UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Fair games: nineteenth century cultural philanthropy in Chicago and the shaping of American anthropology Ayotte, Todd Robert Jacques 1994

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata


831-ubc_1994-0250.pdf [ 2.34MB ]
JSON: 831-1.0087338.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0087338-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0087338-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0087338-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0087338-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0087338-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0087338-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

FAIR GAMES:NINETEENTH CENTURY CULTURAL PHILANTHROPY IN CHICAGOAND THE SHAPING OF AMERICAN ANTHROPOLOGYbyTODD ROBERT JACQUES AYOTTEB.A., The University of British Columbia, 1989A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OFTHE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTERS OF ARTSinTHE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIESDepartment of Fine ArtsWe accept this thesis as conformingto the required standardTHE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIAApril 1994Copyright: Todd Robert Jacques Ayotte, 1994In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanceddegree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make itfreely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensivecopying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of mydepartment or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying orpublication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writtenpermission.Department of tk[\. {tSThe University of British ColumbiaVancouver, CanadaDateDE-6 (2/88)iiAbstractBuilding on the Anthropological displays of Department M at theWorld’s Columbian Exposition of 1893, held in Chicago, the FieldColumbian Museum began in a particularly advantaged position:through its connection with the fair, the museum amassed acomprehensive collection “representative” of Native Americansocieties, established an affiliation with the anthropologicalcommunity, and, most importantly, received financial andideological support from local business and economic leaders. Thisrelationship between the museum anthropologists and their financialbackers — forming in effect what I call a “cultural alliance” — isthe focus of this paper. Through a chronological exposition of thefive year period associated with the project - from Mayor De WittC. Creiger’s appeal in 1889 to secure the fair in Chicago, to thefounding of the Field Columbian Museum in 1894 - this thesisexplores the impetus behind this emerging alliance and itssubsequent effect on both the anthropological and economiccommunities.Utilizing a specific model outlined in Pierre Bourdieu’ssociological study Distinction: A Social Criticrne of the Judgementof Taste, the project and its resulting association of financialbackers and museum anthropologists is shown as central to theprocess of cultural “legitimization” — underlining a correlationbetween economic, educational and social “capital”111(Bourdieu 1984:12-13). Although this “alliance” has been recognizedfor its role in the advancement of American anthropology — adiscipline which relied heavily on funding from the private sector— this relationship must also be seen in terms of the status gainsit provided for Chicago’s cultural philanthropists.Frederick Ward Putnam, Chief of Department M and promoter of thepermanent museum, represented the academic front in this “culturalalliance.” His credentials provided the necessary educational“capital” to validate the project, and his institutional backgroundfostered the development of the museum initiative. In directcontention with the fair’s blanket ideological program - mappingthe “progress of civilization” from the time of Columbus’s“discovery” of America — Putnam sought to establish a new model forthe display of Native American artifacts, distinct from theassimilationist/evolutionist model supported by the United Statesgovernment. At the same time, this model helped to construct anautonomous “cultural” position for the philanthropists supportingPutnam. What is revealed is an exchange between the museumanthropologists and their benefactors, designed not only to reflecttheir wealth and power, but to serve a “legitimizing” function inthe assertion of a new and competitive cultural elite.ivTable of ContentsAbstract iiTable of Contents ivAcknowledgements VIntroduction 1Chapter One - World’s Columbian Exposition 7Chapter Two - Frederick Ward Putnam 16Chapter Three - Department M 32Chapter Four - Chicago’s Philanthropists and theField Columbian Museum 53Conclusion 72References Cited 78Appendix I - List of Figures 83VAcknowledgementsI would “clearly” like to thank Dr. Marvin Cohodas and Dr. MaureenRyan for their guidance. I acknowledge the staff of the Universityof British Columbia library, the Newberry Library, the ChicagoHistorical Society, the Field Museum of Natural History, and theChicago Public Library for their assistance in completing myresearch.I thank my family and friends for their love, humour and support.Most of all I thank my parents, who have stood by me from thebeginning, always believing I could pull it off.1IntroductionAlthough museums had their beginnings in private collections inEurope in the eighteenth century, the “prototype” of contemporaryAnthropological institutions in North America began to emerge andtake shape in the late nineteenth century - a period of timeoften referred to as the “museum age.” Anthropologist George W.Stocking Jr. states that “the great period of museum anthropologyonly really began in the 1890s” when many of the earlierfoundations “reached institutional maturity” with the involvementof specialized personnel and funding and support for scholarlyfieldwork (1985:8).The need for financial support — realized through governmentalfunding or private benefaction - was of key importance in theformation of these institutions, underlining a close connectionbetween cultural and economic development in the United States.But, as the nature and development of museums varied frominstitution to institution, they cannot be analyzed collectively.Each must be seen in terms of its own particular history, and ofits own social and economic situation.The Field Columbian Museum, founded in Chicago in 1894, startedout in a particularly advantaged position, both socially andeconomically. Developed out of the Anthropological displays atthe 1893 World’s Columbian Exposition, the Field Columbian Museum2housed a distinct and comprehensive collection, had direct andprestigious connections within the “anthropological” community,and, most importantly, received financial and ideological supportfrom local business and economic leaders. It is this relationshipbetween the museum anthropologists and their financial backerswhich will be the subject of this paper. Through an analysis ofthe five year period from Mayor De Witt C. Creiger’s appeal in1889 to secure the fair in Chicago to the founding of the FieldColumbian Museum in 1894, this thesis will present a detailedexploration of how a “cultural alliance” was formed, in order toreveal the varied interests and agendas associated with the fair,the Department of Anthropology, and the subsequent permanentmuseum.I will begin in Chapter One with an exploration of the eventsleading to the establishment of the World’s Columbian Expositionin Chicago. Fuelled by the interests of a small number of itsbusiness and economic leaders, Chicago was actively promoted asthe ideal city to represent the nation. Its rapid economic growthexemplified the ideological foundations on which the fair wasbased, reflecting notions of American “progress” throughnineteenth century industrialization and modernization. Theseearly initiatives on the part of the city’s business communitywill be revealed as central to the establishment of a solideconomic base for the fair, thus facilitating the formation ofChicago’s “cultural alliance.” In turn, the program of cultural3development associated with the fair served to advance thepersonal and collective status of this group, effectively mappingtheir “progress” economically and culturally. The “theme” of thefair — the 400th anniversary of Columbus’s “discovery” of America— served as a tool with which this “progress” could be measured.It is within this context that Department H at the ChicagoWorld’s Fair was shaped, expressing Putnam’s desire to advanceanthropological science through the collection and documentationof Native American artifacts, and to present a carefullyconstructed image of how Native Americans lived at the time ofColumbus.Chapter Two will look at specific initiatives associated with thedevelopment of Department N. Leading up to his appointment asChief of the department, Frederick Ward Putnam was the firstperson to publicly promote the desire for such an exhibition.Putnam’s impressive institutional affiliations coupled with hisactive role in the fair’s promotion - both within the businesscommunity and to the wider public - defined his pivotal role thedevelopment of Chicago’s “cultural alliance.” His appointmentwill be seen as an indication of the Directory’s allegiance toboth Putnam and his plans for the development of a permanentmuseum. His credentials provided the necessary academic andscientific sanction to “legitimize” this alliance, and hisinstitutional background served as the groundwork for thedevelopment of the museum initiative.4Chapter Three will explore the development of Department M,moving from Putnam’s original concept to the resulting display.This display will be described in terms of its assertedideological position - illustrating Putnam and his assistantFranz Boas’s cultural relativist approach — and in terms of thevarious “readings” that served to contest the Department’soriginal intentions. Although the fair’s anthropological displayswere not limited to those prepared by Putnam in Department M(contributions were included from the United States Governmentthrough the Smithsonian Institution, the Bureau of AmericanEthnology and the Department of the Interior, as well as theentertainment section of the fair, the Midway Plaisarice) what waspresented to visitor’s was a unified anthropological paradigm.This unified front was manifested in the fair’s blanketideological program: a program based on notions of “progress” and“civilization” and directly linked to the government’sassimilationist agenda. However, behind this front were contestedpoints of view which define the development of Americananthropology. In fact, one of Putnam’s key agendas in terms ofhis involvement with Department M was to introduce Anthropologyto the American public, thus opening the doors for a newinstitutional model, autonomous from the established governmentalmodel.The Field Columbian Museum — developing out of Putnam’sinstitutional initiative - will be the focus of Chapter Four.5Putnam’s efforts to promote the idea to the economic and businessleaders of Chicago, the formation of a committee of Chicago’sleading citizens to promote the idea to the wider businesscommunity, and the involvement of key collectors and financialbackers - namely Edward E. Ayer and Marshall Field - will beexplored. The establishment of a permanent museum was a key goalfor these men from the earliest stages of the fair’s development.The museum initiative will be seen as meeting their needs on anumber of different levels: it not only provided a lastingmonument to the fair, but proved beneficial to its backers interms of their personal status, and served as the cultural symbolfor the city of Chicago. It was promoted as a world—class museumthat was comprehensive in its collections, scientifically soundin regards to fieldwork and research, and innovative in itsdisplay techniques, thus asserting a distinct cultural model.As a conclusion, the complex and confluent relationshipsassociated with Chicago’s “cultural alliance” will be explored,in light of a specific model outlined in Pierre Bourdieu’ssociological study Distinction: A Social Criticrne of theJudgement of Taste. Bourdieu’s analysis of cultural“legitimization” — asserting a direct correlation betweeneconomic, educational and social “capital” — will serve as amodel for the Chicago example. The development of the culturalalliance, extending from a perceived need to foster such arelationship, served both personal and collective interests6within the Chicago community. Furthermore it created aninstitutional construct independent of government connections,supported solely through private benefaction - thus reshaping thecourse of American anthropology.7Chapter OneThree sources have provided the bulk of information utilized tocompile the chronology of events leading up to the establishmentof the World’s Columbian Exposition in Chicago. In 1897,Rossitter Johnson published his History of the World’s ColumbianExposition in four volumes. Although couched within the paradigmsof American “patriotism” and “progress”, this work neverthelessprovides a great deal of information about the structure of thefair. R. Reid Badger’s two works about the fair - his unpublished1975 PhD thesis entitled “The World’s Columbian Exposition:Patterns of Change and Control in the l890s” and his 1979 bookThe Great American Fair: The World’s Columbian Exposition andAmerican Culture — explore the way in which the interest sharedby a few of Chicago’s leading citizens grew into a major campaignto secure the fair for Chicago. Jeanne Weimann’s 1981 studyFair Women, focusing on the Women’s Building at the fair, alsopresents a chapter dealing with governmental interest and thecompetition between major American cities to host the fair.The sequence of events explicated by these three sources providesa substantial framework within which the fair can be analyzed.The structural development of the fair and interest in theformation of a permanent anthropological collection will be seenas developing concurrently - albeit nurtured by