AN39CH18-Barker ARI 12 August 2010 21:42

ANNUAL
REVIEWS Further Exhibiting Archaeology:
Click here for quick links to
Annual Reviews content online,
including:
Archaeology and Museums
• Other articles in this volume
• Top cited articles Alex W. Barker
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.

• Top downloaded articles

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

• Our comprehensive search Museum of Art and Archaeology, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211-1421;
email: barkeraw@missouri.edu

Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010. 39:293–308 Key Words

First published online as a Review in Advance on representation, curation, authority, interpretation
June 21, 2010

The Annual Review of Anthropology is online at Abstract

anthro.annualreviews.org
This article’s doi:
10.1146/annurev.anthro.012809.105115
Copyright  c 2010 by Annual Reviews.
All rights reserved
0084-6570/10/1021-0293$20.00
From their beginnings, archaeology museums have reflected a complex
and dynamic balance between the demands of developing, documenting,
and preserving objects on the one hand and sharing knowledge, access,
and control on the other. This balance has informed and inflected the
ways that museums present the past, including both practical aspects
of pedagogy and exhibition design as well as more critical and con-
tested issues of authority, authenticity, and reflexivity in interpretation.
Meeting the complex requirements of curation, deliberate collections
growth, management, and conservation, as well as the need to respond
to continuing challenges to the museum’s right and title to hold various
forms of cultural property, archaeological museums play an active role
in both preserving and shaping the public’s view of the past and reflect
the prospects and perils of being at once a temple to the muses and a
forum for sometimes contentious public discourse.

