From the Geil Archive (32)—The Sarawak Museum

Click here for the "From the Geil Archive" Resource Center
To learn more about William Edgar Geil, click here for the Accidental Ethnographer Resource Center
A year ago on Round and Square (24 October 2012)—Displays of Authenticity—Bayonets and Buggy Whips

Two years ago on Round and Square (24 October 2011)—Styling Culture—Exaggerated Language

[a] Sarawak Museum RF

Click here for other posts written by Guest Contributor Sarah Conn:

1-About Me                                    2-Killed By Lightning                        3-Stamps of Approval  
4-Who Was Constance Geil?        5-Voting Rights                                 6- Confusion in Japan
7-The Sarawak Museum

Sarah Conn, today’s Guest Contributor on Round and Square, is a self-proclaimed “gal from rural Wisconsin” with a B.A. in Japanese Language and Culture and a double-minor in Museum Studies and Anthropology. With a mild obsession for Japanese textiles and working knowledge of the order Cetacea and the family Pinnipedia, she is currently working with four other Beloit College graduates to digitize, process, and research the William Edgar Geil Collection at the Doylestown Historical Society in Pennsylvania. She and Geil do not always see eye-to-eye on certain subjects, but both share a love of photography, writing about food, and USING ALL CAPITALS WHEN THEY ARE EXCITED.

 ***  ***

Please note that all items marked "DHS" are property of the Doylestown Historical Society, and used with DHS permission. If you wish to use an image, you need to have the permission of the Society. Please contact Robert LaFleur (lafleur@beloit.edu), and he will put you in contact with the appropriate people. 

[b] Taxidermy RF

The British National Museum was not the only museum that Geil visited, but Geil did not enjoy his encounter at the Sarawak Museum in 1903. He found the curator incompetent, the collections lacking, and the taxidermy terrible. Created in 1891, the Sarawak Museum was designated for both native cultural artifacts and local flora and fauna. The building suffered some structural defects in early 1901 which had not been fixed by 1903; this probably added to the general atmosphere of Geil’s visit. The curator of this museum was Robert Walter Campbell Shelford, who was well-known for discovering several species of bat and insects. In addition to Shelford, the Sarawak Museum was known for its taxidermy animals and having three whale skeletons!

[c] Shelford RF

During his description of the museum, Geil recounts two separate occasions of natives “stealing” artifacts from the museums. Both thieves had become “enamored” of some knives used for chopping off heads—one was caught, the other was still at large at the time. As of that time, no one’s head had been chopped off yet. Geil feels no sympathy in this situation for either the thieves or the curator. In fact, over the course of the description of the museum Geil lambasts the curator, who he feels is negligent and inadequate, and uses these stories as further proof of his incompetency.

During this time, museums were not yet open to the public—one had to make an appointment. However in Sarawak, native peoples were allowed to visit the museums on Sundays and public holidays, due to an edict by the ruling king. This is probably how the two thieves first saw the objects and how they figured out how to get them. Allowing non-Western people into an inherently Western concept (the museum) was bound to create misunderstandings, but I find myself still in awe of the law that allowed it. Often seen as second or third-class citizens, allowing indigenous people into the museum about them as visitors and not part of an exhibit was a big forward step for the museum world. It also helps solidify the idea of a “shared culture” to create a stronger bond to the nation-state.

Despite what Geil has written, I think it would have been very interesting to visit the Sarawak Museum in 1903, even if the curator was incompetent.

[d] Description DHS