differentinterest groups — and eventually merging to form the strong anddirected cultural alliance that existed between Putnam and8“Chicago’s aristocracy.” This collective group supported andpromoted the fair from the beginning. Understanding this directinvolvement can provide insight into how the fair served theirinterests both collectively and individually.Although Washington and New York had expressed interest in thefair’s development prior to this time, it was in 1889 that thepublic drive to hold the World’s Fair in Chicago began (Badger1975:88-89). The Mayor of Chicago, De Witt C. Creiger, appealedto the council to appoint a committee for the establishment ofthe exposition (Johnson 1897:1:9). This proposal was approved,and in July 1889, 100 of Chicago’s most powerful industrialleaders and merchants were appointed to a committee to bring thisproject to its realization (Badger 1975:26). In August of 1889,the first meeting of the committee - now grown to 250 people -took place in the Council Chamber (Johnson 1897:1:9). Thismeeting was of key importance: it underlined the mountinginterest on the part of Chicago’s richest and most influentialcitizens to secure the fair for Chicago, and it marked thebeginnings of the organizational structure within which the ideawas to take shape: a corporation under the name “World’sExposition of 1892.” A capital stock of $5,000,000 wasestablished, divided into 500,000 shares of $10 each, titled “TheWorld’s Columbian Exposition of 1892, the object of which is theHolding of an International Exhibition, or World’s Fair, in theCity of Chicago, and State of Illinois, to commemorate on its9400th anniversary, the discovery of America” (in Badger1975:103)Two sub—committees were then established: the Finance Committeeand the Steering Committee. The goals of these two committeeswere to “create sympathy throughout the country for Chicago tohave the fair, and to raise money for the guaranteed amount”(Weimann 1981:24). The steering committee then appointed tenstanding committees to look after “expenses, congressionalaction, local and national publicity, transportation and hotelaccommodation” (Weimann 1981: 24). The 150 men on the standingcommittees were all “members of Chicago’s aristocracy” noted fortheir wealth and influence. Weimann notes that they “were used togetting things done” (1981:24). By April of 1890, when PresidentHarrison signed the act which officially selected Chicago as thevenue, the capital stock was fully subscribed, and the fair hadguaranteed financial support.Although financially the committees were able to achieve theirgoals, there is still a question as to whether they would be ableto successfully achieve support from the general population ofthe city. Within the body of material written about the fair atthe time, very little information provides insight into how thepublic viewed the fair and whether or not they supported the ideafrom the beginning. The following passage from Johnson presentsonly one commerce—oriented (and sanitized) view of the10development process:During the eight months that elapsed between theappointment of the citizens’ committee of two hundredand fifty and the permanent organization of the companythe work was carried on vigorously, every effort beingmade to awaken the proper enthusiasm in the city andState, to secure pledges of financial supportsufficient to launch the enterprise properly, and toconvince the nation at large and the Congress of theUnited States of the desirability of holding theExposition in Chicago (Johnson l897a:9-l0).Such descriptions of this process as efficient, financially andideologically successful, elide contesting viewpoints. Chicago inthe 1890s - despite its “burgeoning industrial development” - wasin the midst of a massive economic depression, which manifesteditself in widespread unemployment, strikes and civic unrest.According to historian Susan E. Hirsch, “during the depressionyears of 1893 to 1897, unemployment reached record levels inChicago and the country...” (1990:73). Local leaders of businessand industry who were involved in the development of the fair andthe subsequent permanent museum represented the smallest and mostpowerful economic group in Chicago. Their initiatives alonefuelled the mounting interest in hosting the fair, whether or notthey had the support of all citizens. The fair “did not encompassall Chicagoans; it was a vision created by the businessleaders...” (Goler 1990:98). Therefore, the support sought by thecommittees was aimed not at the general population, but at theupper and upper middle classes — those who could support the fairfinancially, and “buy into” its ideological foundations.11The campaign to establish a solid base of support locally wasstill crucial as there was considerable interest from otherAmerican cities to host the fair - namely New York City, St.Louis and Washington, D.C. (Badger 1975:105). As Badger has noted,the main considerations for the chosen location were thesuitability of the city to represent the nation, the financialsupport available within that particular city, and the ability toaccommodate visitors (1975:106).Financial support was of utmost importance due to the nature ofAmerican World’s fairs, which relied heavily on backing from theprivate sector. Hence, Washington D.C. became less of a contenderas a site for the exhibition: outside of the obvious availabilityof government support, the city lacked the private resourcesneeded to stage such an extravagant event (Badger 1975:99).Although St. Louis was in consideration right up until the Senatedecision of 1890, the choice was clearly between New York andChicago due to the economic and financial weight of these twocities. It was ideologically constructed as a competition between“the established Eastern giant and the younger westernchallenger” (Badger 1975:99).1At the congressional hearings, the main argument centred around“which city was the most suitable in terms of representing the1The claims expressed by representatives from New York andSt. Louis at the congressional hearings will not be documented inthis thesis.12nation to the world” (Badger 1979:50). Mayor Creiger, in hiscampaign for the fair, painted a picture of Chicago as the“Metropolis of the West” central in terms of location andaccessibility. In the last decade of the nineteenth century,Chicago was positioned as the “transportation link between theurban East and the agricultural Midwest” and was a major tradeand industrial centre, which ensured the city’s place in thenation’s economic base. More importantly, Creiger presentedChicago as the personification of all that “America” stood for.In his address to the congressional committee on January 10,1890, Creiger painted a picture of Chicago as a city united inits determination to host the fair:The People of the City of Chicago are united in thehope and desire and determination that, wherever thisexposition is held, wherever in the wisdom of thiscongress of the United States it shall be assigned, itshall excel all former events of the kind, and not onlyprove eminently successful, but comport with thegrandeur and dignity of this great and progressivenation. To this end, Chicago stands ready to lend hersupport. Chicago has been growing, under the name of acity, only fifty-six years, but during those years thecity was wiped out by the most terrible calamity thathistory records. she has risen, recuperated andresuscitated by the power of will and new blood, to theproud position of the second city on the continent andthe Metropolis of the West (Creiger quoted in Johnson1897:1:11)This view of Chicago as a place of rapid transformation, growingalmost overnight from a frontier town to the budding urban centreof the late nineteenth century, coupled with its quick economicrecovery from the great fire of 1871, was portrayed in almostmythic proportions. This image expressed the ideologicalfoundations of the proposed fair: the city was promoted as the13personification of the American ideals of progress, industrialadvancement, civic spirit, new wealth and power.Along with Creiger, Thomas B. Bryan, the first Vice President ofthe Directory of the Coluinbian Exposition, represented Chicago atthe congressional hearings. Bryan presented a similar picture ofthe city, arguing that “Chicago in its youth and rapid growthfrom frontier to metropolis typified the national character andthat it also stood for the emerging American West which could nolonger be ignored” (Badger 1979:50). The notion of an “emergingAmerican West” was circulating at the time as an important partthe “American experience” and grounded the country historically.In an excerpt from Frederick Jackson Turner’s 1893 paper “TheSignificance of the Frontier in American History,” firstpresented at the Columbian Exposition and later published in theAmerican Historical Association Annual Report, the notion of the“West” was constructed as the central element in the developmentof the country and its “national character.” As noted by Turner:“Up to our own day American history has been in a large degreethe history of the colonization of the Great West. The existenceof an area of free land, its continuous recession, and theadvance of American settlement westward, explain Americandevelopment” (Turner 1893:199). The closing of the frontier andthe transformation of the American West was also the subject ofthe Bulletin of the Superintendent of the Census for 1890 - citedby Turner in his paper - stating that due to continued westward14expansion and the change this has brought about, the frontierwill no longer be recognized in the census reports:Up to and including 1880 the country had a frontier ofsettlement, but at present the unsettled area has beenso broken into by isolated bodies of settlement thatthere can hardly be said to be a frontier line. In thediscussion of its extent, its westward movement, etc.,it can not, therefore, any longer have a place in thecensus reports (quoted in Turner 1893:199).Within this ideological context, Chicago was the preeminentlocation for the fair, able to exemplify this mythic“transformation” from a rustic frontier existence — with“primitive economic and political conditions” — into a reflectionof “the complexity of city life” (Turner 1893:199).In February of 1890, the House of Representatives officiallychose Chicago as the city to host the Exposition, and on April28, 1890, President Harrison signed the act titled: “An Act toProvide for the Celebration of the 400th Anniversary of theDiscovery of America by Christopher Columbus, by Holding anInternational Exhibition of Arts, Industries, Manufactures andthe Products of the Soil, Mine and Sea, in the City of Chicago,in the State of Illinois” (Badger 1975:110). This choice providedChicago’s new economic and industrial leaders with a uniqueopportunity to gain recognition on both a national andinternational level. As Badger states, “the World’s Fair victorywas a positive sign that the nations eyes would be turned towardthe Western Metropolis” (Badger 1975:111).15This early history of the development of the World’s ColumbianExposition parallels Chicago’s own cultural development; indeed aclear link existed between the ideological foundations associatedwith the fair and the interests of Chicago’s business leaders. Inhis 1990 study “Visions of a Better Chicago,” historian RobertGoler summarizes the structural changes that were taking place inChicago in the late nineteenth century, transforming the cityfrom one of “diversity” to a “unified populace” of Chicagoansworking towards the betterment of the entire city (1990:90). Thisis suggestive of the cultural initiative outlined in this chapter— an initiative that developed out of a distinct coalitionbetween Chicago’s powerful economic and political leaders. Theresulting “cultural alliance” was central to the formation ofChicago’s Columbian Exposition, providing the framework withinwhich Department M and the Field Columbian Museum would takeshape.16Chapter TwoFrederick Ward Putnam (appendix I: figure 1) provided the“educational” and “scientific” backbone in the development ofthis “cultural alliance.” Understanding his interest andinvolvement in the creation of Department M, and in thesubsequent permanent ethnological collection in Chicago, requiressome background concerning his earlier life and activities. Twosources have provided most of the information on Putnam: RalphDexter, in articles from 1966 and 1970, and Joan Mark, in her1980 book entitled Four Anthropologists: An American Science inits Early Years. Both authors analyze Putnam’s pivotal role inthe history of American museum anthropology. Mark not onlyrecognizes the important contributions of Putnam to thisdevelopment, but also underlines the lack of attention Putnam hasreceived, both historically and contemporarily, for hiscontributions in shaping nineteenth century Americananthropology:Little attention has been paid historically to Putnam,and even in his own time, he worked during the earlyyears of his career in the shadow of Lewis Henry Morganand found himself eclipsed by Franz Boas, who had beenhis protege, at the end. Yet Putnam did more thaneither Morgan or Boas to create the profession ofanthropology in the United States. He gave the newscience of anthropology its name. He established manyof its major institutions, including three museums andtwo university departments of anthropology (Mark1980:14)Putnam had a long and varied career prior to his involvement withthe Columbian Exposition and the Field Museum. This informationnot only places these two projects (Department M and the Field17Columbian Exposition) within the context of Putnam’s life work,but also sheds light into the development of his methodologicalapproach towards the collection and display of anthropologicalobjects.Putnam was born in 1839 to an upper-middle class family in Salem,Massachusetts. He was educated in private schools, and grew up“exploring the natural history of Essex county and helping hisfather cultivate plants in the conservatory” (Mark 1980:14). Hewrote his first scientific papers in 1855 at