293
 AN39CH18-Barker ARI 12 August 2010 21:42
INTRODUCTION
Museums were once the primary venue for
archaeological research, and although the
academy supplanted the museum in this role
over the course of the twentieth century (Willey
& Sabloff 1980), museums are still recognized
as “the main institutional connection between
archaeology as a profession and discipline, and
wider society” (Shanks & Tilley 1992, p. 68).
By any measure, they remain powerful forces
for the communication of archaeological infor-
mation. A 2001 survey in Great Britain found
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.
that visiting museums and galleries was a more
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
popular activity than watching soccer games or
any other live sporting event (MORI, p. 7), and
a 2000 statistically representative survey of 1016
American adults found that 88% had visited
museums interpreting archaeological materials
(Ramos & Duganne 2000, p. 21).
Scholars differ over what constitutes a mu-
seum (Ginsburgh & Mairesse 1997, Hudson
1998), however, and in many respects an
appropriate definition depends on the context
of the discussion and why a definition is sought
(Alexander & Alexander 2008, Weil 1990). For
our purposes, I focus on informal educational
institutions [equivalent to Paris & Hapgood’s
(2002, p. 39) informal learning environments],
which hold archaeological collections and
interpret them through regular exhibitions
for one or more audiences; I set aside entities
which interpret the past without the benefit
of actual objects (such as science centers), and
repositories which hold objects without an
explicit charge to interpret them for the public.
Many issues identified here cross these ad-
mittedly arbitrary boundaries, but the need of
museums to balance constantly the conflicting
demands of access and interpretation on the
one hand and preservation and stewardship
on the other creates a dynamic tension less
evident in these other kinds of entities, where
priority is given to one or the other side of
the equation. This balance also organizes the
discussion that follows, considering in turn
the changing role of museums, complexities of
interpreting the past for multiple audiences,
the epistemological dimensions of museum
294 Barker
interpretation, curation and conservation of
the past’s tangible remains, and challenges to
the rights of museums to claim good title to
various categories of cultural objects.
THE CHANGING ROLE
OF MUSEUMS
Most of the earliest archaeological museums
were founded either as a byproduct of antiquar-
ian research or to promote social betterment
through access to works of art and science [see
Pearce (1995) for a general history of collect-
ing in the European tradition and see Swain
(2007) for an abbreviated history of archaeolog-
ical museum collecting]. Museums themselves
have evolved from private entities through pub-
lic charities into nonstock corporations or units
of government (Hall 1992). This shift had the
effect of moving many museums from a narrow
focus on the interests and passions of the in-
dividuals who built the collection (e.g., Larson
2009, McMullen 2009) to a broadly defined em-
phasis on public betterment, and more recently
a better-defined emphasis on meeting the needs
of specific audiences, largely owing to shifts in
governance that placed key stakeholders in gov-
ernance positions. Hudson (1998) argues that it
can be asserted
. . .with confidence that the most fundamen-
tal change that has affected museums. . .is the
now universal conviction that they exist in or-
der to serve the public. The old-style museum
felt itself to be under no such obligation. It
existed, it had a building, it had collections
and a staff to look after them. It was reason-
ably adequately financed, and its visitors, usu-
ally not numerous, came in to look, to wonder
and to admire what was set before them. They
were in no sense partners in the enterprise.
The museum’s prime responsibility was to its
collections, not its visitors. (p. 43)
The public service and educational roles of
museums were articulated by late-nineteenth
and early-twentieth-century museum leaders
including John Cotton Dana (1920), William
 AN39CH18-Barker ARI 12 August 2010 21:42
Henry Flower (1898), Franz Boas (1974
[1905]), G. Brown Goode (1891), Alexander
Ruthven (1931), and Harlan Smith (1912),
among others. Earlier generations had im-
plicitly assumed this educational role; indeed
Thomsen is remembered not only for the
three-age system but for his tireless educa-
tional efforts. In an age when access to the
British Museum was limited to 60 persons
a day, each screened by the porter to make
sure they were the right sort (Hudson 1987),
Thomsen met and led tours of the Danish
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.
National Museum by groups of every kind to
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
promote both general knowledge of the past
and through that knowledge social betterment
of the masses. Lord Elgin took a similar view
in exporting the contested marbles from the
East pediment of the Parthenon to London,
suggesting the marbles might have “some
benefit on the progress of taste” (St. Clair
1998). Although more recent generations of
scholars have carefully deconstructed these
views to examine the ideological stances and
stereotypes informing them (e.g., Hamilakis
1999, Hitchens et al. 1998), it is worth recalling
that the conscious motivations of these early
antiquarians were largely educational. More
recently, this educational role of museums has
been affirmed by major professional organi-
zations; in Excellence and Equity, the American
Association of Museums (AAM) (1992) stated
that museums must place education—in the
broadest sense of the word—at the center
of their public service role and make their
educational role central to their activities.
This educational role is crucial to both the
development of modern archaeological muse-
ums and the wide range of critical approaches
to them because it requires that museums move
from passive repositories to active arbiters and
interpreters of the past. Throughout the nine-
teenth century (and I suggest well into the twen-
tieth) most museum archaeologists believed
“in the explanatory power and epistemologi-
cal transparency of objects, specimens, things”
(Conn 2004, p. 117). The more subtle role of
museums in creating or altering perceptions
about the past is now well established, although
one could argue that recognition of this role
is part of a logical historical progression in how
the tangible objects of the past have been under-
stood and used in constructing epistemological
frameworks (e.g., Anderson 2004).
For much of the eighteenth and nineteenth
centuries, museums were concerned with orga-
nizing and arranging objects to document the
time periods and cultures that produced them
(e.g., Holmes 1902). Objects were treated as in-
dex fossils, whose form and character allowed
archaeologists or antiquarians to draw valid in-
ferences regarding the dating of sites and the
identification of cultural complexes associated
with the site or site component. The advent
of chronometric techniques in the twentieth
century allowed and promoted a focus on cul-
tural process rather than culture history and
altered the ways in which material culture im-
plicated, inscribed, and informed processual
studies. More recently, postprocessual studies
have recruited both museum objects and the in-
stitutions that house them in critical reexamina-
tions of how material objects were appreciated
and appropriated by agents in societies past and
present—critiques that react against processual
excesses while to some degree premised on the
epistemological emphases they established.
EXPLANATION AND
PRESENTATION
Although the educational mandate of archae-
ological museums is clear, whether they have
been particularly effective achieving that man-
date through exhibitions remains debatable
(e.g., see articles in McManus 1996). One
sobering statistic emerged from surveys of pub-
lic attitudes toward archaeology; although 88%
of respondents said they had visited a mu-
seum exhibiting archaeological materials, only
9% reported learning anything about archaeol-
ogy from museums (Ramos & Duganne 2000,
p. 12). Television remains the most popular
vehicle for learning about the past (Ramos &
Duganne 2000), and relatively few media—
even formal instructional textbooks—teach
about the past consistently. A 1990 study, for
www.annualreviews.org • Exhibiting Archaeology 295
 AN39CH18-Barker
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
ARI 12 August 2010 21:42
example, found “textbooks from all parts of the
world that ignore contemporary understand-
ings of the prehistoric past” (MacKenzie &
Stone 1990, p. 3).
Available data suggest that people interpret
the past in light of their own experiences and
cultural constructs; we see the past not as it
was but as we are. This mindset is more than
a naı̈ve extension of one’s own views, but an
active strategy pursued even when presented
with seemingly authoritative information that
contradicts these constructs (Wineburg 2001).
Although it has long been recognized by mu-
seum professionals that people want to play an
active role in interpreting the past and making
it meaningful, in all the complex meanings of
the term (Davis 2000, Falk & Dierking 2000,
Jameson 1997, Rosenzweig & Thelen 1998,
Rowan & Baram 2004, Stone & Molyneaux
1994), recent studies suggest this desire may
be crucial to learning success (e.g., Roschelle
1995). Dierking (2002) argues that three over-
lapping leaning contexts contribute to the way
children (at least) interact with and apprehend
objects. The personal context includes moti-
vation and expectation, interest, prior knowl-
edge and experience, and dimensions of choice
and control. The sociocultural context includes
within-group sociocultural mediation, specifi-
cally social aspects of learning within the imme-
diate group, and mediation facilitated by others,
including parents, teachers, docents, or others.
Finally, the physical context includes advance
preparation, setting and immediate environ-
ment, design elements of the experience, and
subsequent reinforcing events and experience
(see also Falk & Dierking 2000). Despite best
efforts, however, none of these three primary
contexts are entirely within a museum’s control.
Davis (2005) offers a constructivist approach
to student learning in archaeology, identifying
six distinct types of learning strategies. The
types are distinguished by whether the learner
sees knowledge as constructed or acquired, the
degree of proficiency achieved in this knowl-
edge, and whether they tend to articulate and
process this knowledge as narratives or analyt-
ical processes (pp. 99–103). Individual learners
296 Barker
may shift fluidly between strategies depending
on context, structure of information, and
proficiency. Different kinds of experiences and
pedagogical practices are needed to effectively
engage students employing different learning
strategies. Museum-based programs tend to
have shorter encounter times with visitors or
students than do other kinds of venues, they
tend to be more dependent on self-guided
activities, and they require greater knowledge
of visitor preconceptions well in advance of
exhibition creation or programmatic activities.
Thus, successful programs often depend on
detailed visitor studies to understand the
needs and background of diverse audiences
(p. 142). She notes that many of the techniques
she has found successful “require significant
investments of both time and money,” which
she recognizes “may seem extravagant or even
impossible, given the kinds of constraints that
many schools and nonprofit organizations have
to contend with” (p. 160).
Pedagogical approaches in museums gener-
ally focus on either objects or ideas, what Weil
(1990, 1995) called emphasis on the “isness” of
objects or their “aboutness” (see also Witcomb
1997). Greenblatt (1991) united these appar-
ently disparate paradigms as focusing on dif-
ferent dimensions of objects, which he called
“wonder” and “resonance” [wonder being the
ability of an object to stop the viewer in his or
her tracks (read masterwork) and resonance be-
ing the ability of objects to evoke a larger world
or set of cultural forces], arguing that success-
ful exhibitions required elements of both and
that “the poetics and politics of representation
are most completely fulfilled in the experience
of wonderful resonance and resonant wonder”
(p. 54). Exhibitions, then, can succeed by of-
fering elements that provide wonder and other
elements (or moments) that contextualize and
embed the object through resonance.
A broad range of museum literature exam-
ines the morphology or logistics of exhibitions,
including such elements as traffic flow, sight
lines, dwell time (or the amount of time a vis-
itor spends in front of a particular element),
and diligence (whether visitors fully examine
 AN39CH18-Barker ARI 12 August 2010 21:42
exhibit elements and signage or select a subset
of available options); treatments of both indi-
vidual installations and more general best prac-
