Hugh Mercer Apothecary Shop

On Saturday June 1, 2013 I had a blast in Fredericksburg. Having spent part of last summer there I was initially afraid that I did all there is to do in FXBG. I was delightfully wrong.

After walking through a two foot wide door on Caroline Street their first sight is a huge built-in shelving unit littered with odd shaped and sized bottles of various colors, filled with who-knows-what. A docent is on hand to explain the uses of each of the bottle contents and the innovative tools that Dr. Mercer “has”. In the next room another docent waits to carefully explain the types of procedures Mercer would perform for the people of FXBG --tooth extraction, blood letting, and amputation among the list. Afterwards guests are allowed to explore the two other rooms in the home, which are less eventful but the excitement of the previous experiences carry-over magically making a power-room enthralling.

           

  The Hugh Mercer Apothecary Shop (which is a museum)will be the best $5 (cash only) you will spend at any museum.  It was so great I’m going to just list its qualities:

• ·         They encourage you smell everything in the jars –spices, roots, teas, concoctions the whole deal. I said in the last post that people like to eat the past, this museum allows them to smell it.
• ·         The costumed docents pretend they are in the 18thc without embarrassing themselves and the guests. For example: We are had conversation with the interpreter about our being from Florida, he asked if (at his time) we lived in English or Spanish land (English at the time, but the land went back and fourth a few times). Another especially fun conversation was about the relative kindness of one man for drugging  his wife and chaining her in the family cellar instead of sending her to an infirmary. How romantic right? If you love sarcasms, as I do, you will be pleased. I do not like most costumed docents, I think its corny and too showy, but HMAS did a great job. They did not force the idea that they were 18thc people on guests by teasing them about cameras or commenting on "How odd" their clothing look. I was impressed.
• 
  
• ·         It’s gruesome. They have live leeches. Hugh Mercer was a doctor so naturally the museum talks about 18^th c medical practices- leeches, bloodletting, amputation and the like. The exhibit room is complete with teeth fragments, animal bones, and intimidating medical tools- and a leech named Hugh, of course.
• ·         The museum is the perfect size to do while walking down FXBG’s row of antique shops. 

Now what I think they could do more of (but they don’t have too. You are beautiful the way you are Hugh Mercer Museum!) is talk about gender. Discussing medicine lends itself to larger discussions of sex and gender, our innards -their similarities and difference, who and how they can be soothed, abused, ticked and sucked. Hugh Mercer was doctor with remedies for many things, as the museum professes, but who delivered babies? If they wanted to get more in depth about the medical practices of the day they could talk about Mercer’s female counterparts, midwives and the like.

This museum offers guests two things they love-- interaction and gore without causing undue disgust. How do they make a vivid description of a tooth extraction or a amputation appear normal and informative without sounding like a medical textbook? There must be something in the herbs.

Check it out :http://preservationvirginia.org/visit/historic-properties/hugh-mercer-apothecary-shop

Nat'l Museum of the American Indian (D.C)

I am back in Virginia for the summer, exploring the state, its history and the state’s history with history—and working with the NPS reanalyzing the 1930’s excavation which found George Washington’s birthplace home or "Building X." More on that to come. 

For my first blog of the summer I want to look at the Nat'l Museum of the American Indian

A couple of friends and I set out from Fredericksburg with the expressed purpose of eating at the museum then taking the train back to the station and driving the 45minutes back to Fredericksburg. We heard the food was worth it. The museum itself on the other hand, we were told was less than appealing –boring, confusing, poorly executed and oddly designed –needless to say we were exited to discover and develop our own options on the museum.