the age of sixteen,and soon after became Curator of Ornithology in the EssexInstitute of Salem, “on the strength of these (papers)” (Mark1980:15). In 1855, Putnam met Louis Agassiz, then Professor ofZoology and Geology at Lawrence Scientific School at HarvardUniversity, and was invited to come to Cambridge to study withAgassiz. (Mark 1980:15) In 1856, Agassiz was beginning toestablish the Museum of Comparative Zoology — the first research—oriented museum in the country — with the help of “universityofficials and private benefactors” (Mark 1980:15). Putnam workedclosely with Agassiz at the Museum of Comparative Zoology from1857 to 1864. This period in the development of Putnam’s careermarked the beginning of a life-long interest in researchinstitutions, and also marked the beginning of an interest in thestudy of human societies.Putnam himself credits this newly developing interest to the18meetings of the American Association for the Advancement ofScience (AAAS) in Montreal in 1857:In the year 1857 this association met for the firsttime beyond the borders of the United States.. .Alreadya member of a year’s standing, it was with feelings ofyouthful pride that I recorded my name and entered themeeting in the hospitable city of Montreal; and it wason this occasion that my mind was awakened to newinterests which in after years led me from the study ofanimals to that of man” (Putnam 1899:474).His scientific background shaped his museological approach.Described by Mark as “an organizer,” Putnam’s attention to detailand his reliance on working directly with the specimens andobjects under study were consistent throughout his career.In 1866, Putnam left the Museum of Comparative Zoology andreturned to the Essex Institute in Salem, where he was appointedSuperintendent (Mark 1980:16). Putnam’s career was advancing at asteady rate, due to his involvement with many aspects of hisfield. Mark remarks on Putnam’s “genius for buildinginstitutions,” and refers to his foundation of a popular journalfor natural history (American Naturalist), his establishment of aprinting office and his development of an agency to sell andexchange specimens and books (Mark 1980:19). These activities,along with his official positions with the newly formed andprestigious scientific institutions, heightened his profilewithin the wider community, and, at the same time, establishedconnections which could further advance his career.One such connection made at this point in his career proved to be19pivotal: his association with George Peabody, a Londonphilanthropist. Peabody was originally from Essex County,Massachusetts, and, while working in London had earned a greatdeal of money in dry goods and transatlantic trade (Hinsley1985:49). Putnam met Peabody in 1867 and proceeded, with the helpof his colleagues at the Essex Institute, to persuade him toendow an Academy of Science (Mark 1980:19). The Peabody Academyof Science of Salem was established in 1867, and Putnam, thentwenty-eight years old, was appointed Director (Mark 1980:19).In his new position, Putnam began a calculated course ofcollection and scientific study. With the help of his staff andguaranteed monetary support, Putnam began to organize andcoordinate collecting expeditions. These expeditions weredesigned not only to advance ethnological sciences (and thus theprestige of Putnam and the institution) but also to collect largeamounts of ethnographic materials for future study (Mark1980:19). This was in keeping with Putnam’s belief that the roleof a scientific institution was “not entertainment or educationof the general public. . . but the furthering of scientificinvestigation” (Mark 1980:19).In 1873, Putnam was appointed as the Permanent Secretary of theAmerican Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). Inthis position — the only permanent one in the association and onewhich he held for twenty—five years - Putnam planned the annual20meetings and published annual reports. In the proceedings for theAAAS meetings of 1873, Putnam’s first year as secretary, thesubsection of Natural History previously referred to as“Ethnology” was changed to “Anthropology” (Mark 1980:21). Itseems that as early as 1873, Putnam was clearly trying toestablish “anthropology” as a term that would encompass manyaspects of the human sciences under one heading (ethnology,archaeology, history, etc.). According to Mark, “Putnam had namedthe new discipline and defined its nature” (Mark 1980:21). Thispositioned him as the consummate “expert” on the subject whopossessed a proven institutional track record. These factors wereimportant points in Putnam’s favour for his acceptance into the“cultural alliance” forming in Chicago between 1890 and 1894. Heheld the intellectual and academic weight needed to form a“legitimate” cultural institution in Chicago - one worthy ofnational and international attention.In 1875, Putnam was appointed as Curator of the Peabody Museum ofAmerican Archaeology and Ethnology at Harvard University. Soonafter his arrival, he began a meticulous reorganization of thecollection and its method of display. This position providedPutnam with far more scope and exercise of control in theestablishment of a particular institutional mandate. Putnam’smandate for the “overhaul” of the Peabody collection was toimplement a new method of display, to continue to amasspublications in order to build up an important library resource,21and to “seek new collections” to facilitate a more comprehensivedisplay (Mark 1980:22). Under his direction, the Peabody Museumbegan to work towards “introducing scientific methods ofarrangement into the heterogeneous collections of antiquities andof curios from uncivilized peoples” (Putnam in Mark 1980:22).Contrary to many of his contemporaries in America and Europe —namely Otis T. Mason at the National Museum in Washington andGeneral A.H.L.F. Pitt Rivers at the Pitt-Rivers Museum in England— Putnam began to arrange the collections at the Peabody Museumin “geographical sequence,” keeping the areal collectionstogether as a whole (Mark 1980:22). Although this indicates thatboth the geographical and evolutionary approaches were recognizedon a theoretical level, the museum “method of choice” in the latenineteenth century in the United States was the evolutionaryapproach - both implemented and promoted by Mason and Powell atthe United States National Museum of the Smithsonian Institutionin Washington, D.C.The differences between these two approaches caused considerablecontention within the scientific community. An antagonisticdebate evolving out of this methodological rift took place in thepages of Science magazine in 1887, between Mason — supporting the“established” evolutionary approach — and young German—bornscientist Franz Boas — asserting support for the geographicalarrangement. Putnam had met Boas in 1886 at an annual meeting of22the American Association for the Advancement of Science.According to Mark, “Putnam saw to it that Boas was made a foreignassociate and shortly thereafter helped him get a job asassistant editor of Science magazine (Mark 1980:32).Boas had visited Mason’s collection in Washington, D.C. and feltthat the method of display utilized was insufficient for researchpurposes in that it ignored the cultural use of artifacts. In anarticle published in the May 20, 1887 issue of Science magazine,Boas publicly criticized the limits of Mason’s approach, whichinvolved the exhibition of objects of a similar form together:By regarding a single implement outside of itssurroundings, outside of other inventions of the peopleto whom it belongs, and outside of other phenomenaaffecting that people and its productions, we cannotunderstand its meaning. The only fact that a collectionof implements used for the same purpose, or made of thesame material, teaches, is, that man in different partsof the earth has made similar inventions, while, on theother hand, a collection representing the life of onetribe enables us to understand the single specimen farbetter. Our objection to Mason’s idea is, thatclassification is not explanation (Boas 1887:485).Classification of objects according to formal evolutionarydefinitions and categories was central to Mason’s approach, thusnegating the interrelationships of function within the societiesof origin. Comparison in terms of such evolutionary sequencesbecame the modus operandi of these displays. It is not myintention to present fully the terms of this debate betweenevolutionism and cultural relativism. I would like to note,however, that whereas evolutionism was institutionalized withinthe federal government, cultural relativism provided a new and23competing method with which the emerging private industrialwealth could align itself (Cohodas 1993). In particular, itprovided the economic leaders of Chicago with the focus for astrong “cultural alliance” which could garner both national andinternational attention.In an 1889 paper published by the American Antiquarian Society,Putnam outlined his methodological approach in terms of thecollection and organization of materials, and his plan to expandand restructure the Peabody Museum, emphasizing as well theinstitution’s holdings of Native American objects:The methods of research instigated and conducted by theMuseum together with the special method of arrangementof the collections, have made it of first importance inthe study of American archaeology. Much instructivematerial has also been gathered relating to theexisting tribes of America; but heretofore, for want ofroom, little of a purely ethnological character couldbe exhibited...In relation to the methods of fieldresearch and the arrangement of the principlecollections, which have given to the Museum itsprominent position, it may be stated that in the firstcase, the collections have been largely made by trainedexplorers in the field, who have done their work in athorough manner and have brought together masses ofmaterial of inestimable value for study, as each objectis authenticated and the exact conditions under whichit was obtained and its association with other objectsfully recorded (Putnam 1889:184-5).The conceptualization and implementation of this particularmethodological approach is of key importance when analyzing thedevelopment of the anthropological displays at Chicago’sColumbian Exposition. As head of the department, Putnam wasintent on developing the Anthropological display at the fair -and later at the Field Columbian Museum — along these same lines.24As Mark states, Department N was to be “an enlargement of theplan for the Peabody Museum” (1980:36).Putnam began a vigorous campaign to secure a permanent collectionfor the city of Chicago long before his appointment as head ofDepartment N at the World’s Columbian Exposition. He recognizedearly the opportunity that the fair offered in terms of creatinga collection which could form the nucleus for the development ofa permanent museum. He saw that it was possible to carry out muchof the groundwork for the development of a world—classanthropological museum at the fair, under the aegis of DepartmentN. Securing collections through donations and funded expeditions,creating a solid financial base with which to engage infieldwork, as well as attracting substantial public attention,both regionally and nationally, were some of the benefits thatthe fair had to offer. Putnam, who had a history of expertise inthe development of museum collections — as at the PeabodyMuseum — wasted no time in promoting his plans to Chicago’sbusiness and economic leaders.With a specific and calculated plan of action, Putnam began towork towards gaining support for his idea, emphasizing the needfor such an institution in Chicago. On May 31, 1890, only onemonth after the official act for the Exposition was signed byPresident Harrison, Putnam expressed publicly in The ChicagoDaily Tribune his interest in the creation of a permanent25collection for the city of Chicago that would focus on NativeAmerican populations from the past and present, with particularemphasis on the time of Columbus’s “discovery” of America. Inaddition, Putnam’s address focused on the importance of theexhibition’s contribution to science, its historical associations(connecting it to the fair’s overriding program of “development”and “progress”), and the subsequent plan for a permanent museumfor the city of Chicago:To all who visited the World’s Fair at Paris last year,the Ethnographical Department proved to be one of greatattraction, and the study of man as he has been in thepast and as he is in the present in distant countrieswas made possible by object lessons of the greatestinterest. In this connection cannot Chicago secure andplace in the Exposition a perfect ethnographicalexhibition of past and present peoples of America andthus make an important contribution to science, whichat the same time will be appropriate, as it will be thefirst bringing together on a grand scale ofrepresentatives of the peoples who were living on thecontinent when it was discovered by Columbus and byincluding as thorough a representation of prehistorictimes as possible, the stages of development of man(sic) on the American continent could be spread outlike an open book from which all could read. Furtherthan this, such a collection would form a grandbeginning for a permanent ethnological museum whichwould grow in importance and value as time goes on andthe present American tribes are absorbed by the peoplesof the several republics, an absorption which is takingplace quite rapidly. Such an exhibition to be worthy ofthe name and of the city, and placed in a permanentbuilding, would cost several hundred thousand dollars,and if it should be contemplated, not a day should belost (Putnam quoted in Dexter 1966:316).The sense of urgency expressed by Putnam seems to refer not onlyto the collection of Native American artifacts - relating to thenotion of the “Vanishing Indian” and the need to collect andpreserve their cultural objects - but also to the financial26commitments that had to be secured in order to carry out theproject.2Putnam, as a scientist with