tices can be found in journals including Visitor
Studies Today or Visitor Behavior, Art Education,
Journal of Museum Education, Curator, Museum
Management and Curatorship, and Exhibitionist:
A Journal of Reflexive Practice; see also gen-
eral works on exhibit development and design
such as Dean (1994) and Lord & Lord (2002).
Pearce (1990) suggests three additional dimen-
sions in archaeological exhibits. “Depth” is the
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.
relative number of distinct spaces that must be
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
crossed to move from one exhibit element to
another. “Rings” measure the number of al-
ternative paths a visitor may use to traverse
an exhibition without backtracking, and “en-
tropy” measures the relative linearity or sim-
plicity of the layout. More than measures of
visitor behavior, however, Pearce (1990) argues
that these dimensions directly structure how
information is perceived by the visitor. Shal-
low depth and low ring factors “present knowl-
edge as if it were a map of a well-known terrain
where the relationship of each part to the other,
and all to the whole, is thoroughly understood”
(p. 150). By contrast, she argues, exhibits with
a high entropy value, considerable depth, and
high ring factor “show knowledge as a proposi-
tion which may stimulate further, or different,
answering propositions” (p. 150).
Cotton & Wood (1996) provide a detailed
discussion of the thinking that went into the
design of a specific archaeological exhibition,
People Before London, a prehistory installation
at the Museum of London. In an intriguing
twist, curators and designers went beyond take-
home messages regarding specific cultural units
or time periods and posed direct, reflexive ques-
tions to the visitor, including “Can you believe
what we say?”, to problematize the issue of au-
thority in archaeological exhibitions.
AUTHORITY AND
INTERPRETATION
Museums and their use of objects have faced
critiques from feminists (Porter 1996), struc-
turalists (Bal 1992), poststructuralists (Bennett
1995), postmodernists (Crimp 1995), and post-
colonial theorists (Clifford 1997, Rigg 1994; see
also Sherman 1994 for a more general treat-
ment of critiques of museum-as-institution)
and a range of postprocessualist critiques from
within archaeology itself (Shanks & Tilley
1992). Many of the broader anthropological
critiques regarding formalism, primitivism, au-
thenticity, and historicism in museum settings
( Jones 1993) can also be generalized to apply
to archaeological museum exhibitions (see also
Crew & Sims 1991). Bourdieu (1984) has ar-
gued that museums serve primarily to maintain
existing class distinctions; although his argu-
ments were originally specific to art museums,
they have been expanded by other scholars and
applied to archaeological, heritage, and cultural
museums more generally (Bennett et al. 1991,
Merriman 1989). Museum exhibitions can reify
and perpetuate stereotypical understandings;
Wood (1997) shows that stereotypical presen-
tations of gender roles persist in many archaeo-
logical museums. By contrast, Wood & Cotton
(1999) carefully consider how gender was pre-
sented in People Before London. The appearance
of past peoples as conjectural is also emphasized
at the Keiller Museum in Wiltshire, England,
where a single figure is depicted with two very
different sets of clothing, hairstyles, and tattoos
on either side of his body. Although aptly il-
lustrating the ambiguity of presentations of the
past, Swain (2007) notes that the figure “comes
across as a rather badly dressed 1980s shop
dummy” (p. 214). Interpreting people of the
past also raises complex issues regarding rep-
resentation and the role of living communities
in controlling, framing, and interpreting their
own pasts (e.g., Ames 1991, 1992; Colwell-
Chanthaphonh & Ferguson 2006; Hendry
2005; Isaac 2005; Karp et al. 1992; Kuklick
1991; Lawlor 2006; Levy 2006; Simpson 2007;
Sleeper-Smith 2009; see also Peers 2007).
For Bourdieu (Bourdieu & Johnson 1993)
museums play a key role in consecrating objects,
embodying and perpetuating theories of how
objects should be appropriately apprehended,
understood, and contextualized. Whitehead
www.annualreviews.org • Exhibiting Archaeology 297
 AN39CH18-Barker
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
ARI 12 August 2010 21:42
(2009), following Vergo’s (1994) notion that
museums create their own contexts, argues fur-
ther that museums create an environment that
encourages certain kinds of theorizing (an ar-
gument analogous in many respects to the
reception aesthetics views of Wolfgang Iser
(1980) and Hans Robert Jauss (1982) in literary
theory).
This view of objects, whether individually
or as exhibitions, as signs that can be read re-
flects a textual view of representation which had
permeated history by the late-eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries (Conn 2004), and is com-
monplace in studies of museum interpretation
(e.g., van Kraayenoord & Paris 2002). Pearce
(1990, 1992) employs a Saussurean construct to
understand how visitors understand and “read”
archaeological exhibitions. Perhaps the most fa-
miliar examples of this approach are the post-
processual critiques of archaeology by Hodder
(1986) and of museums by Shanks & Tilley
(1992). Vogel (1991) has suggested that “the
fact that museums recontextualize and interpret
objects is a given, and requires no apologies.”
Instead, museums should “allow the public to
know that [museums are] not a broad frame
through which the art and culture of the world
can be inspected, but a tightly focused lens that
shows the visitor a particular point of view.”
She concludes “it could hardly be otherwise”
(p. 201).
One of the most intriguing theoretical works
affecting interpretation of archaeological arti-
facts is that of the late Alfred Gell (1998). Gell’s
approach is equally radical but is based on an ut-
ter rejection of meaning as an appropriate way
of understanding things and on the bankruptcy
of precisely the textual approaches on which
Shanks and Tilley depend as useful avenues
for anthropological understanding of objects. “I
entirely reject,” Gell writes “the idea that any-
thing, except language itself, has ‘meaning’ in
the intended sense” (Gell 1998, p. 6). Instead
Gell sees objects as ways of doing something,
as social entities imbued with the ability to act
as ‘secondary agents,’ and examines “the prac-
tical mediatory role of art objects in the social
process.”
298 Barker
Although Gell’s approach presents a series
of interpretive problems for both scholars and
those who view displays of objects understood
from this perspective, it represents a bold de-
parture from existing treatments of objects and
their practical contextualization. However, this
approach also entails the proposition that an
exhibition is likewise a work of art designed to
have an effect, is itself an artifact of the kind and
with the properties of the works it presents, and
should be understood in terms of the social re-
lationships it mediates—an approach that fits
comfortably within visitor-centric constructs
commonly encountered in museum studies as
a discipline (Black 2005).
The centrality of issues of authority and
authenticity have been apparent since the
very beginning of museums. The Library and
Musaeum of Alexandria (better remembered
today for its destruction than for its ency-
clopedic stature) received important works
to be copied, then quietly returned the copy
rather than the original to the lender to ensure
the authority and authenticity of its holdings
(Bagnall 2002, p. 356; Heller-Roazen 2002,
p. 133). Institutions such as the Musaeum (then
and now) play an important role in nation
building and definition of a group’s social iden-
tity (Crinson 2001, Kaplan 1994, Kohl 1998,
Launius 2007, Linenthal & Engelhardt 1996),
but only recently have these practices become
the subject of direct ethnographic inquiry
(Handler & Gable 1997, Davis 2005). One
such study examines the Musaeum itself: Butler
(2007) uses ethnographic approaches to study
the new Bibliotheca Alexandrina, a joint Egyp-
tian/UNESCO project completed in 2002.
CURATION AND
CONSERVATION
Collections lie at the heart of the museum,
the sine qua non of the museum as an institu-
tion. As Swain has argued (2007, p. 91), of all
the elements that constitute a museum (staff,
buildings, donors, galleries, collections, etc.),
any one could be removed without changing
the fundamental character of the institution,
 AN39CH18-Barker ARI 12 August 2010 21:42
except the collections. They define the profile
and prospects of the institution in ways more
profound and lasting than do mission state-
ments or current circumstances. The impor-
tance of appreciating why humans collect and
use tangible things to make sense of the past
is recognized both through a range of individ-
ual scholarly studies (e.g., Pearce 1992, 1995,
Wertsch 2002; see also articles in Knell 1999,
Krech & Hall 1999, Pearce 1994) and entire
journals (e.g., Journal of the History of Collections
or Collections: A Journal for Museums and Archives
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.
Professionals, among others).
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
Pearce (1997) has identified six distinct kinds
of objects comprising archaeological collec-
tions in museums: (a) chance finds, usually re-
ceived as single pieces or small groups and
generally lacking meaningful documentation;
(b) private collections amassed by individu-
als, with or without accompanying documen-
tation; (c) material from museum-based excava-
tion projects, usually accompanied by complete
documentation; (d ) material from excavations
by other bodies or institutions, with the level of
accompanying documentation varying by age
and quality of excavation; (e) materials accepted
from fieldwork or cultural resources manage-
ment (CRM) projects, often through curation
agreements, which should in general be accom-
panied by levels of documentation specified in
the curation agreement; and ( f ) material from
metal detectorists, a category more commonly
separable in British museums than elsewhere.
It remains unclear, however, whether all col-
lections objects are equal. Thomas (cited in
Swain 2007) has argued for the concept of the
“total collection,” in which every object in the
collection is equally valued; Swain (2007, p. 95)
by contrast argues for an implicit hierarchy in
practice in which some exhibitable or complete
objects often have greater perceived value than
do others. The truth likely lies somewhere in
between, with the relative value or utility of an
object depending on the specific purposes or
needs on which it is called to address.
Whitehead (2009) has argued that museums
are constitutive rather than reflective of their
fields; museums do not simply show art but by
doing so define its nature. Archaeological mu-
seums do the same, establishing the ground on
which (and from which) different conceptions
of the past are contested. Archaeologists do not
actually study the past, but instead study those
remains of the past that persist into the present
to make inferences about that past; time is
perhaps the most salient analytical dimension
in archaeology but one which must always be
inferred. Archaeological museums played a
crucial role both in the development of culture
history as an approach and in the construction
of alternative temporocultural frameworks for
classifying archaeological remains in time and
space prior to the advent of chronometric dat-
ing techniques (Lyman et al. 1997). Although
the importance of museums and museum-
affiliated archaeologists (including, among
others, Thomsen, Worsaae, Holmes, Wissler,
Flinders Petrie, Uhle, Lothrop, Kidder,
Woolley, Phillips, McKern, Ford, and Willey)
is generally understood in this regard, the pro-
found importance and immediacy of collections
are not fully appreciated. Thomsen is widely
credited with the three-age system, but it had
been previously proposed for Scandinavian
archaeology by Vedel-Simonsen and seconded
by both Magnus Bruzelius (prior to Thomsen’s
reorganization of the National Museum collec-
tions) and Sven Nilsson. Heizer (1962) traces
a long continental ancestry, including mention
in the works of Mercati, Eccard, Borlase,
Rothe, Pennant, Hodgson, Büsching, and
Goguet, among others. It was less the proposal
of the three-age system (which after all could
be pressed earlier to the times of Hesiod and
Lucretius) than its application to physical mu-
seum collections by Thomsen in 1836 and G.C.
Friedrich Lisch in 1837, with its utility con-
firmed through excavations by J.J.A. Worsaae
in Denmark published in the 1840s, that makes
Thomsen’s contribution a watershed. Later
in the nineteenth century the same logic—but
a different set of organizing principles—were
used by Otis Mason to organize the archaeo-
logical material in the Smithsonian. Instead of
a threefold system based on the stuff of which
bladed weapons were made, Mason used Lewis
www.annualreviews.org • Exhibiting Archaeology 299
 AN39CH18-Barker ARI 12 August 2010 21:42
Henry Morgan’s evolutionary sequence from
