Seen But Not Heard: What Museums Tell Visitors About Figurines

I have just returned from a wonderful five and a half weeks in the US where I visited approximately ten museums of archaeology and anthropology.

I say ‘approximately’ because the final museum, which I visited three times, the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, is considerably more than ten museums rolled into one! I had thought that it would be the greatest of all the museums I visited and while it takes the cake for the number of objects on display, all the museums I visited, large and small, had many things of value to view, think about and enjoy, not least the manner of their display.

When I left Australia, the purpose of my trip to America was primarily to attend the American Schools of Oriental Research annual meeting in San Diego. As I’ve written previously, this was a pretty big step for me back into archaeology. I’ll be posting about some of the sessions I attended shortly.

Me presenting my poster at ASOR 2014.

Me presenting my poster at ASOR 2014

 

The idea of a tour of great archaeological museums occurred to me as an extension of that initial purpose. Australia has some wonderful museums of archaeology (link to websites) (and I’m even now thinking of taking some time to visit them), but the opportunity of being in the US opened the possibility of viewing some ‘old friends’ – familiar objects of study from my university days. My object was simple, walk slowly round the museum, enjoying the displays, particularly of figurines, take photos, reflect and re-immerse myself in the ancient world.

I chose the following museums and visited them in this order:

  1. Archaeological Museum of the Oriental Institute, Chicago
  2. Kelsey Museum of Archaeology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
  3. Semitic Museum, Harvard University
  4. Peabody Museum, Harvard University
  5. Harvard Art Museums
  6. Museum of Natural History, Smithsonian Institute
  7. Freer Sackler Museums, Smithsonian Institute
  8. Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
  9. Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York

Of course, there are many others I could have chosen, but these were the nine that seemed to, well, come up on my google search, to be honest!

At first, my aims were simple, just to locate, ponder, photograph and basically enjoy the figurines I found on display. I used my camera and notebook to record what I saw, figurines as objects in a display cabinet. I read some of the information panels, but not all. The purpose was just to look at figurines with a view to researching the more interesting looking ones and possibly blog about them.

Some of the visits included personal trips down memory lane (Assyria to Iberia, a wonderful exhibition at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. Here you can find the blog kept by the curators and I’ll soon be posting my own reflections on it.

Assyria to Iberia exhibition poster at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (own photo)

Assyria to Iberia exhibition poster at the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (own photo)

Seeing once again objects from my undergrad days, such as the material from the UR III Tombs on display at the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology was delightful.

Bull-headed lyre from Ur III tombs.

Bull-headed lyre from Ur III tombs. Read more about it here.

There were also exciting first-time meetings (for example, the black figure vase showing women weaving kept at the Met) of objects I knew so well but had never seen. I was thrilled to be there, happy to be surrounded by fascinating archaeological artefacts once more.

Vase depicting women weaving. Read more about it here.

Vase depicting women weaving. Read more about it here.

As I moved down my list of museums, I found myself not only looking at the figurines, but in the manner of their display and the information provided to the visitor. I began to pay more attention to the information provided to the viewer about the figurines, the other objects they were placed with and the section of the museum they were housed in.

Some interesting ideas started to form in my mind. None of these ideas is as yet fully formed even now; I am still reflecting on them and will post in full soon.

Here is an incomplete list of some of these ideas:

  1. Whether archaeological artefacts are pieces of ‘art’ and indeed what is meant by a ‘museum of art’. What’s the difference between a ‘museum of art’ and an ‘art gallery’? What is being said about an archaeological artefact when it is displayed in an institute with ‘art’ in its name? Are figurines works of art anyway?

 

  1. Whether objects without provenance, obtained by museums via a method other than scientific excavation, need to be displayed in some other way than simply as pieces of ‘art’? What message is the public receiving (if any) about the value of archaeological objects by having those without known context on display? What information choices are being made to describe figurines without context in museums?

 

  1. Female figurines are almost without exception interpreted in museum displays as having something to do with ‘fertility’, either as a votive offering, a depiction of a goddess or a worshipper, or a protective or magical device (at the Natural History Museum of the Smithsonian Institute female figurines are housed within a section focussed on the development of human creativity and imagination along with writing and symbolic behaviour).

 

  1. The role of the archaeologist in the design of exhibits, particularly those including female figurines. Do curators study archaeology? What is the value of a museum studies or curatorial course?

 

  1. How can museum displays be more engaging for visitors, especially those involving figurines?

 

Now, I am quite sure that the questions above are hardly original. But I am not a museum professional, just a museum visitor with a special interest in how figurines are displayed and the information offered to other visitors about them.

Regarding figurines, there does appear to be a disconnection between innovative interpretations of figurines being developed by archaeologists and either the knowledge of those ideas by museum professionals or the decisions made by curators or exhibition designers to offer these interpretations to the public. On the other hand, as the fertility cult theory is still so pervasive in Near Eastern archaeology, perhaps curators believe this is the current, unquestioned theory.