a strong background in thedevelopment of museums and museum collections, recognized theopportunity the fair afforded him to obtain solid financialbacking to prepare the “ideal ethnographical exhibition” througha comprehensive program of fieldwork and collection. Theopportunity to literally create a collection on his own termsmeant that Putnam’s proposed ethnographical display at the fairhad a very real potential to become the most “complete” and“comprehensive” collection of its kind in America. However, inorder to secure support for his project, Putnam was faced withcertain compromises: in this first public appeal, Putnam stressedthe exhibition’s potential for education, illustrating the“development of man (sic) on the American continent.” Byincluding these references, Putnam sought to create a place forthe ethnographic display within the context of the fair’sideological program — thus underlining a “need” for itsinclusion.His public appeal in the Chicago Tribune was only the first of2The “Vanishing Indian” refers to the ideological constructof the inevitable disappearance of Native cultures, which fuelleda need — felt on the part of many Americans — to collect andpreserve anything associated with Native American cultures beforeit was “too late” (Dippie 1982).27many newspaper accounts dealing with the plan for theestablishment of an Ethnological department at the ColumbianExposition, and the development of a permanent museumcommemorating the event. It underlined the importance of Putnam’srole in planting the seed in the minds of Chicago’s economic andindustrial leaders. His public statement served both collectiveand personal interests: collectively it secured interest andmoney for his plan for the exposition, and marked the startingpoint for a four—year campaign to secure a permanent museum inChicago; personally, it solidified his role in the fulfilment ofboth projects.Over the next few months leading up to the realization of theExposition, and the development of the Field Columbian Museum,Putnam’s role proved to be pivotal. Putnam’s public campaign, hisalliance with Chicago’s leading citizens, and his comprehensiveagenda for collection not only fuelled the development of thepermanent collection, but established at an early stage a solidpartnership between the museum and its financial backers. Such apartnership was not foreign to Putnam. In fact, his comprehensiveagenda for collection, and his skill for the development ofinstitutions — in collaboration with key financial backers — werethe keys to his earlier successes, most notably at the PeabodyMuseum at Harvard.Public interest in Putnam’s initiative began in 1890, stemming28from his initial proposal for the development of ananthropological department at the fair. Over the next sevenmonths leading to the declaration of the Exposition’s officialdepartments, a variety of reactions were voiced in the nationalpress. In September of 1890, a reporter for the Boston Heraldwrote that “one of the most interesting features of the World’sFair of 1892 at Chicago will probably be the Americanethnographical exhibit under the direction of Prof. F.W. Putnamof Harvard.” (quoted in Dexter 1966:318). Another article whichappeared in the Chicago Tribune on September 16, 1890, expressedthe opposite sentiment: that such an exhibition has no placewithin the World’s Fair and that Putnam “mistakes the purpose ofthe fair.” The author states that “if such an exhibition as thisis needed it can be amply provided from the collection of theSmithsonian Institution” (quoted in Dexter 1966:318).The polarized reactions appearing in the local and nationalnewspapers are understandable. For many, the idea of spendingmoney on the research and collection of specimens was seen asunnecessary when they could be lent by the National Museum, whilefor others this research was crucial to create a lasting culturalinstitution for the city of Chicago. The common denominator tothese contested points of view is the assumption that collectionsof Native American objects were their “property” to be used inconstructing and legitimating Euro-American institutions. TheBoard of Directors of the World’s Columbian Exposition agreed29with Putnam: in December 1890, Department N became one of theofficial departments for the fair (Johnson 1987:11:316).Although it did cover a broad range of topics - includingArchaeology, History, Cartography, the Latin—American Bureau, andthe Collective and Isolated Exhibits - Department M proved to bean extremely important step for the development of AmericanAnthropology. Not only was it the first time that the sciences ofarchaeology and ethnology were included in an official departmentat a world’s fair, it was the first time that the term“Anthropology” was used to refer to the entire spectrum of thediscipline. This action on the part of Putnam served tointroduce a new term — and a new science — to the Americanpublic. Additionally, it closed the gap between the name “Putnam”and the discipline of “Anthropology” in the minds of thescientific community: Putnam was clearly setting himself up asthe founder of American Anthropology. It was now time for Putnamto begin to carry out his much anticipated plan for the fair, andto establish the framework within which his “new” science wouldoperate.Putnam officially accepted his appointment as Chief of DepartmentN on February 13, 1891, one month after the position was offeredto him by George R. Davis, then Director-General of the World’sThe separate Anthropological Building was originally to becalled the “Educational Building” (Dexter 1966:323)30Columbian Exposition. In their original negotiations regardingthe position, Putnam outlined his plans for the department. Inaddition to his condition that the Directory should “appropriatesufficient money for original research and exploration...to bringtogether as much new scientific material as the time wouldpermit,” Putnam also expressed his wish for the development of apermanent museum (Johnson 1897:11:316).In his monthly report to Davis from December 1891, Putnam refersto their original meeting and the conditions under which heaccepted the position, namely that the exhibition would includefunded research and field collection, and that a permanent museumfor Chicago would be the result of Putnam’s work:You will remember that in our first conversationrelating to my appointment as Chief of the EthnologicalDepartment, I stated that I could not afford to give mytime simply to establish a tableau of six monthsduration, but if the exposition would give me theopportunity to advance science by bringing together athoroughly scientific collection worthy of the countryand creditable to myself, I would take the positionwith the hope and belief that a permanent museum inChicago would be the result and that therefore mylabors of nearly three years would not be lost — Iconsider it of the first importance that this permanentmuseum should be established at an early date, as itwill then be understood by exhibitors and promoters ofthe exposition that many exhibits will remainpermanently in Chicago (Putnam in Dexter 1970:24).This recollection of a specific negotiation concerning Putnam’sinvolvement with the fair, and the parameters within which he waswilling to work, is important for two reasons: upon acceptingthese conditions, Davis indicates his (and the Directory’s) earlysupport for Putnam’s plans; and, second, it underlines a strong31allegiance to Putnam himself. Putnam had a great deal to offer.Not only could he provide the scientific and intellectual know-how to carry out such a project successfully, Putnam alsoexhibited great drive and passion for this project inparticular — one he had been promoting himself for almost a year.Putnam’s involvement with the development of Americananthropology museums extends to the period before his involvementwith Chicago’s Columbian Exposition, and continued after theestablishment of the Field Columbian Museum. In 1894 he becamecurator of the American Museum of Natural History in New York,and in 1903 he became the Director of the Anthropological Museumat the University of California at Berkeley (Dexter 1966:154).32Chapter ThreeIn order to reconstruct the displays of Department M, a varietyof sources have been utilized. In particular, two sourcespublished by the Exposition’s Department of Publicity andPromotions proved valuable in compiling the information. Headedby journalist Moses P. Handy, the Department of Publicity andPromotions developed a variety of written materials for each ofthe Departments. Particularly useful were the original “Plan andClassification” for Department M, published in 1892, and anedition of the “Official Catalogue” for the department, publishedin 1893. These sources will be supplemented by newspaper andperiodical accounts which circulated at the time of the fair, aswell as detailed descriptive information taken from Johnson’sHistory of the World’s Columbian Exposition (1897) and Hubert H.Bancroft’s Book of the Fair (1893).Although the focus of this chapter will be specifically tooutline the Anthropological Building and outdoor ethnographicdisplays of Department M - in terms of the scope of the projectas a whole and the way in which the collection was formed — thesemust be seen as existing within a larger framework. Thus, theAnthropological Building and the outdoor ethnographic displaywill be explored first as they relate to other sections includedunder the rubric of Department N - the Midway Plaisance andIsolated Exhibits - and second in relation to specificgovernmental exhibits presented at the fair - the Smithsonian33Institution’s Ethnological Hall, located in the GovernmentBuilding, and the Department of the Interior’s Model IndianSchool, situated alongside the outdoor display. This comparativeanalysis will reveal part of the complex web of agendas andideological approaches that co—existed within the confines of thefair, and the way in which these components come together withinthe context of the overall ideological framework of the ColumbianExposition. Finally, I will present a comparison between the“cultural relativist” methods employed by Putnam in Department Mand the approach taken up by Mason in the Ethnological Hall ofthe Government Building.In the original “Plan and Classification” for Department N,Putnam outlined the structure of the department “as determined bythe National Commission” (Putnam and Davis 1892:3). Eachsection was defined within the publication. In essence, the “Planand Classification” served as a solid introduction to the generalplan and scope of the department. On another level, it sought tosolicit direct support from the private sector for thedevelopment of the project. The following excerpt illustratesPutnam’s efforts to facilitate the implementation of his plan:The following summary of the several sections intowhich the department is subdivided, in order tofacilitate the work of bringing together and arrangingthe exhibition as a whole, briefly describes the planof the department. It also shows wherein thecooperation of foreign governments, of state boards and‘Although it appears that the “Plan and Classification” waswritten by Putnam, it was signed by both Putnam and Davis.34of individual exhibitors is specially needed in orderto make the exhibitions in every way worthy of theoccasion and of importance to science and education(Putnam and Davis 1892:4).Putnam goes further to specifically signal private collectors fortheir involvement in the formation of the department’sexhibition. Under the heading “Plan and Scope of Department M,”Putnam explained the way in which objects and collections were tobe secured for the exhibition:By means of special research in different parts ofAmerica, under the direction of the Chief of thedepartment, important scientific collections in theethnological and archaeological sections of thisdepartment will be brought together. While a largeamount of valuable material will be secured this way,it is hoped that every state board, and many historicaland scientific societies, as well as owners of privatecollections, will join in this educational exhibit,that a full and effective illustration may be presentedof the present status of American archaeology andethnology (Putnam and Davis 1892:5).The direct involvement of private collectors in addition to stateboards, and historical and scientific societies, is important fortwo reasons. First, the inclusion of their collections indicatesan interest on their part in the type of display presented andthe ideological message it conveyed; and second, their monetarysupport ensured direct involvement in the collection policiesdeveloped by Putnam in regards to the department’s originalfieldwork. Putnam’s agenda to create an historically significantand comprehensive collection of Native American artifacts will berevealed as central to the interests of these private collectors.Department M was originally to be housed within the Manufactures35and Liberal Arts Building, but, due to space constraints causedby the expanding program of the exhibit, it was relocated to itsown building in the Southeastern section of the fair grounds(appendix I:figure 2). As noted by Douglas Cole in his 1985 bookCaptured Heritage, the relocation caused numerous problems forPutnam and his department. Delays in the construction andinstallation plagued the set up of Department N, and the exhibitwould not be open to the public until early July, nine weeksafter the fair had opened (1985:125-6).As noted by a journalist from the Chicago Daily Tribune on July2, 1893, the exhibit, although open to the public at this time,was still not complete:It will be well into July before it be fully ready forinspection. This is not the fault of Chief Putnam norof his exhibitors, but of the Construction Department.The exhibits have been on hand for many months, exposedto injury in many ways, while the building itself at asnail’s pace crept onward towards completion. So longand so exasperating had been the delay that ChiefPutnam decided last week that he would bar out thepublic no longer, and