savagery through barbarism to civilization to
provide both a context for understanding mate-
rial variability and a rationale for the direction-
ality of change (Sullivan & Childs 2003, pp. 5–6;
later Mason was instrumental in defining New
World culture areas in a continuing attempt to
better map changes in material form onto both
time and later space). McKern’s development
of the midwestern taxonomic method was
similarly a museum-based iterative process of
organizing data—largely physical collections—
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.
into units that could be meaningfully discussed
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
and compared by archaeologists; it differed
from the systems of Thomsen and Otis (among
others) in being explicitly nonevolutionary
in character. Precisely because McKern was
interested in understanding temporal and
historical relationships, he explicitly excluded
them from the classificatory framework.
Whereas archaeological curators wrestle
with the problem of how best to document
and depict time, archaeological conservation
attempts to forestall its effects. Cheating time
is only partially effective at best, but enormous
strides have been made in both the theory and
the practice of conservation, both in field (Sease
1994) and in laboratory (Cronyn & Robinson
1990, May & Jones 2006). As part of a larger
tendency to foreground museological pro-
cesses, numerous exhibitions and publications
have discussed and described how archaeolog-
ical materials are conserved. For the most part,
these works have addressed technical issues of
preserving objects from deleterious chemical
changes and inhibiting inherent vice (Podany
& Maish 1993), but a growing number of works
have discussed the balance between the preser-
vation of objects on the one hand and natural
processes of decay or weathering on the other,
which may have been integral to their function
within the communities which produced them
(Bernstein 1992, Hull-Walski & Flynn 2001).
This growing conservation literature details
both consultation and compromise between
traditional academic forms of conservation and
community-based standards of care and treat-
ment, which emphasize the social dimension
300 Barker
of archaeological objects (Clavir 2002, Kreps
2003). Literature written by and for indigenous
groups and tribal museums has also begun to
address museological conservation, object han-
dling protocols, and collections management
issues (see articles in Ogden 2004).
A broad and growing literature examines
appropriate collections management and cu-
ratorial procedures (Buck et al. 2007, Cassar
1995, Fahy 1995, Knell 1994, Simmons 2006),
and specific treatments aimed at archaeolo-
gists or that examine specific kinds of archaeo-
logical remains have appeared (Cassman et al.
2007, Pearce 1990, Sullivan & Childs 2003,
Swain 2007). Although these contributions pro-
vide guidance regarding conceptual issues and
best practices, for the most part they presume
that adequate resources in time, space, staff,
and funding are available—an enviable posi-
tion rarely found in practice. Curation of ar-
chaeological collections has been described as
in a state of crisis since 1982 (Bawaya 2007,
Marquardt et al. 1982, Thompson 1999,
Trimble & Marino 2003; see also Owen 1999
for a critique of the role of museums in field-
work), with few immediate prospects for relief
in sight. This crisis, coupled with high rates of
site destruction, has led some to ask whether it
is ethical to excavate new sites if extant museum
collections are sufficient to address a given re-
search question (Barker 2003).
TITLE AND CULTURAL
PROPERTY ISSUES
Another central challenge facing archaeo-
logical museums in the twenty-first century
involves the question of title to cultural objects
(Messenger 1989). Traditionally, the process
of accessioning objects intrinsically involved
an assertion of title, an approach deeply rooted
in Lockean notions of private property and
ownership (Malaro 1998). Changing legal and
ethical frameworks have problematized these
assumptions, however. The Native American
Graves Protection and Repatriation Act
(NAGPRA) (McKeown et al. 1998,
McLaughlin 2004, Trope & Echo-Hawk
 AN39CH18-Barker ARI 12 August 2010 21:42
2000) challenged both the right of museums
to hold certain categories of objects and
whether goodness of title could be asserted for
objects acquired from groups where individual
ownership—and hence the ability of an individ-
ual to convey good title—could not be assumed.
The development of the so-called McClain
doctrine, which allows foreign countries from
whom objects have been looted to seek dam-
ages in U.S. courts under the National Stolen
Property Act under certain circumstances,
has also problematized the degree to which
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.
museums can assert good title to objects for
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
which full provenance cannot be established.
The McClain doctrine holds that antiquities
whose ownership is clearly vested in foreign
governments may be stolen property if they
were excavated illegally and removed without
appropriate permissions; for the doctrine to
apply, the antiquities must have been recov-
ered within the borders of the nation-state
bringing action, the antiquities laws vesting
ownership in the state must be sufficiently clear
to give notice to U.S. citizens that removal of
antiquities is illegal, and finally the antiquities
must have been excavated or removed after
the effective date of the statutes vesting own-
ership in the state (Gerstenblith 2004, Yasaitis
2005).
Although the McClain doctrine, NAGPRA,
and related legal precepts provide legal founda-
tions for various kinds of claims, many instances
of restitution to foreign governments are based
less on litigation than on leverage. The well-
publicized case of the Euphronios krater is
one example. The Metropolitan Museum pur-
chased the vessel in 1972 for what was then a
record sum, giving it pride of place in its gal-
leries as expressing a crucial moment in the de-
velopment of representational art. The Italian
government had long sought its return, claim-
ing the vase had been looted from the Greppe
Sant’Angelo near Cerveteri, Italy, within a year
or so of its purchase. In 2006, the Metropoli-
tan agreed to return the Euphronios krater and
several other contested objects to Italy in re-
turn for a series of long-term loans of com-
parable objects (Watson & Todeschini 2006).
The threat of litigation and continued nega-
tive publicity led the Metropolitan’s leadership
to decide a negotiated settlement was prefer-
able to establishing an unpalatable precedent
(Waxman 2008). Other museums have resisted
calls for the return of putatively stolen objects.
Egypt claims that a funerary mask of Ka Nefer
Nefer was stolen from one of its store rooms
and purchased by the St. Louis Art Museum,
but despite the apparent presence of the item
in a 1953 Egyptian inventory the Museum has,
to date, declined calls for the mask’s return.
Applicable ethical guidelines under which
museums acquire antiquities have undergone
significant changes in recent years. Through
the 1990s, the primary requirements were that
objects not be illegally acquired or have been
imported illegally into the country in which the
museum is located. Particularly for U.S.-based
museums, this ethical standard set a relatively
low bar because export restrictions and foreign
patrimony laws were generally not observed in
determining the legality of import of objects. In
2004, the Association of Art Museum Directors
(an organization representing the 200 largest
art museums in the United States, Canada,
and Mexico) introduced guidelines that rec-
ommended museums not acquire objects that
could not be shown to have left their source
countries at least 10 years before acquisition by
the museum (AAMD 2004). These guidelines
were widely criticized by a number of archae-
ological groups, including the Archaeological
Institute of America, the Council for Museum
Anthropology, the Society for American
Archaeology, and the Archaeology Division of
the American Anthropological Association as
providing a blueprint for the allowable sale of
looted antiquities rather than restricting their
trade. These organizations instead called on
museums to require that antiquities be shown
to have left their country of probable origin
prior to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the
Illegal Sale and Trafficking in Cultural Objects
or be accompanied by documentation showing
that they had been legally imported into the
United States and legally exported from their
country of origin. In 2008, the American
www.annualreviews.org • Exhibiting Archaeology 301
 AN39CH18-Barker
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
ARI 12 August 2010 21:42
Association of Museums recommended new
guidelines for American museums in general,
which required transparency in acquisitions
guidelines, research on provenance of newly
acquired objects, and determination that ob-
jects had left their country of probable origin
prior to the 1970 UNESCO Convention date
(AAM 2008). The Association of Art Museum
Directors (AAMD) revised its standards as well,
allowing more room for interpretation than the
American Association of Museums (AAM) but
similarly adopting the fixed 1970 date for prove-
nance of antiquities and establishing a Web-
based registry for listing of artifacts with poten-
tially problematic provenance (AAMD 2008).
The use of Web-based information reg-
istries for objects of this kind is not new. In
2000, AAM and AAMD had developed and
launched the Nazi Era Provenance Internet
Portal in consultation with the Presidential Ad-
visory Commission on Holocaust Assets in the
United States (PCHA) to provide information
to potential claimants of objects in U.S. muse-
ums that changed hands in continental Europe
between 1933–1945, along with detailed pro-
cedures for conducting provenance research on
such objects (Yeide et al. 2001).
These represent only some of the challenges
to the right of museums to hold good title to
particular objects or kinds of cultural property.
Hutt (2004) has identified six perspectives on
objects from the past, which inform and inflect
both legal cases and public debate regarding
cultural property claims. Moralist perspectives
generally use normative rather than legal
language to argue for a particular position per-
ceived as the right or honorable resolution to a
contested claim. Nationalist perspectives hold
that cultural property is inalienable, hence an
entity accepting a nation’s patrimony can never
hold good title. Internationalist perspectives,
which she alternatively names “paternalist
theory,” argue just the opposite, that signif-
icant objects of cultural property transcend
nationalist laws and are the common property
of humankind, and those who can control them
should. Property law perspectives focus on
302 Barker
identifying who among competing claimants
has the right of ownership, regardless of other
moral or scientific claims. Scientific perspec-
tives appeal to the public benefit of inquiry
and the loss of knowledge by all if inquiries
are prevented. The market theory perspective
focuses on private property interests and the
promotion of free trade in objects and em-
phasizes mechanisms that permit goodness of
title to be restored to objects to facilitate their
exchange.
While Hutt’s (2004) identification of differ-
ent perspectives is a useful heuristic vehicle, the
perspectives reflect a particular viewpoint or
bias with which many theorists and legal schol-
ars might take issue, notably the premise that
native claimants are prima facie rightful owners
of cultural property under common law, that
patrimonial rights and property law perspec-
tives are the same (common law would gen-
erally view property rights as a more complex
and separable bundle of rights allowing no such
sweeping generalizations), and that nationalist
perspectives hold that cultural property is in-
alienable, rather than the more limited claim
that national laws vesting ownership of antiqui-
ties in the nation-state should be internationally
respected. She presents an intriguing diagram
(2004, p. 31) showing possible relationships be-
tween the various perspectives and notes that
the scientific perspective might be able to es-
tablish the validity of nationalist claims, but she
does not suggest that scientific analysis could
similarly warrant the validity of patrimonial
claims by putative descendants.
Increasing rates of site destruction and a
series of high-profile restitution cases have in-
tensified debates over the role of the antiquities
trade, licit and illicit, in looting, site destruc-
tion, and loss of cultural heritage (Atwood
2004, Bogdanos & Patrick 2005, Carman 2005,
Renfrew 2006, Watson & Todeschini 2006,
Waxman 2008). For some, the role of looting
and the illicit (and sometimes legal) trade in
antiquities is plain (Brodie et al. 2001), whereas
others see such criticisms as a direct or indirect
attack on private collecting (Fitz Gibbon 2005).
 AN39CH18-Barker ARI 12 August 2010 21:42