I’m wondering about how figurines displayed in museums relate to archaeological theory and practice.

Do you visit museums? Have you ever wondered about the information provided to you about objects or paintings? Have you ever come away from a display thinking ‘but why’?

Leave a comment and tell us of your experiences with figurines (or other objects) in museums!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Archaeological interpretation, ASOR Meeting 2014, Figurine Interpretation, Figurines Displayed, Museums and Exhibitions, Trip to USA, Women and weaving

Museums Have Always Been My Natural Habitat

When I was a little girl, I used to love visiting my Dad’s geology lab at the school where he taught earth sciences. I loved the musty, dustiness of it. I loved pulling open the thin, sliding drawers and exploring the tiny white cardboard specimen boxes filled with pink granite, green serpentine, glassy obsidian and other glistening, silvery, shiny, crystallised occupants. I was powerless against trilobites and ammonites.

My first museum.

Museums encompass the world, just there, waiting for you to explore. The possibilities of museums are endless. For me, there is a delightful anticipation for museums, like the beautifully wrapped gift under the Christmas tree, because the contents are unknown but surely will be good. Museums are as exciting as travelling to an unfamiliar country or a different age where there are new experiences to be had and things to discover. Museums are as inspiring as a poignant poem. They change us, if we let them. They challenge us, if we are open to it.

Museums amuse us, bring us joy, cause us to muse or ponder and they should encourage us to find our own muse or inspiration. Or at least, they should and to do all these things successfully is no small feat, I’m sure.

Most of the museums I visited in America were empty of other visitors. The Harvard Art Museum had a reasonable crowd, including groups of university students, the University of Pennsylvania Museum had a group of primary school children but few adult visitors; even the Freer Sackler Galleries at the Smithsonian were rather empty, though that might have been because I didn’t get there till late in the afternoon. You can imagine my shock, (though I really wasn’t surprised) when I got to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. Hordes of people.

Visitors in the Great Hall of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (own photo).

Visitors in the Great Hall of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York (own photo).

I wondered why.

The university museums are primarily used by students of archaeology, and professional researchers, I imagine. The Semitic (Harvard) and Kelsey museums (University of Michigan) have smaller than expected but nonetheless fascinating and important collections (I’m referring to the number of displayed objects and physical size of the museums), while the Oriental Institute (University of Chicago) and University of Pennsylvania Museums are somewhat larger but in all cases, one would have to deliberately seek these museums out, people like me with an interest in archaeology.

There appear to be, on the other hand, perhaps two major factors which might explain high visitor numbers at the Met and the Smithsonian Museums: they have massive collections of objects and they are ‘on the tourist map’. In other words, their existence as famous destinations attract visitors; they are one of many ‘touristy’ sights of New York and Washington respectively.

Other than the school children visiting the University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthro (Get name right), given their relative obscurity or fairly limited interest to the general public, the visitors at the university museums could be identified as genuine visitors. By that I mean those people who have deliberately chosen to visit those museums because of their interest in the archaeology of the ancient Near East.

The Met and the Smithsonian, on the other hand, seem to attract both genuine museum-goers and those who visit because it is on their tour itinerary. My evidence for these two groups of visitors is based entirely on my observation of their behaviour in those museums.

Visitor photographing Mona Lisa (s

Visitor photographing Mona Lisa (source: Wikimedia Commons/ProtoPlasmakid)

‘Tourist’ visitors appear to move quickly through the galleries, rush up to display cabinets to photograph objects (often with their phones) and then immediate turn away or, alternatively, wander slowly and without any obvious interest in the exhibits at all. Perhaps they are overwhelmed and not sure where to begin. Sometimes they wander with mobile phones in hand, their eyes locked to the flickering screens rather than focussed on the wonders all around them. Neither group seemed either amused by, nor inspired to muse upon, the contents of the display cabinets.

There is one other group that I saw at both the ‘big’ museums and the university museums; young people with sketch pads who were seated before cabinets or exhibits, engaged in drawing the objects before them. I assume that they were either enrolled students of fine art, or perhaps simply indulging in their own creative pursuits. They were, indeed, finding their muse.

In contrast to the ‘tourist’ visitors at the Met and Smithsonian, the visitors at the University Museums tended to be individuals visiting alone, or in very small groups (two or three). I observed pairs of students at both the Semitic and Kelsey, one seemingly a student of archaeology ‘guiding’ the other around the displays. At the Kelsey I also observed the mother of two young girls enthusiastically engaging her daughters through questions about and exclamations over the displays. All in all, the visitors at the university museums of archaeology appeared to show an intention to engage and learn from the objects on display. The displays caused them to stop and muse. Whether that was due to the nature of the display or the intention of the visitor, is a topic for another post!