threw open his doors to the eagercrowd to see what they could.During the whole week, in spite of noise, dirt, andconfusion, and of the fact that the exhibits were notone-half ready, the building has been almost packedwith visitors (Anonymous 1893e).One early report in fact predicted that the Anthropology Buildinghad “the most promise of being a failure” and was considered“likely to be overlooked by nine out of every ten visitors.” Thisprojection from the New York Times of May 22, 1893 (Anonymous1893d) referred to the department’s delay in completion and itsinaccessibility.36Such public attacks on the Anthropology Building stemmed in partfrom an overall cynicism articulated in the national presstowards Chicago and its ability to carry out such a projectsuccessfully. These reports may also reflect an underlyingresistance on the part of powerful and established Easterners torecognize Chicago’s emerging institutional position. However,despite the early problems faced by Putnam and his department,and such grim predictions circulating in the popular press, theAnthropology Building received wide public attention and, whenthe fair was over, was seen to be a success.The “Official Catalogue” for Department M was prepared by Putnamand distributed by the Department of Publicity and Promotions. Itcontained a detailed listing of the Anthropological Building, theMidway Plaisance and Isolated Exhibits. The Midway Plaisance waslocated on a strip of land adjoining the fair grounds, and wasset up as the “entertainment section” of the fair. A variety ofconcessions were located here, including Persian, Japanese andIndian bazaars, a Moorish Palace, an Algerian Theatre, SittingBull’s Log Cabin, the Ferris Wheel, and the “Streets of Cairo”which included over sixty shops — as well as camel and donkeyrides (Badger 1979:107-8). Other “Isolated Exhibits” included an“Eskimo” Village, a Viking Ship, and the Cliff-Dwellers exhibit(Johnson 1897:11:333).According to Johnson, the Midway Plaisance and Isolated Exhibits37were included in Department M “merely for classification” and“had no direct connection with it” (Johnson 1897:11:333). Infact, although the Midway Plaisance was officially placed underthe jurisdiction of Putnam and Department M, Sol Bloom, apromoter from San Francisco, was appointed as Manager of theconcessions. Bloom later reminisced:The Midway Plaisance...had been placed under thedirection of the chief of the Department of Ethnology,a distinguished educator and scientist who was aprofessor at Harvard University. There never was anyquestion about Professor Putnam’s qualifications ashead of the ethnological section, but to have made thisunhappy gentleman responsible for the establishment ofa successful venture in the field of entertainment wasabout as intelligent a decision as it would be today tomake Albert Einstein manager of the Ringling Brothersand Barnum and Bailey Circus (Bloom 1948:119).Bloom had complete charge of the Midway, answering directly toDaniel Burnam, Director of Works for the Columbian Exposition(Bloom 1948:120). The conscious separation of the “amusement”section of the fair from the anthropological display issuggestive, indicating an effort to maintain a more “serious”tone for Department M: by removing it both intellectually andspatially from the “carnivalesque” section of the MidwayPlaisance, Department M could more readily project an imagegrounded solidly within the confines of “science” and“education.”Putnam appointed Franz Boas as Chief Assistant in charge of theLaboratories of Physical Anthropology and Ethnology. Working withBoas were “fifty—five volunteer field assistants (mostly from38universities in different parts of the country) who collectedmaterial for the sections of Physical Anthropology and Ethnology”(Johnson 1897:11:317). Johnson states that twenty more assistants“were engaged for special ethnological, archaeological andhistorical work for the department, under special agreements”(Johnson 1897:11:317). In addition, six other key assistants wereappointed, each in charge of a particular section of thedepartment: Dr. Joseph Jastrow, Laboratory of Psychology; Dr.H.H. Donaldson, Laboratory of Neurology; Stewart Culin, AncientReligions, Games and Folklore; George A. Dorsey, South AmericanArchaeology and Ethnology; John Bidlake, Isolated Exhibits andMidway Plaisance; and C. Staniland Wake, Library (Johnson1897:11:317). I have included this information in order tounderline the extensive network of professionals from thescientific community needed to facilitate such a project. Each ofthese assistants, both regular and volunteer, receivedinstruction directly from Putnam or, in his absence, from Boas(Johnson 1897:11:319).Putnam’s instructions for the collection of materials for thearchaeological and ethnological exhibitions were comprehensiveand systematic, and were designed to provide visitors with a viewof Native habitations and of actual Native peoples themselves:The Department of Ethnology has planned a comprehensiveethnographic exhibit which is intended to present apicture of the actual home life of the native peoplesin different parts of America. In accordance with thisplan, arrangements have been made to bring to Chicago anumber of representatives of several tribes, who,39dressed in their native costumes, will live in theirnative dwellings, surrounded by their utensils,implements, weapons, etc., and carry on theircharacteristic industries of pottery making, basketweaving, etc.In connection with this ethnographical exhibit allassistants of the department among the native peoplesare requested to give as much time as possible to thecollection of objects illustrative of each tribe theymay visit. For this purpose it is very desirable that acharacteristic aboriginal dwelling of each tribe shallbe secured, with all the appurtenances. Particularattention should be paid to the fact that the mostimportant things to be collected are those of genuinenative manufacture, and especially those objectsconnected with olden times. Objects traded to thenatives by the whites are of no importance, and are notdesired; the plan being to secure such a completecollection from each tribe as will illustrate thecondition and mode of life of the tribe before contactwith Europeans (Putnam in Johnson 1897:11:319).This emphasis on a wide range of materials was designed tofacilitate “exact reconstructions” of Native Americanhabitations, with the aim of creating a microcosmic communitywithin the confines of the fair grounds. By focusing specificallyon objects of “genuine native manufacture,” and especially those“connected with olden times,” the exhibit served to de—historicize Native American cultures, removing them from time.The methods of field collection laid out by Putnam were designedto facilitate a comprehensive display, and to maintain completedocumentation of each article collected:Every object should be carefully labelled, giving thefull statement of its use, and, if possible, its methodof manufacture. Specimens of the crude material,showing various stages of manufacture, should also beplaced with the object when possible. All these objectsshould be carefully packed in strong boxes andforwarded to Chicago (Putnam in Johnson 1897:11:319).40This attention to detail was typical of Putnam’s approach. Thecarefully outlined methods of collection and the meticulousdocumentation ensured that Putnam’s exhibit in Department M wouldbe seen as having both historical and scientific merit in termsof its full account of American anthropology, and would not beviewed simply as an irrelevant “cabinet of curiosity.”However, despite the careful scientific agenda set forth byPutnam — in terms of the collection and documentation of NativeAmerican artifacts - the exhibit still developed within thecontext of a larger agenda based on the accumulation of objects.In this respect, Department M very much resembled a “cabinet ofcuriosity.” The display in the Anthropology Building - titled“Man and His Works” — covered more than 100,000 square feetdevoted to archaeological and ethnological exhibits (appendix I:fig.3). The exhibition included ethnographic material collectedduring the fair’s funded expeditions, as well as material donatedby state boards, private collectors and foreign countries. Hence,the range of material secured by Putnam for the final exhibit wasoverwhelming, much larger than originally anticipated. Putnam’soriginal aim was to present an exhibition revealing the “statusof American archaeology and ethnology”, but the final result wasa somewhat jumbled display including a great amount of“Cabinet of curiosity” is the term for private collectionsof European Gentlemen of the eighteenth and nineteenth century.These cabinets consisted of an array of “curious” objects,including both artifacts and natural history specimens.41ethnographic material from all over the world (Putnam and Davis1892:5). Thus, two related agendas are discernable in thedevelopment of Department M: one based on documentation andclassification and another based on accumulation and possession.Located on a strip of land along the South Pond of the Expositiongrounds, the Outdoor Ethnographic Display included several groupsof Native Americans living in constructions designed to representtheir Native habitats and surroundings (appendix I:fig.4). Thesedisplays were the quintessential examples of the “culturalrelativist” framework which Putnam and Boas were promoting: eachNative community was set up independently in what was describedas “their own houses, dressed in their native costumes andsurrounded by their own utensils, implements, weapons and resultsof their own handiwork” (Putnam in Hinsley 1990:347).As Boas stated in a September 1893 article in The Cosmopolitan,the “meaning” of the ethnological specimens was “made clearer bythe presence of (this) small colony of Indians” (Boas 1893:609).Putnam, like Boas, felt that the outdoor exhibition would “proveof the greatest popular interest” and be seen as “essential andappropriate” in terms of both the occasion and his agenda for theintroduction of a “new” anthropology to the American public(Putnam in Hinsley 1990:347). On these terms, Department M wassuccessful: the exhibition received a great amount of publicattention, from descriptive accounts appearing in magazines and42periodicals such as Popular Science, American Antiquarian and TheCosmopolitan, to newspaper and popular press accounts publishedbefore and during the fair. Of all the features of Department M,the outdoor display received the greatest amount of pressattention.Much information can be drawn from these primary sources inregards to the scope of the display and its structural format. Anarticle from the April 12, 1893 edition of the Chicago DailyTribune, entitled “Quackuhis (sic) Are Here,” provides adescription of the outdoor display’s spatial configuration andplaces the display within the specific ideological framework ofNative peoples so—called “progress” towards “civilization:”It (the Outdoor display) will be one of the steps in“The March of the Aborigine to Civilization”...typifiedby the government school house, which is at one end ofthe exhibit. Next comes the Esguiinau village, and then,in order, Crees from Manitoba, Penobscots from Maine,Iroquois from New York, Quackuhls, Chippewas fromMinnesota, Winnebagos from Wisconsin, Sioux, Blackfeet,Nez Perces, and other tribes from the far West. Thecome South American natives - Arrawacs and SavannahIndians from British Guinea and natires from Boliviaand other States (Anonymous 1893a).Outlined by Putnam, the outdoor display was specifically designedto “bring together the remnants of the native tribes” in order toafford a “last opportunity for the world to see them and realizewhat their condition, their life, their customs, their arts werefour centuries ago” (Putnam in Hinsley 1990:347). At the same6The reference in the article’s title to “Quackuhis” refersto the Kwakwaka’ wakw (Kwagiulth) Nation of the Northwest Coast.43time, Putnam was aware of the fair’s ideological program based onnotions of “progress” and “civilization” and how his exhibitionserved to nurture these ideas.Putnam’s stated methods grounded Department M’s outdoor displaysolidly within the framework of “ethnographic salvage,” anineteenth century intellectual paradigm stemming from aperceived sense of urgency to collect and preserve the “remnants”of disappearing cultures. As stated by Gruber, “this tradition ofsalvage...and the concepts and methodology that flowed from itimbued anthropology with much of its early character” (Gruber1970:1290). Central to the approach taken up by Putnam and Boaswas a stated interest in “genuine” objects “from olden times.”The “salvage” project reflected in these exhibitions functionedas a way of capturing some notion of the past, freezing and de—historicizing Native American cultures, thus removing them fromtime.Anthropologist Virginia Dominguez’s general statement on thecollection of Native American objects underlines the way in whichcollections like those of Putnam and Boas operated in terms ofboth Chicago’s Columbian Exposition and the subsequent permanentmuseum:Each act of selecting items, selecting peoples fromwhom to collect, electing or not electing to elicitinformation on the detailed history of each item, theirproducers, users, and owners, choosing items for publicdisplay in exhibitions, and organizing those displayswas an act of creation. The interest in collecting44those items for storage and display came not from theIndians themselves but from the Americans andEuropeans. . .The idea that tradition or heritage wasmanifest in material objects was of Euro—Americanorigin (1986:550).The “new” approach to display utilized in the ColumbianExposition’s outdoor ethnographic constructions reflected acareful and deliberate construction of heritage, designed toreflect the state of Native American peoples at the time ofColumbus. It became one of the reference points for Euro—Americans to demonstrate the four centuries of “progress”associated with Columbus’s quadricentennial.The model Indian School, set up by the United States governmentthrough the Department of the Interior, provided a strongideological foil to Putnam’s outdoor display, due to its closeproximity (appendix I:fig.5). The spatial relationshipfacilitated an evolutionist reading of the outdoor display,suggesting a sequence or temporal scale with which one couldultimately measure the “progress” of Native Americans towards“civilization” (Hinsley 1990). This reading was in directconflict with Putnam and Boas’s intentions in constructing theoutdoor display. Based on cultural relativist ideals, the outdoordisplay was intended to reflect an “allochronic” structure,removing Native American cultures from time, thus negatingdevelopmental comparisons or judgements.?