First, the food was great. I had a seared salmon –from the Northwest Coast Native American’s food counter. So good!  I wonder if the African American Museum or the Women’s History Museum’s are planning this sort of feast in their projected constructions. I hope so, and I am excited to see what each comes up with. Food history and culture are very popular, no doubt due in part to the popularity of Food Network and the Travel Channel. Taking advantage of the public’s desire to connect gastricly with the past and its peoples will bring in guests “Come for the food stay for the exhibits.” Having been told that museum left much to be desired we walked it mainly to digest, but we walked it, talked it, gathered arguments and formed opinions. What more can a museum ask for?(Fat Donations from venture capitalists?..yea probably, but we gave what we could )

  Salmon! (http://nmai.si.edu/visit/washington/mitsitam-cafe/)

Now on to the exhibits, “We are still here! And we are just like you”

That is the theme we gathered from the first exhibits we saw on the lower levels. Previous understanding of the current existence of Native Americans made most of these vignettes feel patronizing. Many of the tribes presented in the exhibit featured contemporary groceries attempting to highlight that Native Americans eat and use the same foods as the white population. 

This of course leads one of think about the implication and success of turn-of-twentieth century Native American assimilation projects. (What did you learn at Carlyle?) Which was unexpected.  Almost as unexpected as the wall that claimed that anyone could be Native American no matter blood quantum. I am under the understanding the federally recognized Native Americans still have to carry blood quantum cards on their person at all times. These cards are only issued after someone proves their distinction to the federal government. So, what I want to know is what argument is the wall making? Is it saying “We define who we are, not the government” or “We are all connected, we are not different?” Both would fit. But both are complicated when you considers the  implications of being a Native American in a time when they are encouraged by the Government to rediscover their roots for finical gain and a semblance of stability, after being told for generations to “shed the blanket” in favor of acceptance into the white world.

Their Mission Statement is 

"The National Museum of the American Indian (NMAI) is committed to advancing knowledge and understanding of the Native cultures of the Western Hemisphere—past, present, and future—through partnership with Native people and others. The museum works to support the continuance of culture, traditional values, and transitions in contemporary Native life."http://nmai.si.edu/about/mission/

Native American culture (past, present, and future) has been deeply effected and altered by their relationship with the federal government.

 I understand that it is a federally funded museum, but not recognizing how the government has jerked the Native Americans around for generations makes the museum confusing. This makes me worrisome for the African American Museum and the Women’s History Museum. Honestly, the Native American Museum should expose more of their relationship with the government; the food is good enough that it gives the museum a license to say whatever they want. 

Here are some books I have in mind on this trip----

 K. Tsianinia Lomawaima.They Called It Prairie Light: The Story of Chilocco Indian School. (Lincoln: U of Nebraska Press, 1994)

Mark Edwin Miller.Forgotten Tribes: Unrecognized Indians and the Federal Acknowledgment Process (Lincoln:  U of Nebraska, 2006)

(It should be noted that I have not read these books since college and since I am away from home I can't refresh my memory on them, but there are two I remember reading. I welcome further recommendations for further reading)

Some Good Things

On the museum’s top floor they have two exhibit halls I loved. The first one explores how various tribes understand the universe. Very Cool! These exhibits are noted as being created by members of the tribes they display. Which has good and bad implications, but the exhibits looked good and succeeded at keeping our attention and dissemination information—success.

The other one was about the evolution of European and Native interactions. This exhibit was a work of art –there was undeniable flow and grace to it. It was well done. I was pleased. I was especially pleased by the video at the beginning, where a (rather stereotypical modern) Native American man spoke about the subjective nature of exhibits. He explains that only the stories told in exhibit are from one side and multi-sided and broadly experienced events. So many museums fail to recognize or simply ignore the fact that they too are making arguments.

I think the museum is good, but I also think it could do more go further making stronger statements and arguments.