Without doubt such visitors also tread the halls of the Met and various Smithsonian museums, but the tourists I encountered suggested to me that there is a large number of visitors who are not engaged with the displays in the same intentional way I observed in visitors at the university museums. It seems that university museums could work on increasing the number of visitors, while the ‘big’ museums could work on engaging visitors!

In the next few posts I shall muse on why people visit museums and what they do when they get there. I shall post a few ideas on how museums might better engage their visitors and perhaps even some thoughts on why they may never be able to engage some visitors.

Please bear in mind that I am not a museum professional, I have not studied the ‘theory’ of museums.

I am just a grown-up little girl who spent hours in her Daddy’s geology lab and turned into a lover of museums.

Leave a Comment

Filed under Museums and Exhibitions, Trip to USA

Louisiana Dolls: The Dilemma of Context

I’ve written elsewhere that context is crucial for a satisfactory interpretation of the use of human images. I illustrated this by showing how plastic dolls with fused legs wearing flounced skirts can be used as bed decoration, toilet roll covers and also to provide character to special occasion cakes.  You can read that post here.

Simply looking at the plastic doll, one would not know how it was used and through a brief internet search of pictures of such dolls today, it is apparent that they have multiple potential uses, though one assumes that in reality an individual doll would be used for one purpose (for example, it seems improbable that a plastic doll used to decorate a toilet roll sitting on top of the cistern would then be baked atop a birthday cake) though it is, of course, possible for an individual image to be used for the same purpose in different contexts.

I have been travelling in Louisiana for a few days and in that short time I have acquired two cloth dolls. Here they are:

 

Voodoo doll for protection while travelling.

DSCN1501

Can you guess what they were used for?

The one on the top (sorry, having trouble moving pictures right now) is made of foam-stuffed cotton, with yarn for hair and buttons for eyes. The one on the bottom is made of cotton strips twisted and tied together. There are no facial features. Arms are also made of cotton twisted or braided together so that they are more solid than the single strips. The doll has no lower body or legs. Flowing strips of cotton give the impression that it is wearing a dress.

Neither doll gives any indication of sex, though the flowing cotton strips and the bow tied on the back suggest a feminine character.

From the morphology of the dolls, can you detect how either might have been used?

What about the ‘scar’ on the torso and sewn up mouth of the doll on the left? Would you consider that ‘normal’ for a young child’s doll? Perhaps…

On to context, then. Does it help to know that I bought the doll on the left in New Orleans, Louisiana? Does the location give a hint?

Yes, that’s right, it’s a voodoo doll! I couldn’t help it; I had to have it! The label told me it was for protection while travelling.

Who made the voodoo doll? I’m assuming it’s factory made, though if I had the foresight to ask, the shop owner might have told me it was hand made while spells were chanted over it. Whether or not it was made by someone who follows voodoo I simply don’t know. We could say the same for the many figurines from various ancient Near Eastern sites that are claimed for evidence of a fertility cult, though there are texts which describe the making of apotropaic figurines such as the apkallu from Assyria.

In any case, this particular doll is not being used by it’s maker; after sitting in the shop for an unknown length of time it was purchased by me. I am not a follower of voodoo and purchased it because I am interested in the use of images and because it’s quirky and appealed to me as a souvenir of my time in New Orleans. It would be a mistake for a future archaeologist to assume that because it was found in my house that I am a practitioner of voodoo or believe in the power of this doll to protect me on my journey.

Turning to the second doll, what do you think? Another voodoo doll?

While it is strikingly similar to other styles of voodoo dolls I saw in that shop (but was not permitted to photograph) I bought it in the gift shop at Vermillionville, a recreated historical village located in Lafayette and comprising cajun style homes dating from 1780 to 1900. They are genuine buildings, gathered together from different parishes and contain pieces of authentic as well as replica tools and furniture. It’s well done and very pleasant to wander through. I noted the cotton cloth doll on a chest of drawers in one of the larger and later homes and when I saw it in the gift shop, just had to have one!

Child's bedroom in a Cajun home, Vermillionville.

Child’s bedroom in a Cajun home, Vermillionville.

It’s not a voodoo doll. It is a child’s doll, known as ‘church dolls’ and given to children to keep them quiet during sermons. Being made of cloth, they would not make a noise if dropped on the wooden floor of the church during services.

Interesting, don’t you think? Two little cloth humans, both having a use related to religious practice, though in entirely different ways. The first, the voodoo doll, is integral to the practice of the faith; the second was used during services, but had nothing to do with the practice of the faith.

How would an archaeologist go about interpreting the church doll, especially if it were located on a chest of drawers in a child’s bedroom? Perhaps it would simply be identified as a plaything. If were found in a church, however, how would the archaeologist know that it had a mundane use and meaning in that context?