Just as individual scholars find themselves
caught between ethical prohibitions against
publication of unprovenanced material on the
one hand and the loss of information from such
materials on the other (e.g., Owen 2005), some
museum staff feel caught between the ethical
prohibition against accepting unprovenanced
antiquities and the loss of these objects to the
private market. These concerns have been most
widely voiced by advocates of so-called ency-
clopedic art museums, such as the Metropolitan
Museum in New York, the British Museum
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.
pedagogical patrimonial, etc.), which may be
assigned by different entities or individuals.
PROSPECTS
McLean (1999) has succinctly depicted the ter-
rain in which archaeological museums now op-
erate: “Our times seem to be framed by an
increasingly complex and layered dialectic of
privilege, expert knowledge, and prescriptive
meaning-making on the one hand, and access,
popular culture, and the negotiation of meaning

in London, and the Art Institute in Chicago on the other” (p. 103). To this might be added
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

(Cuno 2008, 2009). Apologists for encyclopedic
museums cast the antiquities debate as pitting
archaeologists against museums (e.g., Watt
2009), although much of the debate really cen-
ters on whether archaeological contexts have
significant value in art museum contexts, a de-
bate less between archaeologists and museums
than between disciplinary emphases on differ-
ent kinds of contexts within different kinds of
museums. Art historians emphasize assigned
or assumed contexts based on extrinsic classi-
fication of the object (e.g., Boardman 2009),
whereas archaeologists focus on observed
contexts that allow the validity of extrinsic
classifications to be assessed (Barker 2004).
The former view privileges the authority of the
museum or museum curator, whereas the latter
decenters that privileged position by allowing
significance to be determined through multiple
kinds of contexts (archaeological, aesthetic,
a decentering of the privileged place museums
have held as keepers of cultural property and
myriad economic and governance challenges.
To some, this perspective suggests a bleak
future.
But although the terrain may be difficult,
it should seem familiar. The tension between
the dual aspects of the museum—responsible
for both holding collections and making them
available for its publics—has always lain at the
heart of the museum enterprise. Museums are
at once sacred groves and public attractions
( Jeffers 2003), consecrated as temples to the
Muses on the one hand and committed to ser-
vice as a public forum on the other. Like our
understandings of the past and our needs as
a diverse and disparate society, museums will
continue to change. That is and will continue
to be their nature, suggesting a bright rather
than bleak future for the keepers of the past.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
The author is not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might
be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Archaeology and museums each represent dynamic disciplines with wide-ranging and growing
fields of associated scholarship. Their intersection is broad and deep, and only its outlines are
sketched here. I humbly apologize to my colleagues whose many significant and stimulating
contributions have not been included here owing to limitations of space; it is remarkable how
rapidly the assigned space goes from impossible to fill to woefully inadequate. I am grateful to Lee
Lyman and Lana Coggeshall for their thoughtful comments on some of the issues presented here

www.annualreviews.org • Exhibiting Archaeology 303

 AN39CH18-Barker ARI 12 August 2010 21:42

and to my colleagues in the Council for Museum Anthropology for much fruitful and enjoyable
discussion.

LITERATURE CITED
Alexander EP, Alexander M. 2008. Museums in Motion: An Introduction to the History and Functions of Museums.
Lanham, MD: AltaMira
Am. Assoc. Mus. 1992. Excellence and Equity: Education and the Public Dimension of Museums: A Report.
Washington, DC: American Association of Museums
Am. Assoc. Mus. 2008. Standards regarding archaeological material and ancient art, American Association of
Museums. Int. J. Cult. Prop. 15:401–3
Ames M. 1991. Biculturalism in museums. Mus. Anthropol. 15:7–15
Ames M. 1992. Cannibal Tours and Glass Boxes: The Anthropology of Museums. Vancouver: Univ. B.C. Press
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.

Anderson G. 2004. Reinventing the Museum: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives on the Paradigm Shift.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira

Assoc. Art Mus. Dir. 2004. Report of the AAMD Task Force on the Acquisition of Archaeological Material and
Ancient Art. New York: Association of Art Museum Directors
Assoc. Art Mus. Dir. 2008. Report of the AAMD Subcommittee on the Acquisition of Archaeological Materials and
Ancient Art. New York: Association of Art Museum Directors
Atwood R. 2004. Stealing History: Tomb Raiders, Smugglers, and the Looting of the Ancient World. New York: St.
Martin’s
Bagnall R. 2002. Alexandria: library of dreams. Proc. Am. Philos. Soc. 146:348–62
Bal M. 1992. Telling, showing, showing off. Crit. Inq. 18:556–94
Barker A. 2003. Archaeological ethics: museums and collections. See Zimmerman 2003, pp. 71–84
Barker A. 2004. Stewardship, collections integrity and long-term research value. In Our Collective Responsibility:
The Ethics and Practice of Archaeological Collections Stewardship, ed. ST Childs, pp. 25–42. Washington, DC:
Soc. Am. Archaeol.
Bawaya M. 2007. Archaeology: curation in crisis. Science 317:1025–26
Bennett T. 1995. The Birth of the Museum. New York: Routledge
Bennett T, Bulbeck C, Finnane M. 1991. Accessing the Past. Brisbane: Inst. Cult. Policy Stud.
Bernstein B. 1992. Collaborative strategies for the preservation of North American Indian culture. J. Am. Inst.
Conserv. 31:23–29
Black G. 2005. The Engaging Museum: Developing Museums for Visitor Involvement. London: Routledge
Boardman J. 2009. Archaeologists, collectors, and museums. See Cuno 2009, pp. 107–24
Boas F. 1974 [1905]. The educational functions of anthropology museums. In The Shaping of American
Anthropology, 1883–1911; A Franz Boas Reader, ed. GW Stocking, pp. 297–301. New York: Basic Books
Bogdanos M, Patrick W. 2005. Thieves of Baghdad: One Marine’s Passion for Ancient Civilizations and the Journey
to Recover the World’s Greatest Stolen Treasures. New York: Bloomsbury
Bourdieu P. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul
Bourdieu P, Johnson R. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production: Essays on Art and Literature. New York: Columbia
Univ. Press
Brodie N, Renfrew C, Doole J, McDonald Inst. Archaeol. Res., eds. 2001. Trade in Illicit Antiquities: The
Destruction of the World’s Archaeological Heritage. Cambridge, UK: McDonald Institute for Archaeological
Research
Buck RA, Gilmore JA, Am. Assoc. Mus. 2007. Collection Conundrums: Solving Collections Management Mysteries.
Washington, DC: American Association of Museums
Butler B. 2007. Return to Alexandria: An Ethnography of Cultural Heritage, Revivalism, and Museum Memory.
Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast
Carman J. 2005. Against Cultural Property: Archaeology, Heritage and Ownership. London: Duckworth
Cassar M. 1995. Environmental Management: Guidelines for Museums and Galleries. London/New York:
Routledge

304 Barker
 AN39CH18-Barker ARI 12 August 2010 21:42

Cassman V, Odegaard N, Powell JF. 2007. Human Remains: Guide for Museums and Academic Institutions.
Lanham, MD: AltaMira
Clavir M. 2002. Preserving What Is Valued: Museums, Conservation, and First Nations. Vancouver: Univ. B.C.
Press
Clifford J. 1997. Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ.
Press
Colwell-Chanthaphonh C, Ferguson TJ. 2006. Memory pieces and footprints: multivocality and the meanings
of ancient times and ancestral places among the Zuni and Hopi. Am. Anthropol. 108:148–62
Conn S. 2004. History’s Shadow: Native Americans and Historical Consciousness in the Nineteenth Century. Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press
Cotton J, Wood B. 1996. Retrieving prehistories at the Museum of London: a gallery case-study. See McManus
1996, pp. 53–71
Crew SR, Sims JE. 1991. Locating authenticity: fragments of a dialogue. See Karp & Lavine 1991, pp. 159–75
Crimp D. 1995. On the Museum’s Ruins. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.

