floor where Native American exhibits were or view Mediterranean galleries on the second floor (Conn 89).  Today, a similar “evolutionary hierarchy” is established; although, it is now incorporated with multimedia and interactive exhibits appealing to modern visitors (Conn 90).  The modern changes include Native American or African music playing throughout the respective galleries.  They also provide different ways for visitors to incorporate their opinions.  However, sometimes these modern changes sacrifice the core of the related and interesting artifacts to a side room of a media dominated exhibit (i.e. the Africa wing).  These collections are still organized by region today and present, arguably, the same statements as they did over 100 years ago.  

The museum became the first museum to separate the social from the natural sciences, presenting a “new ethnology” for public knowledge (Conn 86).  One issue can be raised today with this presentation style.  The Penn Museum organized these artifacts in 1899 at a time when immigration into America peaked and cultures clashed.  The exhibits were organized to simplify the inhabitants of each nation or geographical area as unified.  They portrayed this sameness within each region and concurrently, a hierarchy of global power.  It also represented the coming age of global expansionism and informed the American public of the people of these presumably conquerable or manipulatable nations.  It does fulfill its purpose of preserving evidence of past cultures, but the recognized modern public views may clash with the museum’s dated portrayals of these cultures.  Although I enjoy seeing the layout of the museum as would a visitor in 1899, the modern public may receive dated messages from this collection.  For as long as the public continues to view museums as trustworthy information sources, as Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen suggest, then their obligation should be to represent contemporary views.