‘see Johannes Fabian’s 1983 study Time and the Other: HowAnthropology Makes its Oblect.45A May 16, 1893 article from the Chicacfo Inter Ocean expressed theobject of the exhibit, referring to a statement by S.B.Whittington, the Superintendent of the Model Indian school:to show what progress has been made in educating theindians (sic) to fit them for useful occupations. Theywill continue their mental as well as manual trainingwhile on the grounds, but especial attention will begiven to showing the progress which they have made inthe useful arts (Anonymous 1893f).As reiterated by historian H. Bancroft, this exhibit of the“civilized Indian” was designed to illustrate the “progress” ofthe “nation’s proteges” (Bancroft 1893:631). The model Indianschool, prepared by the U.S. Department of the Interior andheaded by Whittington, presented the government agency’scontemporary model: as Native American cultures were relegated tothe past and slotted comfortably into the museum context, NativeAmerican peoples were to be assimilated into the framework ofmodern America.The “assimilation” stage fit neatly within the Exposition’sideological framework, which not only stressed the “progress ofcivilization” over the past four centuries, but lookedoptimistically towards the future, to a unified and thoroughlymodern America. Although these ideas do not reflect Putnam’sapproach, the outdoor ethnographic display became central to thisconstruction, through the juxtaposition of the outdoorethnographic display and the U.S. Department of the Interior’smodel Indian school (appendix I:fig.1). The “official” program of“progress” and “assimilation” tended to override the multiple46anthropological agendas discernable at the fair. To a certaindegree, the ideological rift that existed between Mason’sevolutionary model and Putnam and Boas’s cultural relativistmodel was smoothed over by this overriding frame of assimilationin the paradigm of “progress.”Through his writing, Boas sought to reestablish the distinctionsthat existed between Department N and the other ideologicalapproaches represented at the fair. In a September 1893 articlein The Cosmopolitan, Boas presented an overview of the exhibitionprepared by the Department of Ethnology, through a directcomparison between two “models” of display:At great expositions the achievements of individualsand of nations may be set forth in two ways, either bycompetitive exhibits, in which each individual and eachcountry endeavors to show to best advantage the pointsof eminence of its products; or by selected exhibits,which are arranged with a view of giving a systematicseries of exhibits covering a certain field. The lattermethod gives the best result for the student of thehistory of civilization. . . it is the museum method (Boas1893:607).The implementation of selected and systematic exhibits was seenby Boas as the “distinctive feature” of Department M, placing itin direct contrast to those prepared by other departments, namelythe Ethnological Hall in the Government Building (appendix I:fig. 6). A comparison between the methods employed by Putnam andBoas in Department M with those employed by Otis T. Mason in theEthnological Hall of the Government Building will reiterate theideological conflict that arose between the two groups ofscientists.47Mason was curator of Ethnology at the United States NationalMuseum, and was responsible for the ethnographic exhibit includedin the Government Building. Throughout his career, Masondisplayed meticulous attention to the classification of NativeAmerican societies. In 1879 he worked with the Bureau of AmericanEthnology and recorded thousands of names for the “Handbook ofAmerican Indians” (Hough 1908:664).In his paper, “Ethnological Exhibit of the SmithsonianInstitution at the World’s Columbian Exposition,” Mason outlinedthe main agenda behind the institution’s representation: “tobring together the results of the labors of men connected withthe Smithsonian Institution” (Mason 1894:211). An enlarged mapprepared by Major John Wesley Powell formed the basis of theEthnological Hall’s exhibition, classifying Native Americancultures according to “linguistic stocks:”Of the fifty-seven linguistic stocks the great majorityof them are represented now by a very small number ofindividuals who have lost their own connection withtheir ancient aboriginal life. . . at the time ofdiscovery the North American continent was inhabited byIndians speaking a few great families of languages.These are, in alphabetical order, the Algonquian,Athapaskan, Eskimauan, Iroquoian, Keresan, Kiowan,Koluschan, Muskogean, Piman, Salishan, Siouan,Skittagetan, Tanoan, Wakashan, Yuman, Zunian (Mason1894:211).Powell was the Director of the Bureau of American Ethnology andwas closely affiliated with Mason and the Washington circle. Inhis 1981 book Savages and Scientists, Hinsley outlines thisalliance: “Powell’s map, the culmination of that work opportunely48published in 1891, furnished the stimulus and organizingprinciple for his (Mason’s) efforts. Mason’s goal at Chicago wasto honor Powell, the map, and American anthropology” (Hinsley1981:110)The seventeen groups Mason chose to represent — selected tocorrespond to Powell’s map and its language group classificationsystem — were set up in “life group” arrangements, in which lifesize models of Native Americans were exhibited “each in thepeculiar costume of his nation” in active and interactive poses(Johnson 1897:111:505). The implementation of the “life group”exhibits evolved out of the single life-size wax figures that hadbeen used periodically at the Smithsonian Institution in the1870’s. At that time, they were strictly experimental displayswhich were not incorporated into the permanent exhibition(Hinsley 1981:108). Single figures had been used to displaycostumes in the Smithsonian exhibits at the Philadelphia World’sFair of 1876, but “only in 1893 were groups of such costumedfigures arranged in dramatic scenes from daily life and ritual”(Jacknis 1985:81). According to Hinsley, the display at theColumbian Exposition set a precedent which continued as amainstay in museum display technique: “after Chicago virtuallyevery government anthropology exhibit featured primitive peoplesworking and playing in appropriately naturalistic environments”(Hinsley 1981:109).49However, the “life group” was not an American invention. Hinsleysuggests that the implementation of the “life group” into theSmithsonian Institution’s exhibits was a direct result of Mason’strip to Europe in 1889, where he saw similarly structureddisplays at the British Museum (Hinsley 1981:109). Mason’s tourof Europe also brought him in contact with a variety of museumdisplay methods. He visited the 1889 Paris ExpositionUniverselle, where he was struck by the ethnographic villages setup along the Seine. These were seen by Mason as illustrative ofthe “evolution” of human cultures (Hinsley 1981:109-10). Inaddition, Mason’s visits to museums in London, Oxford and Dresdenserved to underline his belief in the importance of thedevelopmental approach, further confirming his support of theevolutional arrangements (Hinsley 1981:109-10).The Government’s Ethnological Hall at the World’s ColumbianExposition included several display cases set up according to“typologies,” where like objects were grouped together with verylittle regard to cultural distinctions. These types of displayswere more in keeping with Mason’s approach at the NationalMuseum, directly reflecting his alliance with contemporarytheories of historical evolutionism. Mason’s overall approach toother cultures, as pointed out by Franz Boas in an 1887 articlefrom Science magazine, was “to classify human inventions andother ethnological phenomena in the light of biologicalspecimens,” underlining his belief in a close connection between50races, the character of the artifacts, and the environment (Boas1887:485)This type of object classification had an important history inthe United States. The notions of “progress” and “development”associated with evolutionist thought were central to thegovernment’s assimilation project. The General Allotment Act, orthe Dawes Act - passed in 1887 - was designed to affect rapidassimilation of Native Americans. A rigorous educational agendabecame the new government objective, designed to “transform” the“Indians” into “civilized” Americans. The government policy wasreiterated at the Columbian Exposition through the Model IndianSchool, which was seen to represent the final stage in the “Marchof the Aborigines to Civilization” (fig.5). It was Boas andPutnam who sought to challenge the government’s evolutionist andassimilationist model through the assertion andinstitutionalization of the cultural relativist approach.The motivations behind the development of Department N reflect aclear connection between the fair, the introduction ofanthropology, and the larger cultural (or museum) movement thatwas taking place in the late nineteenth century. As explained byDominguez, those involved with the development of theseinstitutions were “caught up in the discourse of an educatedelite Euro—American community that grew to assume the value ofmuseum collections and the ‘civilized world’s’ duty to develop51and maintain them” (1986:548). At the same time, the newly-defined discourse of anthropology “carried with it its ownmomentum” in regards to its connection to a “shiftingconceptualization” of man (1986:548). The accumulation of objectsfrom other cultures was tied directly to a specific “historicalconsciousness” where objects were collected “as a metonym for thepeople who produced them...” (Dominguez 1986:548). NativeAmericans became a reference point for Euro—Americans tounderstand their own “historical trajectory” (Dominguez1986:548).The difference between the two ideological approaches to thedisplay of Native Americans is an important part of theconstruction of Chicago’s Columbian Exposition. The assertion ofa “new” science based on methods distinct from those employed byMason and the Washington institution served to construct a newimage for the city of Chicago, endowing it with “culturalstatus,” and a level of autonomy within the scientific andeconomic communities. The Columbian Exposition and Department Nbecame the first steps towards placing Chicago on the “culturalmap.” The introduction of such cultural institutions grounded thecity of Chicago solidly within the ideological framework ofAmerican modernization, and, at the same time, the viable “museummodel” highlighted in the department effectively challenged themethodological monopoly held by Mason and the Washington circle.By looking closely at how the collection came about, the possible52interests of the individuals involved, and the subsequent display(the way in which the collection was presented to the public),the varied histories associated with Department M begin toemerge.53Chapter FourIn the article “Chicago’s Entertainment of DistinguishedVisitors,” published in the September 1893 edition of TheCosmopolitan, Hobart C. Chatfield-Taylor refers to the ColumbianExposition as the singular event which established a new imagefor the city of Chicago:With the dedication ceremonies of the World’s Columbianexposition in last October young Chicago made her debutin the society of the world. Previous to that time shehad been looked upon as a vigorous — though somewhatuncouth — exponent of western energy, whose effortswere characterized by the boisterousness ofuntrammelled youth rather than by the repose and graceof well-bred maturity. In October she appeared to theworld as its hostess, and by her dignified performanceof the arduous duties the occasion demanded she won theadmiration of her guests and demonstrated her almostinherent knowledge of social amenities (1893:600).Chicago’s “debut” was carefully orchestrated by the city’sleading citizens to establish their position as economic andcultural leaders within the United States. The ColumbianExposition, launched directly from their initiative, provided thecatalyst to achieve this goal, in terms of its internationalexposure and its relation to the development of the FieldColumbian Museum in 1894.It was in the latter half of the nineteenth century that thedevelopment of “culture” was a definite agenda in the minds ofChicago’s citizens. In her 1976 book Culture and the City:Cultural Philanthropy in Chicago from the l880s to 1917, HelenLefkowitz—Horowitz looks closely at how the “economicopportunities of an expanding and industrializing nation”54facilitated a cultural transformation in the city of Chicago,and, at the same time, “effectively challenged the authority ofthe old governing elite” (1976:2). In the late nineteenthcentury, the city of Chicago - a “new city built on thefoundations of commerce and industry” — demonstrated a calculatedprogram of cultural development in order to establish its placewithin the larger cultural community (1976:28). Already a proveneconomic leader, this cultural initiative was the obvious nextstep: “As their (Chicago’s) horizons had expanded, theyincreasingly compared their city to other great cities of theworld. It was no longer enough to be economically powerful.. .thetest it was forced to meet was the level of its culture”(Lefkowitz Horowitz 1976:85).In the previous chapters, I have outlined how the development ofDepartment M was part of a specific agenda