Crinson M. 2001. Nation-building, collecting and the politics of display. J. Hist. Collect. 13:231–50
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Cronyn JM, Robinson WS. 1990. The Elements of Archaeological Conservation. London/New York: Routledge
Cuno JB. 2008. Who Owns Antiquity? Museums and the Battle over our Ancient Heritage. Princeton,
NJ/Woodstock, UK: Princeton Univ. Press
Cuno JB. 2009. Whose Culture? The Promise of Museums and the Debate over Antiquities. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
Univ. Press
Dana JC. 1920. The New Museum. Woodstock, VT: Elm Tree
Davis ME. 2005. How Students Understand the Past: From Theory to Practice. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
Davis P. 2000. Museums and the promotion of environmental understanding and heritage conservation. In
Cultural Resource Management in Contemporary Society: Perspectives on Managing and Presenting the Past, ed.
FP McManamon, A Hatton, pp. 310–18. London: Routledge
Dean D. 1994. Museum Exhibition: Theory and Practice. London/New York: Routledge
Dierking LD. 2002. The role of context in children’s learning from objects and experiences. See Paris 2002,
pp. 3–18
Fahy A. 1995. Collections Management. London/New York: Routledge
Falk JH, Dierking LD. 2000. Learning from Museums: Visitor Experiences and the Making of Meaning. Walnut
Creek, CA: AltaMira
Fitz Gibbon K. 2005. Who Owns the Past? Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law. New Brunswick, NJ:
Rutgers Univ. Press
Flower WH. 1898. Essays on Museums, and Other Subjects Connected with Natural History. London: MacMillan
Gell A. 1998. Art and Agency: An Anthropological Theory. Oxford/New York: Clarendon
Gerstenblith P. 2004. From Steinhardt to Schultz: the McClain doctrine and the protection of archaeological
sites. See Richman & Forsyth 2004, pp. 100–18
Ginsburgh V, Mairesse F. 1997. Defining a museum: suggestions for an alternative approach. Mus. Manag.
Curatorship 16:15–33
Goode GB. 1891. The Museums of the Future. Washington, DC: Gov. Print. Off.
Greenblatt S. 1991. Resonance and wonder. See Karp & Lavine 1991, pp. 42–56
Hall PD. 1992. Inventing the Nonprofit Sector and Other Essays on Philanthropy, Voluntarism, and Nonprofit
Organizations. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
Hamilakis Y. 1999. Stories from exile: fragments from the cultural biography of the Parthenon (or “Elgin”)
marbles. World Archaeol. 31:303–32
Handler R, Gable E. 1997. The New History in an Old Museum: Creating the Past at Colonial Williamsburg.
Durham, NC: Duke Univ. Press
Heizer RF. 1962. The background of Thomsen’s three age system. Technol. Cult. 3:259–66
Heller-Roazen D. 2002. Tradition’s destruction: on the Library of Alexandria. October 100:133–53
Hendry J. 2005. Reclaiming Culture: Indigenous People and Self-Representation. Houndsmills, UK/New York:
Palgrave Macmillan
Hitchens C, Browning R, Binns G. 1998. The Elgin Marbles: Should They Be Returned to Greece? London/New
York: Verso

www.annualreviews.org • Exhibiting Archaeology 305

 AN39CH18-Barker ARI 12 August 2010 21:42

Hodder I. 1986. Reading the Past: Current Approaches to Interpretation in Archaeology. Cambridge, UK/New
York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Holmes WH. 1902. Classification and arrangement of the exhibits of an anthropology museum. Science 16:487–
504
Hudson K. 1987. Museums of Influence. Cambridge, UK/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Hudson K. 1998. The museum refuses to stand still. Mus. Int. 50:43–50
Hull-Walski D, Flynn GA. 2001. Merging traditional indigenous curation methods with modern museum
standards of care. Mus. Anthropol. 25:31–40
Hutt S. 2004. Cultural property law theory: a comparative assessment of contemporary thought. See Richman
& Forsyth 2004, pp. 17–36
Isaac G. 2005. Mediating knowledges: Zuni negotiations for a culturally relevant museum. Mus. Anthropol.
28:3–18
Iser W. 1980. The Act of Reading: A Theory of Aesthetic Response. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.

Jameson JH, ed. 1997. Presenting Archaeology to the Public: Digging for Truths. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Jauss HR. 1982. Toward an Aesthetic of Reception. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn. Press
Jeffers CS. 2003. Museum as process. J. Aesthet. Educ. 37:107–19
Jones AL. 1993. Exploding canons: the anthropology of museums. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 22:201–20
Kaplan FS, ed. 1994. Museums and the Making of “Ourselves”: The Role of Objects in National Identity. London:
Leicester Univ. Press
Karp I, Kreamer CM, Lavine S. 1992. Museums and Communities: The Politics of Public Culture. Washington,
DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
Karp I, Lavine S, eds. 1991. Exhibiting Cultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display. Washington, DC:
Smithson. Inst. Press
Knell SJ. 1994. Care of Collections. London/New York: Routledge
Knell SJ. 1999. Museums and the Future of Collecting. Aldershot, UK/Brookfield, VT: Ashgate
Kohl PL. 1998. Nationalism and archaeology: on the constructions of nations and the reconstruction of the
remote past. Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 27:223–46
Kraayenoord CEv, Paris SG. 2002. Reading objects. See Paris 2002, pp. 215–34
Krech S, Hail BA, eds. 1999. Collecting Native America, 1870–1960. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
Kreps CF. 2003. Liberating Culture: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Museums, Curation, and Heritage Preservation.
London/New York: Routledge
Kuklick H. 1991. Contested monuments: the politics of archaeology in Southern Africa. In Colonial Situations:
Essays in the Contextualization of Ethnographic Knowledge, ed. G Stocking, pp. 135–69. Madison: Univ. Wis.
Press
Larson F. 2009. An Infinity of Things: How Sir Henry Wellcome Collected the World. New York: Oxford Univ.
Press
Launius RD. 2007. American memory, culture wars, and the challenge of presenting science and technology
in a national museum. Public Hist. 29:13–30
Lawlor M. 2006. Public Native America: Tribal Self-Representations in Casinos, Museums, and Powwows. New
Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press
Levy J. 2006. Prehistory, identity, and archaeological representation in Nordic Museums. Am. Anthropol.
108:135–47
Linenthal ET, Engelhardt T. 1996. History Wars: The Enola Gay and Other Battles for the American Past. New
York: Metrop. Books/Henry Holt
Lord B, Lord GD. 2002. The Manual of Museum Exhibitions. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira
Lyman RL, O’Brien MJ, Dunnell RC. 1997. The Rise and Fall of Culture History. New York: Plenum
MacKenzie R, Stone P. 1990. Introduction: the concept of the excluded past. In The Excluded Past: Archaeology
in Education, ed. PG Stone, R MacKenzie, pp. 1–11. London: Unwin Hyman
Malaro MC. 1998. A Legal Primer on Managing Museum Collections. Washington, DC/London: Smithson. Inst.
Press
Marquardt WH, Montet-White A, Scholz SC. 1982. Resolving the crisis in archaelogical records curation.
Am. Antiq. 47:409–18

306 Barker
 AN39CH18-Barker ARI 12 August 2010 21:42

May E, Jones M. 2006. Conservation Science: Heritage Materials. Cambridge, UK: R. Soc. Chem.
McKeown TC, Murphy A, Schansberg J. 1998. Ethical and legal issues: complying with NAGPRA. In The
New Museum Registration Methods, ed. RA Buck, JA Gilmore, pp. 311–20. Washington, DC: American
Association of Museums
McLaughlin RH. 2004. NAGPRA, dialogue, and the politics of historical authority. See Richman & Forsyth
2004, pp. 185–201
McLean K. 1999. Museum exhibitions and the dynamics of dialogue. Daedalus 128:83–107
McManus PM. 1996. Archaeological Displays and the Public: Museology and Interpretation. London: Inst. Archaeol.,
Univ. Coll. London
McMullen A. 2009. Reinventing George Heye: nationalizing the Museum of the American Indian and its
collections. See Sleeper-Smith 2009, pp. 65–105
Merriman N. 1989. Museum visiting as a cultural phenomenon. In The New Museology, ed. P Vergo, pp. 149–71.
London: Reaktion
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.

