Mike's post yesterday about a conference at which the title of this post will be discussed leads me to show you these pictures. They're all from our Resolved exhibit on identifying human remains. I'll show more pictures of the exhibit in future posts, but try to imagine the gaps if these body parts, out of squeamishness or political correctness, were no longer in our collection. Imagine our anatomical collections manager trying to explain, in words alone, how a female and male pelvis are different. Or what the mandible of a child of a particular age looks like (remember, no objects for illustration). Or the differences among the skulls of Europeans, Asians, and Africans. I'm still kind of new to the museum game as an employee, but as a long-time museum-goer, I think there's not a lot of place for this kind of question from museum professionals.
6 comments:
Hear, hear!
This is an interesting question. And one which has some relevance in my country, Australia.
In the 1800s and up to the mid-1900s remains and skeletons of Aboriginal Australians were collected for study. Many were held in a variety of Australian museums and institutions and many were sent overseas to the United Kingdom and the United State of America.
I used to think that education and the advancement of science was the overriding priority, but now I'm not so sure. Australia's indigenous organisations now request repatriation of remains to Australia to receive traditional cultural treatment, where possible in the comunity from whence the remains came. It's a sensitive issue, and one where feelings and emotions are at stake.
Now I think, let science wait. Let healing begin. But many do not agree with that.
The way the question was phrased is what bothers medical museum staff most, I think. Australia has its medical museums too, and they appear to be successful as teaching institutions for doctors.
The same thing happened in the US as anthropology became a discipline, Mr. Meade, and repatriation is going on here as well. Unfortunately, it's politicized on both sides here. The medical museum has repatriated remains and cultural artifacts, and things have gone quite well, I think. However, new discoveries such as Kennewick man - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennewick_Man - are problematic. What this article does not say is that the Corps of Engineers took it upon itself to bury the discovery site under tons of fill to 'resolve' the problem of finding more remains.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comment.
I also appreciate your comment. What I should have said more eloquently is that today we in the museum community are a far cry from the "freak shows" of the past. By freak shows I don't just mean the circus-like exhibitionism of medical oddities, but also the display of native peoples as a sort of alien life form. That I don't approve of and wouldn't want my ancestors treated that way. I can certainly understand both sides of this sensitive topic.
Thanks for your responses. AS we can see, this is a matter which receives a great deal of thought.
The teaching of anatomy in Australia's medical schools, and the use of their medical and anatomical museums has been debated here, not as a matter of cultural sensitivity as such (because there is vast agreement on the repat=riation of indigenous remains to their community), but as a question as to the adequacy of medical training here, full stop.
For example this newspaper item which quesitons basic anatomical training for medical students:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,19039542-421,00.html
And this TV story about a passionate teacher of anatomy, Dr. Dzung Vu who laments the parlous state where few medical students are exposed to the diversity inside the human body before graduation:
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/specials/dzungsanatomy/default.htm
Transcript here:
http://www.abc.net.au/austory/content/2006/s1661864.htm
"DR PHILLIP CHALMERS, FRIEND: One of Dzung's hobbyhorses was this lack of anatomical training for the undergraduates. One way that he's adjusted to that is to form a series of teaching sessions for postgraduate doctors.
DR DZUNG VU: But by the time they come to my class at 5:30, they are completely exhausted. You can imagine that, working all day in Casualty, but they still come because they see that it is useful for them and it's justifiable. They fall asleep in your class, even. I don't see that as an offence, but I see that as a failure on my part to motivate them.
DR MICHAEL SOLOMON, FORMER STUDENT: As a surgeon, I owe Dzung an enormous amount of gratitude... because Dzung provided me with the confidence of knowing where I was on the operating table. And that's something that you carry for the rest of your life. For all those students who have gone through his teachings, he's a legend, and every now and again you'd say, "OK, well, what would Dzung do in this situation?" "
Very interesting. I met a doctor from one of the Australian medical museums a couple of years ago - unfortunately I'm at home so I can't look him up on my work computer (and at work, I can't post to this) - who was very compelling when he spoke about the use of anatomical specimens in teaching medicine.
In the US, the debate over human remains has flared up most frequently over plastination and the exhibits by Dr. Von Hagens and others copying him. I saw one of Von Hagen's exhibits in London, and was very impressed with the respectful curiosity of the crowds. A similar attitude was displayed in a Washington suburb where I saw one of the ... follower ... exhibits. Anatomy continues to hold a fascination for people.
Post a Comment