The doll is still a toy, no matter the context in which it is found. If sufficient church dolls were found in children’s bedrooms one might plausibly conclude that they were used by children and by extension as toys, while if they were also found in churches, one might suggest that children were permitted to use them in sacred contexts also. If they were found in churches but not in children’s bedrooms, then a different interpretation might be reached.

Where does that leave the interpretation of ancient figurines found on archaeological sites? Is context as helpful as I first proposed? I still believe so, but the more I think about how people use human images today, the more I suspect that they might have been used in similarly complex ways in ancient times. Archaeologists need to think carefully through the dilemmas that both form and context put before us.

Why not read through my post on the figurines I have in my house. Find some in your house, take a snap and tell me about it! Or, post a picture of a figurine and let us guess how and where you use it!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Context, Figurine Interpretation, Figurines and religion, Trip to USA

ASOR 2014 Poster

Me presenting my poster at ASOR 2014.

Me presenting my poster at ASOR 2014. As soon as I’ve worked out how to insert a ppt slide into my blog I’ll upload it! Bear with me…!

Leave a Comment

Filed under Archaeological interpretation, ASOR Meeting 2014, Figurine Interpretation, Neo-Assyrian Army, Tell Ahmar, Tell Ahmar Figurines, Textile workers, Women and weaving

Slavery at Hanni’s Workshop

Kar Shalmaneser was an important provincial capital in the network that was the Neo-Assyrian Empire and it became a bustling commercial centre; perhaps providing goods to Assur, as well as participating in trade with other regions. Not much is known about the identity of the merchants but it is possible that at least some of the trade was in private hands.

Some of the wealthier families of Assur in the Neo-Assyrian period followed the palace in maintaining their own industrial workshops. Dr Nicholas Postgate suggests that “It would not be an innovation: in Old and Middle Assyrian Assur a large household might employ a number of weavers – probably mostly female slaves – producing their own cloth for commercial purposes, and there is no obvious reason why this should not have continued into the first millennium as well”.

Is it possible that the production of textiles in Hanni’s workshop represents a commercial enterprise?

In the baked clay tablets found at Tell Ahmar, Hanni does seem to be a person with significant wealth, is engaged with business dealings and in contact with the Assyrian administration. Three of the documents indicate that he acts as a creditor, lending silver with interest. He has a number of workers at his disposal, slaves both male and female which he purchased, and the texts which describe a list of rations may refer to these people.

Two of the texts from Til Barsib are standard Neo-Assyrian contracts referring to the sale of slaves (geme). In one a woman is transferred to Hanni’s household; another describes the purchase of a man or group of persons. In tablet 8 the slave-girl is mentioned by name, Nannaya. Another text records a register of goods rationed to the workers, who presumably lived within the complex, and fed and clothed themselves from these rations. A hearth was found in Room XI, Hanni’s workshop, while large quantities of cooking and simple wares were recovered from this area. It seems probable that the status of the textile workers had limited freedom and property of their own. Instead, they lived and worked in the workshop.

Slave hands Slaves at Hanni's workshop Til Barsib

No details are known from the texts of the identity or ethnicity of the workers at Hanni’s establishment. They may be victims of war (or the descendants of such). They may have been born into slavery and purchased by Hanni from other slave holders. Or they may have been sold into slavery by their families. Unfortunately there is no explicit information about their origin.

The figurine makers must have had access to a source of clay. As clay is the predominant fabric for loom weights, it is clear that the textile workers, who, it must be assumed, produced their own unbaked clay loom weights, were able to use the clay sources for the figurines. Likewise, the plainer cooking-pot wares found in concentrated quantities in Rooms I and II of Hanni’s house and in those rooms of Hanni’s workshop where textile manufacture took place, were probably made by slave workers who lived and operated in these parts of Hanni’s establishment. The numerous ovens found in the main courtyard and within many rooms may have been utilised for firing of both the ceramics and the figurines, as well as in the processing of foods.

slaves at Til Barsip Hanni's slaves textile workshop

Although the texts found at Tell Ahmar do not explicitly state that the women bought and owned by Hanni were engaged in weaving, it is very probable that the textiles produced in buildings associated with him were the product of female labour. Female slaves were often assigned this task. It is possible, though speculative, that the elite ladies of Hanni’s household (if any were present) were responsible for the production of certain household textiles particularly those for interior decoration or personal use. It is very plausible that the female slaves in the workshop were used in the textile manufacturing process, perhaps on an industrial rather than domestic scale.

So, if my conclusions are right, that the female, enslaved textile workers were making the figurines, why would they?

What do you think?

Postgate, N. 1987. “Employer, employee and employment in the Neo-Assyrian Empire”, in MA Powell (ed) Labor in the Ancient Near East, New Haven: American Oriental Society Series 68, pp.257-270.

 

Leave a Comment

Filed under Slavery, Textile workers, Til Barsib, Trade and merchants, Women and weaving