Souvenirs

Souvenirs

I recently joined Twitter and have been following the Smithsonian’s various twitter accounts; they post fun facts, museum news, and parts of their object collection. One collection in particular engaged me- the historical souvenirs. Now they were not the type of historical souvenirs seen in museum stores or in Marling’s George Washington Slept Here, but taken souvenirs.[1] Pieces of landmarks and historical buildings, like a piece of the Bastille. My adviser just released a trade-press book on Ferry Farm,Where the Cherry Tree Grew,and he mentions visitors to the site taking parts of the tree believed for a time to be the tree young George Washington barked.[2]  I remembered going with my father to Frank Lloyd Wright buildings in Chicago and doing rubbings. And as a child my 4^th grade teacher brought the whole class little rocks back from Ireland.  This got me thinking about my own work and readings looking at what communities’ ownership of select parts of the past do, how they function for them.  Books like Rosezwieg and Thelen’s Presents of the Past and Glassbergs’ Sense of History and American Historical Pageantry- all which deal with American’s interaction and desire to connect themselves with history.[3] Taking souvenirs from sites is defiantly apart of this, and it challenges ,in a way, Steve Conn’s Do Museum’s Still Need Objects.[4] It challenges the idea that objects are no longer desired or needed, but it also speaks to the idea that individual people are imbued with a self-righteous understanding of themselves as collectors of their own museums- which certainly speaks to museum’s loss of prestige Conn explores in  Museums in American Intellectual Life.[5]

            Another thing it made me think of was Tim O’Brian’s The Things They Carried- the way he describes the things the soldiers carried with them, symbolically and physically, and the importance and weight that the object held personally for them.[6] Though I have not read this book in many years, I feel a like a second look would reveal some interesting thoughts or discussion points on object study and personal relationships with the past, personal and larger.

            Once while driving around my old home town with an old friend, I realized I had never touched the stop sign that I passed by each time I left my parent’s house, and walked past each day to and from high school. I was taken aback that I had never touched, this recognizable symbol, this place marker I had interacted with for years. After our little adventure I did go back and touch that sign-if you are interested it felt like a metal sign, not a big surprise. This very well could be a quirk of mine, but I like to think that there is something fundamentally important about touching, and in a related way owning (being able to touch at will) recognizable, or meaningful objects. Are we not tactile creatures? There is an important part of many (probably not all people) that needs to touch things, to examine them for authenticity. This leads me to think back to Jay Cook’s The Arts of Deception, which looks at the Barnum Museums in New York and American’s desire to examine and understand what was real and what was fake.[7] Taking pieces of objects from historical places proves its authenticity and provides evidence of the owner/finders relation to the site.

            Next thought, how does taking from a historical site or marker (grave stone ect.) effect or counter act the desire to keep things historically “accurate”? There is certainly a clear distinction between a selfish act and preservation for the greater good.  How closely related is the want to preserve things and the loud objection to taking? Did preservation get popular after people started making a fuss over taking souvenirs?

I don't really have a conclusion for this, as if I ever do, but I've got some thoughts swimming around.

Here is a photo the Smithsonian posted on Twitter- Its a bit of Plymouth Rock, a rather large bit.

---

[1]  Karal Ann Marling, George Washington Slept Here: Colonial Revivals and American Culture, 1876-1986 ( Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1988)

[2] Phil Levy, Where the Cherry Tree Grew: The Story of Ferry Farm, George Washington’s Boyhood Home (New York: St. Martin’s Press,2013)

[3] Roy Rosenzweig and David Thelen, The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983). David Glassberg, American Historical Pageantry (London and Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1990),. David Glassberg, Sense of History: The Place of the Past in American Life , 2001

[4] Steve Conn, Do Museums Still Need Objects(University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, 2010)

[5] Steven Conn. Museums and American Intellectual Life, 1876-1926 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000)

[6] Tim O’Brian, The Things They Carried (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1990)

[7] Jay Cook, The Arts of Deception: Playing with Fraud in the Age of Barnum (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 2001)

I need an oil change

I'm thinking about who owns history. Museums, historians, government, the public
I thought of this-

History is like a car, sometimes you need a professional to tune it up, and some people prefer to work on their own cars- but they don’t own it any more or less then the person who relied on the mechanic. Likewise, the mechanic does not own the car (probably has their own car), but rather knows how to make it run. Some people have expensive cars with well known names, some people drive old cars that still run, some people like to collect cars that don't run anymore because they just like them. They still own the car, they still make claims to it and it affects who they see themselves as and how others see them.