Messenger PM, ed. 1989. The Ethics of Collecting Cultural Property. Albuquerque: Univ. N. M. Press
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

MORI. 2001. Attitudes Towards the Heritage: Research Study Conducted for English Heritage. London: English
Heritage
Ogden S. 2004. Caring for American Indian Objects: A Practical and Cultural Guide. St. Paul: Minn. Hist. Soc.
Press
Owen D. 2005. An archaeological dilemma. Science 309:1816
Owen J. 1999. Who is steering the ship? Museums and archaeological fieldwork. See Knell 1999, pp. 132–40
Paris SG, ed. 2002. Perspectives on Object-Centered Learning in Museums. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Paris SG, Hapgood SE. 2002. Children learning with objects in informal learning environments. See Paris
2002, pp. 37–54
Pearce SM. 1990. Archaeological Curatorship. Leicester, UK/New York: Leicester Univ. Press
Pearce SM. 1992. Museums, Objects and Collections: A Cultural Study. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
Pearce SM. 1994. Interpreting Objects and Collections. London/New York: Routledge
Pearce SM. 1995. On Collecting: An Investigation into Collecting in the European Tradition. London/New York:
Routledge
Pearce SM. 1997. Archaeology as collection. In Representing Archaeology in Museums, ed. GT Denford. Soc.
Mus. Archaeol. 22:6–12
Peers LL. 2007. Playing Ourselves: Interpreting Native Histories at Historic Reconstructions. Lanham, MD: Al-
taMira
Podany TC, Maish SL. 1993. Can the complex be made simple? Informing the public about conservation
through museum displays. J. Am. Inst. Conserv. 32:101–8
Porter G. 1996. Seeing through solidity: a feminist perspective on museums. In Theorizing Museums: Repre-
senting Identity and Diversity in a Changing World, ed. S Macdonald, G Fyfe, pp. 105–126. Oxford, UK:
Blackwell
Ramos M, Duganne D. 2000. Exploring Public Perceptions and Attitudes About Archaeology. Washington, DC:
Soc. Am. Archaeol.
Renfrew C. 2006. Loot, Legitimacy and Ownership: The Ethical Crisis in Archaeology. London: Duckworth
Richman JR, Forsyth M, eds. 2004. Legal Perspectives on Cultural Resources. Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira
Rigg V. 1994. Curators of the colonial idea: the museum and the exhibition as agents of bourgeois ideology
in nineteenth-century New South Wales. Public Hist. Rev. 3:188–203
Roschelle J. 1995. Learning in interactive environments: prior knowledge and new experience. In Public
Institutions for Personal Learning, ed. JH Falk, LD Dierking, pp. 37–51. Washington, DC: American
Association of Museums
Rosenzweig R, Thelen DP. 1998. The Presence of the Past: Popular Uses of History in American Life. New York:
Columbia Univ. Press
Rowan Y, Baram U, eds. 2004. Marketing Heritage: Archaeology and the Consumption of the Past. Walnut Creek,
CA: Altamira
Ruthven AG. 1931. A Naturalist in a University Museum. Ann Arbor, MI: Privately printed
Sease C. 1994. A Conservation Manual for the Field Archaeologist. Los Angeles: Inst. Archaeol., Univ. Calif.

www.annualreviews.org • Exhibiting Archaeology 307

 AN39CH18-Barker ARI 12 August 2010 21:42

Shanks M, Tilley CY. 1992. Re-Constructing Archaeology: Theory and Practice. London/New York: Routledge
Sherman DJ. 1994. Quatremere/Benjamin/Marx: art museums, aura and commodity fetishism. In Museum
Culture: Histories, Discourses, Spectacles, ed. DJ Sherman, I Rogoff, pp. 123–43. Minneapolis: Univ. Minn.
Press
Simmons JE. 2006. Things Great and Small: Collections Management Policies. Washington, DC: American Asso-
ciation of Museums
Simpson MG. 2007. Charting the boundaries: indigenous models and parallel practices in the development of
the post-museum. In Museum Revolutions: How Museums Change and are Changed, ed. S Knell, S MacLeod,
S Watson, pp. 235–49. London: Routledge
Sleeper-Smith S. 2009. Contesting Knowledge: Museums and Indigenous Perspectives. Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press
Smith HI. 1912. The educational work of a great museum. Science 36:659–64
St. Clair W. 1998. Lord Elgin and the Marbles. Oxford/New York: Oxford Univ. Press
Stone P, Molyneaux BL, eds. 1994. The Presented Past: Heritage Museums and Education. London: Routledge
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.

Sullivan LP, Childs ST. 2003. Curating Archaeological Collections: From the Field to the Repository. Walnut Creek:
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Altamira
Swain H. 2007. An Introduction to Museum Archaeology. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
Thompson RH. 1999. The crisis in archaeological collections management. CRM 23:4–6
Trimble MK, Marino EA. 2003. Archaeological curation: an ethical imperative for the twenty-first century.
See Zimmerman 2003, pp. 99–114
Trope JF, Echo-Hawk WR. 2000. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act: background
and legislative history. In Repatriation Reader: Who Owns American Indian Remains?, ed. DA Mihesuah,
pp. 123–68. Lincoln: Univ. Neb. Press
Vergo P. 1994. The rhetoric of display. In Towards the Future of the Museum: New European Perspectives, ed. R
Mills, L Zavala, pp. 149–59. London: Routledge
Vogel S. 1991. Always true to the object, in our fashion. See Karp & Lavine 1991, pp. 191–204
Watson P, Todeschini C. 2006. The Medici Conspiracy: The Illicit Journey of Looted Antiquities, from Italy’s Tomb
Raiders to the World’s Greatest Museums. New York: Public Aff.
Watt JCY. 2009. Antiquities and the importance—and limitations—of archaeological contexts. See Cuno
2009, pp. 89–106
Waxman S. 2008. Loot: The Battle over the Stolen Treasures of the Ancient World. New York: Times Books
Weil SE. 1990. Rethinking the Museum and other Meditations. Washington, DC: Smithson. Inst. Press
Weil SE. 1995. A Cabinet of Curiosities: Inquiries into Museums and their Prospects. Washington, DC: Smithson.
Inst. Press
Wertsch JV. 2002. Epistemological issues about objects. See Paris 2002, pp. 0.113–18
Whitehead C. 2009. Museums and the Construction of Disciplines: Art and Archaeology in Nineteenth-Century
Britain. London: Duckworth
Willey GR, Sabloff JA. 1980. A History of American Archaeology. San Francisco: Freeman
Wineburg SS. 2001. Historical Thinking and Other Unnatural Acts: Charting the Future of Teaching the Past.
Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press
Witcomb A. 1997. One the side of the object: an alternative approach to debates about ideas, objects and
museums. Mus. Manag. Curatorship 16:383–99
Wood B. 1997. Does size matter? Effective presentation of archaeology in small museums. In Representing
Archaeology in Museums, ed. GT Denford. Soc. Mus. Archaeol. 22:6–12
Wood B, Cotton J. 1999. The representation of prehistory in museums. In Making Early Histories in Museums,
ed. N Merriman, pp. 28–43. Leicester, UK/New York: Leicester Univ. Press
Yasaitis KE. 2005. National ownership laws as cultural property protection policy: the emerging trend in
United States v. Schultz. Int. J. Cult. Prop. 12:95–113
Yeide NH, Walsh A, Akinsha K, Am. Assoc. Mus. 2001. The AAM Guide to Provenance Research. Washington,
DC: American Association of Museums
Zimmerman LJ, Vitelli KD, Hollowell JJ, eds. 2003. Ethical Issues in Archaeology. Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira

308 Barker
 AR424-FM ARI 12 August 2010 19:29

Annual Review of
Anthropology

Contents Volume 39, 2010

Prefatory Chapter
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

A Life of Research in Biological Anthropology

Geoffrey A. Harrison p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 1

Archaeology
Preindustrial Markets and Marketing: Archaeological Perspectives
Gary M. Feinman and Christopher P. Garraty p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 167
Exhibiting Archaeology: Archaeology and Museums
Alex W. Barker p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 293
Defining Behavioral Modernity in the Context of Neandertal and
Anatomically Modern Human Populations
April Nowell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 437
The Southwest School of Landscape Archaeology
Severin Fowles p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 453
Archaeology of the Eurasian Steppes and Mongolia
Bryan Hanks p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 469

Biological Anthropology
Miocene Hominids and the Origins of the African Apes and Humans
David R. Begun p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p67
Consanguineous Marriage and Human Evolution
A.H. Bittles and M.L. Black p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 193
Cooperative Breeding and its Significance to the Demographic Success
of Humans
Karen L. Kramer p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 417

Linguistics and Communicative Practices

Enactments of Expertise
E. Summerson Carr p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p17

vii
 AR424-FM ARI 12 August 2010 19:29

The Semiotics of Brand

Paul Manning p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p33
The Commodification of Language
Monica Heller p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Sensory Impairment
Elizabeth Keating and R. Neill Hadder p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 115
The Audacity of Affect: Gender, Race, and History in Linguistic
Accounts of Legitimacy and Belonging
Bonnie McElhinny p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 309
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Soundscapes: Toward a Sounded Anthropology

David W. Samuels, Louise Meintjes, Ana Maria Ochoa, and Thomas Porcello p p p p p p p p p p 329
Ethnographic Approaches to Digital Media
E. Gabriella Coleman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 487

International Anthropology and Regional Studies

Peopling of the Pacific: A Holistic Anthropological Perspective
Patrick V. Kirch p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 131
Anthropologies of the United States
Jessica R. Cattelino p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 275

Sociocultural Anthropology
The Reorganization of the Sensory World
Thomas Porcello, Louise Meintjes, Ana Maria Ochoa, and David W. Samuels p p p p p p p p p p p p51
The Anthropology of Secularism
Fenella Cannell p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p85
Anthropological Perspectives on Structural Adjustment and Public
Health
James Pfeiffer and Rachel Chapman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 149
Food and the Senses
David E. Sutton p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 209
The Anthropology of Credit and Debt
Gustav Peebles p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 225
Sense and the Senses: Anthropology and the Study of Autism
Olga Solomon p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 241
Gender, Militarism, and Peace-Building: Projects of the Postconflict
Moment
Mary H. Moran p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 261

viii Contents
 AR424-FM ARI 12 August 2010 19:29

Property and Persons: New Forms and Contests

in the Era of Neoliberalism
Eric Hirsch p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 347
Education, Religion, and Anthropology in Africa
Amy Stambach p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 361
The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops
Glenn Davis Stone p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 381
Water Sustainability: Anthropological Approaches and Prospects
Ben Orlove and Steven C. Caton p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 401
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

Theme I: Modalities of Capitalism

The Semiotics of Brand
Paul Manning p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p33
The Commodification of Language
Monica Heller p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 101
Anthropological Perspectives on Structural Adjustment
and Public Health
James Pfeiffer and Rachel Chapman p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 149
Preindustrial Markets and Marketing: Archaeological Perspectives
Gary M. Feinman and Christopher P. Garraty p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 167
The Anthropology of Credit and Debt
Gustav Peebles p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 225
Property and Persons: New Forms and Contests in
the Era of Neoliberalism
Eric Hirsch p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 347
The Anthropology of Genetically Modified Crops
Glenn Davis Stone p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 381

Theme II: The Anthropology of the Senses

The Reorganization of the Sensory World
Thomas Porcello, Louise Meintjes, Ana Maria Ochoa and David W. Samuels p p p p p p p p p p p p51
Sensory Impairment
Elizabeth Keating and R. Neill Hadder p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 115
Food and the Senses
David E. Sutton p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 209
Sense and the Senses: Anthropology and the Study of Autism
Olga Solomon p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 241

Contents ix
 AR424-FM ARI 12 August 2010 19:29

Soundscapes: Toward a Sounded Anthropology

David W. Samuels, Louise Meintjes, Ana Maria Ochoa, and Thomas Porcello p p p p p p p p p p 329

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 30–39 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 507

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volume 30–39 p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p p 510

Errata
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Anthropology articles may be found at

http://anthro.annualreviews.org/errata.shtml

x Contents
 Annual Reviews
It’s about time. Your time. It’s time well spent.

New From Annual Reviews:

Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application
Volume 1 • Online January 2014 • http://statistics.annualreviews.org

Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University

Associate Editors: Nancy Reid, University of Toronto
Stephen M. Stigler, University of Chicago
Access provided by University of Missouri - Columbia on 03/23/15. For personal use only.

The Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application aims to inform statisticians and quantitative methodologists, as
Annu. Rev. Anthropol. 2010.39:293-308. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org

well as all scientists and users of statistics about major methodological advances and the computational tools that
allow for their implementation. It will include developments in the field of statistics, including theoretical statistical
underpinnings of new methodology, as well as developments in specific application domains such as biostatistics
and bioinformatics, economics, machine learning, psychology, sociology, and aspects of the physical sciences.

Complimentary online access to the first volume will be available until January 2015.
table of contents:

• What Is Statistics? Stephen E. Fienberg
• A Systematic Statistical Approach to Evaluating Evidence
from Observational Studies, David Madigan, Paul E. Stang,
Jesse A. Berlin, Martijn Schuemie, J. Marc Overhage,
Marc A. Suchard, Bill Dumouchel, Abraham G. Hartzema,
Patrick B. Ryan
• The Role of Statistics in the Discovery of a Higgs Boson,
David A. van Dyk
• Brain Imaging Analysis, F. DuBois Bowman
• Statistics and Climate, Peter Guttorp
• Climate Simulators and Climate Projections,
Jonathan Rougier, Michael Goldstein
• Probabilistic Forecasting, Tilmann Gneiting,
Matthias Katzfuss
• Bayesian Computational Tools, Christian P. Robert
• Bayesian Computation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo,
Radu V. Craiu, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal
• Build, Compute, Critique, Repeat: Data Analysis with Latent
Variable Models, David M. Blei
• Structured Regularizers for High-Dimensional Problems:
Statistical and Computational Issues, Martin J. Wainwright
• High-Dimensional Statistics with a View Toward Applications
in Biology, Peter Bühlmann, Markus Kalisch, Lukas Meier
• Next-Generation Statistical Genetics: Modeling, Penalization,
and Optimization in High-Dimensional Data, Kenneth Lange,
Jeanette C. Papp, Janet S. Sinsheimer, Eric M. Sobel
• Breaking Bad: Two Decades of Life-Course Data Analysis
in Criminology, Developmental Psychology, and Beyond,
Elena A. Erosheva, Ross L. Matsueda, Donatello Telesca
• Event History Analysis, Niels Keiding
• Statistical Evaluation of Forensic DNA Profile Evidence,
Christopher D. Steele, David J. Balding
• Using League Table Rankings in Public Policy Formation:
Statistical Issues, Harvey Goldstein
• Statistical Ecology, Ruth King
• Estimating the Number of Species in Microbial Diversity
Studies, John Bunge, Amy Willis, Fiona Walsh
• Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Bibhas Chakraborty,
Susan A. Murphy
• Statistics and Related Topics in Single-Molecule Biophysics,
Hong Qian, S.C. Kou
• Statistics and Quantitative Risk Management for Banking
and Insurance, Paul Embrechts, Marius Hofert

Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.

Annual Reviews | Connect With Our Experts

Tel: 800.523.8635 (us/can) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: service@annualreviews.org