Ghosts, Museums and Spiritual residue

I am very excited about this. Ghosts and talk of them make me very uncomfortable and so do dead bodies, but within the confines of history I find it very interesting.

On page 86 in Handler and Gable’s controversial 1997 book New History in an Old Museum, they share a quote from a  Colonial Williamsburg interpreter- who says “I don’t interpert ghosts. I do nothing with ghosts.” The quote is used to explain how C.W. interpreters used a lack of concrete evidence to not discuss the miscegenation inherent in the 18^th century slave/ master relationship. But the quote also addresses the guests’ interest in the spiritual remnants of the historical town. Knowing that spiritualism and séances became popular at the turn of the 20th century as a way to reengage with lost loved ones- I began to think how ghosts allow contemporary people to engage with the past. How ghosts and spiritual culture influence public history.

Now, there is little value in debating whether or not ghosts are real. What I am going to deal with here is what ghosts do for/to history, especially historical homes, and places. I don’t care if they are real, I care that people go to museums thinking about ghosts. Ghosts a part of American culture and the way Americans look at the past.

            As an undergrad I wrote my senior thesis on Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for president. Before she ran for president, she and her sister, Tennessee-like the state, were traveling “clairvoyants,” meaning they talked to the dead. During that research I also came across the Fox children- not to be confused with feral children. The Fox children were clairvoyants as well, and while Woodhull and her sister worked for Comm. Vanderbilt the Fox children worked with Mary Todd Lincoln. Mrs. Lincoln, like many mid 19^th century mothers thought reconnecting with their lost youths would ease the pain of loss. Spiritualism, séances, and traveling clairvoyants became popular at the turn of the 20^th century, no doubt in response to the huge loss of life from the Civil War, and undeveloped germ and medical science which took many lovers and children.

            In the same way turn of the 20th cenutry Americans sought out clairvoyants to connect them with their past loved one, contemporary Americans seek out historical places hoping to reconnect with American heroes through the spiritual residue left in their objects and homes. [2]

            The argument taking place in my mind is whether museum guests are reading objects for their historical information or reaching out to these items to gain a closeness to their hero’s spiritual residue. I’ve argued for both, if you look in Conn’s book Museums and American Intellectual Life  you get an idea of how museums and the organization of the objects there in created knowledge. The guests who went there needed to be able to understand how to read the “visual sentences” museums presented them. On the other hand you have places like house museums, which take historical characters homes and recreate them as if they never died and time never moved on. Not unlike Great Expectations’s Miss. Havishm electing to keep her house, and dress the same as the day her groom left her.

               Is it simply a difference between the constructed museums, like the Smithsonian’s’ National American History Museum and house/place museums, Mt. Vernon? What about battle sites? What is left of them but the assumption of spiritual residue and the ability to connect to them? Do the objects behind glass at constructed museums have less spiritual residue? What sort of filter does the glass case present? OR Do cases keep in a kind of ghostly freshness? Would Lincoln’s Hat behind class have more spiritual residue and power then saw a pair of 18^th century pants laid on a bed at Mt. Vernon?

            What is the connection between museum curators’ ability to create knowledge by organization and display and the spiritual residue experienced by guests? 

If you are interested in reading up on old dead bodies, check out Drew Gilpin Faust’s This Republic of Suffering- one of my personal favorites.

I swear I am not obsessed with Lincoln, but here is an image for an exhibit at his Presidential Library and Museum which incorporates ghosts. Which I snagged from an article their cite.[3]  They use “Holavision,” (their word not mine) which allows guests to see ghostly figures. This created museum uses the power of ghost to bring their guests closer their loved ones. Lincoln being a lost love one for, I would argue, everyone. Again, not obsessed, just from Illinois.

“In a mysterious way, these original objects connect us to the people and events of history and make them real. It is almost as if we can momentarily see their world, as though they were here”

Great Stuff!

---

[2] Unlike, Ghost Buster ectoplasm, I would argue there is very little to no physical spiritual residue view able at museums. http://ghostbusters.wikia.com/wiki/Ectoplasm

[3] http://www.alplm.org/museum/ghosts.html