to secure a collectionfor the city of Chicago, in order to form the nucleus of apermanent museum. Beginning with Putnam and William R. Baker, thePresident of the World’s Columbian Exposition, I will lookclosely at the campaign directly related to the museum agenda andhow it was targeted towards Chicago’s business and economicleaders. This will further outline the scope of this culturalalliance and its key players on the economic front. EdwardEverett Ayer, a Chicago lumber magnate, will be revealed as themost influential player in this alliance, not only in terms ofhis contribution to Department M through the inclusion of his55collection of Native American artifacts, but also through hisdrive to promote and fund the museum idea within the commercialcircle. Finally, I will outline the larger framework within whichthe Field Columbian Museum developed, as one of a number ofinstitutional projects which were established in Chicago in thelate nineteenth century. These projects were designed to fosterwidespread cultural development, and raise the status of thecity.Baker publicly supported Putnam’s plan in an April 18, 1891article in the Chicago Times, wherein he confidently stated that“The museum will be built and the contents will be the nucleus ofwhat I think is to become the greatest collection of its kind inthe world” (quoted in Dexter 1970:22). In November 1891, Bakerinvited Putnam to speak before the Commercial Club on the subjectof the development of a permanent museum — six months afterPutnam’s initial public proposal from the Chicago Tribune. TheCommercial Club was one of many men’s clubs that were formed inChicago in the nineteenth century. These clubs - the UnionLeague, the Iroquois, the Chicago, the Calumet, the Commercialand the University — were “social and semi—politicalorganizations” which brought together members of Chicago’sbusiness community for a variety of purposes (Lefkowitz—Horowitz1976:56).88The names of two of these clubs — the “Iroquois” and the“Calumet” — are appropriated terms with direct associations withNative Americans. The Iroquois are a Native American group from the56According to Lefkowitz-Horowitz, the Commercial Club held a keyposition in the development of cultural institutions in Chicago,where “two—thirds of the men most active in cultural philanthropy[were) members” (1976:57). The monthly meetings of the CommercialClub served as forums in regards to the development of manycultural institutions: the Auditorium, the University of Chicago,the Chicago Symphony Orchestra and the Field Columbian Museum(Lefkowitz-Horowitz 1976:57).Putnam’s efforts in regards to his association with theCommercial Club were directed towards making connections withinChicago’s business circle, thereby securing solid financialsupport for the museum. In his address of April 28, 1891, Putnamreportedly asked for the citizens of Chicago to contribute$1,000,000 for the realization of the museum (Dexter 1970:23).Baker himself “offered to contribute money and get others to dolikewise” (Dexter 1970:22). He proved to be an importantconnection for Putnam: through Baker he was able to come in closecontact with a number of Chicago’s wealthiest citizens. In aletter to William E. Curtis, Putnam referred to his associationwith Baker in regards to the plan, and further stated that he“had the opportunity of talking over the matter with severalwealthy men who have promised their assistance” (in Dexter1970:22)Eastern United States, and a “calumet” is a term for a ceremonialpipe.57This address before the Commercial Club received wide presscoverage. In a December 5, 1891 article from the Chicago Tribune,the meeting was reported to be successful in establishing analliance between the two fronts — Putnam and his potentialfinancial backers:The following concerning the proposed ColumbianMemorial Museum was issued from the World’s Fairheadquarters yesterday by Pres. Baker of the Board ofDirectors and Chief Putnam of the Department ofArchaeology and Ethnology: “The project for theColumbian Memorial Museum would now seem to be launchedon the road to success — F.W. Putnam was especiallyasked by the Commercial Club to outline the characterand scope of the proposed Art Museum (sic) at itsrecent banquet. Pres. Baker, Director—General Davis,and the World’s Fair authorities generally are inaccord with the plan and a united effort on the part ofwealthy and influential citizens will be made to createthe Memorial Museum upon such a scale as will make itan honor to Chicago” (in Dexter 1970:24).As a result of first this meeting, members of the Commercial Clubrecommended that a committee be appointed to promote the ideafurther within the business community.The first formal initiative was put forth at a meeting of theDirectors of the Exposition, held August 11, 1893. At thismeeting, the committee was formed “for the purpose ofcrystallizing community sentiment in favor of a museum” (Lockwood1929:186). A call was issued to the wider community “to adoptmeasures in immediate aid of the project to establish in Chicagoa great museum that shall be a fitting memorial of the World’sColumbian Exposition and a permanent advantage and honor to theCity” (quoted in Lockwood 1929:186). The museum was seen as a way58to establish a level of cultural status for the city of Chicago.The memorial museum was intended to “honour” Chicago, benefittingboth the city and the founders of the project. One week after themeeting, “a hundred leading citizens” met in the AdministrationBuilding on the Exposition grounds, headed by Director-GeneralGeorge R. Davis. As a result of this initiative, a committeeconsisting of a handful of Chicago’s leading businessmen wasofficially appointed. Although not on the original committee,Ayer was soon appointed to the committee, and began to working tosecure a museum for the city of Chicago (Lockwood 1929:186).The following excerpt from Frank C. Lockwood’s book The Life ofEdward E. Ayer underlines the conscious effort on the part of thecommittee — from the first meeting — to form a museum that wasrecognized as both autonomous and distinct:It was first proposed that the scope of the ColumbianHistorical Society be enlarged so that it might includethe museum, but this suggestion was voted down for thereason that this society was incorporated inWashington. The next plan brought forward was to havethe new organization operate under the charter of theAcademy of Sciences of Chicago. This proposal, also,met with opposition, particularly from President H. N.Higinbotham, who spoke very earnestly in favor of “anew and strong organization, independent of educationalinstitutions, locality, creed, or calling, strongenough to stand alone, and large enough to take ineverything” (Lockwood 1929:186).The museum was designed to stand alone, thoroughly independentThe original committee consisted of the following: G.E.Adams, E.C. Hirsch, J.A. Roche, C.H. Harrison, S.C. Eastman, A.C.Bartlett, General A.C. McClurg, R. McMurdy, and C. Fitzsimmons. Asstated by Lockwood, when General McClurg withdrew from thecommittee, Ayer was appointed as his replacement (1929:186).59from any existing local or national associations. Within theframework of American cultural institutions, Chicago planned toassert its position, and be seen on the same level but distinctfrom existing national institutions, thus elevating the status ofChicago from that of a frontier town to a metropolitan centre ofinfluence, both economically and socially.Edward Ayer was recognized as both a key supporter of the museumidea, as well as a major contributor to Department M. In aSeptember 1893 article from Popular Science Monthly, FrederickStarr refers to Ayer’s collection as one of the most “notableprivate collections illustrating the ethnography of our AmericanIndians” to be included in the Anthropology Building:Mr. Ayer’s collection is from a larger range of peoplesand represents quite fully the dress, implements, andarts of not only the plains tribes, but also of thepeoples of the Northwest coast and of the Southwest.His collection of modern Pueblo pottery, the strawdresses of the California Indians, and the carved workfrom the Northwest coast, are of special interest(Starr 1893:610).By the time of his involvement with Department M and Chicago’sColumbian Exposition, Ayer had been collecting Native Americanartifacts, as well as a substantial amount of books about them,for over twenty years. Ayer’s involvement at all levels of theproject — from his position as Chairman of the FinancialCommittee of the Preliminary Organization to his appointment asthe museum’s first President — was pivotal. Many of Chicago’s“leading captains of industry” were Ayer’s intimate friends(Lockwood 1929:76). Thus, his role proved to be one of great60influence in driving the project to full realization in terms ofsecuring both the initial interest among his peers and guaranteedfinancial commitments.Edward Everett Ayer (appendix I:fig.7) was originally fromHarvard, Illinois, where his father, Elbridge Ayer, ran arailroad hotel (Lockwood 1929:4). In April 1860, Ayer headed forCalifornia. Five months after leaving on his journey, he arrivedin San Francisco and began working in the lumber industry — firstat a woodyard, and later at a planing mill (Lockwood 1929:32-5).At the beginning of the Civil War, Ayer enlisted in the “cavalrycompany” and reported to the Presidio for duty (Lockwood1929:36). Throughout the first years of his military career, Ayerwas stationed in Tucson, Arizona, and travelled widely in theSouthwest. In fact, when his military career was over, Ayer wassaid to have “compassed the whole circuit of the mountains andplains of the great West and Southwest” (Lockwood 1929:60). Itwas at this time that he developed an interest in the history andmaterial culture of Native Americans.In July 1864, Ayer returned to Illinois and began to build asuccessful career in the lumber industry (Lockwood 1929:59-60).At this time, Ayer was supplying railroad ties to both theChicago and Northwest Railway Companies, and later to the Union61Pacific Railway Company (Lockwood 1929:66-69).10In the 1870s,Ayer opened a mill in Flagstaff, Arizona to supply ties and polesto the Mexican Central, Santa Fe and Atlantic and Pacific RailwayCompanies. As well, he set up lumber yards throughout the area todispose of surplus wood (Lockwood 1929:93-95). In 1880, at a timewhen he was securely established as a leader in the lumber supplyindustry, Ayer moved from Harvard to Chicago where he joined the“new generation of business leaders” who resided in the city, andwhose industries helped to create a solid and competitive placefor Chicago within the national economy (Lefkowitz-Horowitz1976:29)Ayer’s first interest in Native American materials began in 1860,during his travels across the Plains. While serving in themilitary, Ayer had “seen much of the Indians and had becomedeeply interested in everything that [pertained] to them”(Lockwood 1929:78). In 1871 Ayer travelled to Denver and Omahawhere he “found large quantities of Indian paraphernalia forsale,” including beadwork and buckskin clothing. It was at thistime that he made his first acquisition, “enough to fill twobushel bags” (Lockwood 1929:78).When Ayer returned to the Plains nine years later, he found that“everything pertaining to Indian life was much changed” (Lockwood10By 1871, Ayer was selling almost 1 million ties per year(Lockwood 1929:73).621929:78). Such changes resulted in part from the assimilationpolicies of the United States government, achieved through thedisplacement of Native Americans, land redistribution,residential school education, Westward expansion and Euro—11American settlement. The presumed necessity for “salvage”was the motivating factor behind Ayer’s collecting practices. Asbiographer Lockwood uncritically noted: “His observant eye sawthat aboriginal life in America would soon be a thing of thepast, so he set diligently to work collecting Indian material,wherever it could be found” (Lockwood 1929:78-9). An agenda basedon a belief that Native American cultures were disappearing and,therefore, needed to be “salvaged” and “preserved” was prevalentamong Euro—Americans in the late nineteenth century, andpropelled both professional and amateur collectors towards awidespread “scramble” for objects illustrative of Native Americanethnicity.12A natural adjunct to Ayer’s “scramble” to captureand record a “dying” race was the collection of books aboutNative Americans. Lockwood states that Ayer began to collectbooks about the same time as he began to buy “Indianparaphernalia” (1929:81). At his home in Chicago, Ayer built an“Indian Library” in which he kept his collection (LockwoodSee Brian Dippie’s 1982 study The Vanishing American: WhiteAttitudes and U.S. Indian Policy.12The term “scramble” comes from the title of Douglas Cole’s1985 study Captured Heritage: The Scramble for Northwest CoastArtifacts.631929:82).13 This suggests that Ayer’s collecting practices, onanother level, served an educative function. Lacking a solidchildhood education, Ayer regarded both his collections and histravels to be his “formal” education (Lockwood 1929:75).Ayer travelled extensively throughout North America, adding tohis collection whenever the opportunity arose: “He boughteverything he could lay his hands on — blankets in many colorsand designs, baskets of beautiful and curious weaves, and eventhree or four totem poles...” (Lockwood 1929:81). The InsidePassage Tour, popular in the late nineteenth century (Lee1991:7), provided Ayer with the opportunity to amass a sizeablecollection of Northwest Coast objects (Lockwood 1929:81).Before moving to the exhibition halls of the AnthropologyBuilding at the Columbian Exposition, and then the FieldColumbian Museum, Ayer’s collections were exhibited in his summerhome at Lake Geneva, Illinois. In a converted bowling alley, Ayerdisplayed the “wealth of Indian material” for weekend guests(Lockwood 1929:80). When his collection was transferred toDepartment M, it was divided into three sections. Section 1housed Ayer’s archaeological materials, including “Mexican idols,copper implements, obsidian implements, etc. Stone pots, mortars13In 1911, Ayer donated the contents of his “Indian Library”to the Newberry Library in Chicago (Lockwood 1929:156). Ayer was onthe Board of Trustees for the library from its incorporation in1892 the time of his donation (Lefkowitz-Horowitz 1976:231).64and implements from California and Colorado” (Putnam 1893:178).His ethnological exhibit from the Anthropology Building,classified as Section 51, was described as “Ethnologicalcollections from various Indian tribes of North America,including a large collection of baskets, beadwork, costumes andornaments” (Putnam 1893:180). In conjunction with the outdoordisplay, Section 248 included “two large totem poles from thenorthwest coast of America” from Ayer’s collection (Putnam1893:186). Until they became part of the Ethnographic “village”at the Columbian Exposition, the poles had been “piled up againstthe barn” at his summer home at Lake Geneva (Lockwood 1929:81).In his 1985 book Captured Heritage, Douglas Cole refers to Ayeras the “businessman catalyst” in founding the museum (1985:165).Ayer recognized the potential to develop his collection into apermanent museum, as well as the opportunity to keep much of thematerial in Chicago at the close of the fair. The followingexcerpt reflects an urgency in terms of seizing the opportunityfor the city:During the fair, I often went to see the differentcollections and, indeed, studied everything verycarefully; as a result I saw that there would be atremendous amount of material from different countries,as well as from all parts of America, that could besecured at a minimum price at the end of theexposition. I had collected a good deal in the Americasand had already collected a little here and there inEurope during the several years that I had been goingabroad, and I felt that the time had come to start anatural history museum in Chicago at the end of theWorld’s Fair and that the opportunity should not beallowed to pass (Ayer quoted in Lockwood 1929:187).65As Chairman of the Financial Committee for the PreliminaryOrganization, Ayer promoted the idea in his circle of wealthyfriends at “the various Chicago clubs. . . at the table and at cardgames” (Ayer quoted in Lockwood 1929:187). Ayer understood therole which he and other philanthropists needed to play in orderto carry the project to a successful conclusion: “1 began on alloccasions to urge the importance of our getting material for amuseum at the close of the World’s Fair” (Ayer quoted in Lockwood1929:187). This was clearly set up as a group effort for thebetterment of the city, to achieve both personal and collectivestatus. As stated by the committee at the outset, their ultimategoal was to build a museum that would be a “permanent advantageand honour to the City” (Davis, Higinbotham and Scott in Lockwood1929:186)In his account of the events associated with his quest forfinancial support, Ayer recognized Chicago department storemagnate Marshall Field as key to the success of the project: “Ofcourse Marshall Field was the richest man we had among us inthose days, so during our fishing trips and on social occasionswhen I would meet Mr. Field I began to talk to him (and othersdid, too) about giving a million dollars to start with” (Ayerquoted in Lockwood 1929:187). One million dollars was the amountthat the committee felt was necessary to start the museum.Without Marshall Field’s involvement, the projected fundsavailable were only two to three hundred thousand dollars (Ayer66quoted in Lockwood 1929:188). If the museum was not attainabledue to lack of funds, it was suggested by the committee to buy asmuch material as possible and store it until the time whenfinancial support was available. Ayer felt this was not a viableoption, and suggested that, in the event that a museum was notpossible, that the available material be divided between fourlocal universities and colleges - the University of Chicago,Northwestern, Beloit College, and the University of Illinois -to create “four working collections” (Ayer quoted in Lockwood1929:188). Ayer’s allegiance to Chicago was clear: in hissuggested alternate scenario, his own collection would bebequested to the University of Chicago. According to Ayer,Field’s financial backing would be the deciding factor.Although he had turned the committee’s advancements down on manyoccasions, Ayer continued to try to secure Field’s support. Inurging Field to become involved, and offering to include his nameas part of the museum’s title, Ayer dramatically pointed out thefar reaching educational affects the museum was assured to have,and the important role Field could play in this “epic” and“timeless” project: “You [Field] have an opportunity here thathas been vouchsafed to very few people on earth. From the pointof view of natural history you have the privilege of being theeducational host to the untold millions of people who will followus in the Mississippi Valley” (Ayer quoted in Lockwood 1929:190).67In his appeal to Field’s ego, Ayer reveals his own understandingof the impact this project could have on the personal socialstatus of those involved. In his plea to Field, Ayer refers tothe late merchant A.T. Stewart who - although an important andpowerful figure in his lifetime - left nothing as a lastingmemorial, and therefore was no longer remembered: “Now, MarshallField, you can sell dry goods until Hell freezes over; you cansell it on the ice until that melts; and in twenty-five years youwill be just the figure A.T. Stewart is - absolutely forgotten”(Ayer quoted in Lockwood 1929:189). To have his name associatedwith the permanent museum would make the museum not only afitting memorial to the Columbian Exposition and the city, but toMarshall Field. After many attempts, one of which included aguided tour of the fair grounds, Field agreed to put forward themoney. In addition to his contribution of one million dollars,George Pullman and Harlow Higinbotham gave one hundred thousand apiece, and Ayer donated his collection “which was estimated to beworth a hundred thousand” (Ayer quoted in Lockwood 1929:190).The Field Columbian Museum opened on June 2, 1894, housed in theFine Arts Building of the Columbian Exposition. Ayer presidedover the opening ceremony as the institution’s first electedPresident (Lockwood 1929:191). At the close of the ceremonies,speaker Edward G. Mason praised the philanthropic efforts of theinstitution’s founders, citing a commitment that extended farbeyond monetary support:68To them it is not easy to render a fitting meed ofpraise. But they already have a reward in thatconsciousness of a grand deed grandly done, of whichnothing can deprive them. This great creation is due toa munificence far more than princely. A prince can onlygive his people’s money. These donors have given oftheir very own, freely, lavishly, for the good of theircity and of their race. As we enter into their laborsthere enter with us the rejoicing shades of thephilanthropists of all time to welcome this latestexemplification of the spirit of those who love theirfellow men, and in their shining list will foreverappear the names of the founders of the Field ColumbianMuseum (Mason quoted in Lockwood 1929:191-2).The museum was central to a specific civic agenda, aimed at thebetterment of the city of Chicago. It was consciously conceivedby its benefactors “for the good of their city,” therebyreflecting a need for a collective social status extending farbeyond any personal initiatives. Ayer had stated that his ownphilanthropic efforts were motivated by a need to show“gratitude” to his “Maker. . .Country, and. . . fellow men” (Ayerquoted in Lockwood 1929:76). A distinct educative agenda “whichwould give the boy (sic) coming after. . . a better chance for aneducation” was also central to his efforts (Ayer quoted inLockwood 1929:76).The following excerpt from Lockwood’s book places Ayer within acategory of American business magnates who, through theirphilanthropic efforts, drew a clear connection between economicpower and the development of cultural institutions:Mr. Ayer belongs with that remarkable group of Americanbusiness men — J.P. Morgan, Andrew Carnegie, Henry E.Huntington, and others of like calibre and taste — who,while exerting a masterful control over the materialthings of this world and inspiring and directing the69wills of countless other men in vast constructiveenterprises, were able at the same time to rise abovethe lure of money and the slavery of business routineinto the realm of ideas, of beauty, of culture(Lockwood 1929:280).Ayer’s contributions fit within the framework of the larger“cultural project” aimed at developing Chicago’s role withinAmerica’s social and cultural milieu. Ayer and the other businessand economic leaders of the city used their financial clout tofuel the larger initiative of placing the city of Chicago on the“cultural map.”The Field Columbian Museum was only one part of this broadproject, and the businessmen associated with the museum in itsearly years had interests that extended to other institutions.The trustees of the Field Columbian Museum — George Adams, EdwardAyer, Watson Blair, Harlow Higinbotham, Huntington Jackson,Chauncey Keep, Cyrus McCormick, George Manierre, Martin Ryersonand Albert Sprague II — were also key supporters of the recentlyformed Art Institute, the Chicago Symphony Orchestra, theNewberry Library, the Auditorium Association, the Crerar Library,as well as the World’s Columbian Exposition (Lefkowitz-Horowitz1976:230—34). These projects reflected a collective effort ofcultural philanthropy, through which they sought to “transformChicago into a fitting object of their intense loyalty. . . to bethought of as the best” (Lefkowitz—Horowitz 1976:84).Andrew Carnegie, a well respected New York businessman and70cultural philanthropist, in a letter to Charles Hutchinson,congratulated the Chicago businessman on the collective effortsof philanthropy aimed specifically at the betterment of the city:“Our friend Mr. Ayer. . . filled me with interest and admiration forthe good work a band of you - all cordial friends - are doing forChicago” (Carnegie quoted in Lefkowitz-Horowitz 1976:46).Carnegie’s 1889 article “The Best Fields for Philanthropy” fromthe North American Review, provides a context for Chicago’sefforts, outlining how such philanthropic efforts were perceivedby him in the United States in the nineteenth century. Carnegiestates that “surplus wealth” should be applied to specificprojects aimed at the betterment of any given community: “Surpluswealth should be considered as a sacred trust, to be administeredduring the lives of its owners.. .for the best good of thecommunity in which and from which it had been acquired” (Carnegie1889:684). According to Carnegie, several “avenues” wereappropriate for philanthropy, including the funding of sucheducational and public institutions.Carnegie’s article provides important contemporaneous insightinto the confluent relationship that existed between economic andcultural endeavours in the nineteenth century — a relationshipwhich was by no means particular to Chicago. However, thisconnection was particularly strong in Chicago, where a period ofrapid economic growth through the latter half of the nineteenthcentury paralleled an equally rapid development of cultural71institutions. Chicago’s major institutions were formed duringthis period: the Chicago Public Library (1873), the Art Instituteof Chicago (1883), the Newberry Library (1887), the Auditoriumand the Chicago Symphony Orchestra (1889), the University ofChicago (1889), the John Crear Library (1894), and the FieldColumbian Museum (1894) (Lefkowitz-Horowitz 1976:235-37). Untilthis time, the city was seen to be lacking “refinement andexperience with culture” (Lewis 1983:29). Cultural philanthropywas a way to counteract this view, thus elevating the status ofChicago. Through such widespread cultural development, Chicagowas able to compete on a “cultural” front with more establishedcities of the East.72ConclusionIn his 1985 essay “Philanthropoids and Vanishing Cultures,”anthropologist George W. Stocking Jr. explores the role ofphilanthropists in the development of the human sciences in theUnited States in the early part of the twentieth century. Thisessay is important in that it provides a “philanthropic model”which can be mapped onto the Chicago example, thus underliningthe important role museums had in establishing a connectionbetween anthropologists and their financial supporters:“Anthropologists had to turn to wealthy individual benefactors,and to a particular cultural institution - the museum — which wasin turn supported largely by their benefaction” (Stocking1985:113). Museums were the “most important single institutionalemployers of anthropologists” in the late nineteenth and earlytwentieth centuries (Stocking 1985:114). Indeed, museums providedthe initial institutional framework for a new Americananthropology to assert its voice.Stocking goes on to state that in the development of museumanthropology, the relationship between anthropologists and theirfinancial backers was built upon “bridges [of] enlightened selfinterest” (1985:113). Although this quote alludes to an exchangebetween these two factions, it is one that is seen primarily interms of commodity values, where museum objects functioned as a“return on investment” (1985:113). While Stocking explains howthis relationship benefitted anthropologists, the “return” is not73explored in terms of its role in fostering the development of anew social and cultural status for the benefactors.In Chicago, the development of a framework for the assertion ofcultural status began before the Field Columbian Museum wasfounded in 1894, during the initial planning stages for theWorld’s Columbian Exposition. As outlined in preceding chapters,the fair provided the necessary venue for Chicago’s businesscommunity to proclaim its position as one of national importance,both economically and culturally. The committees established topromote the idea recognized the important role the fair wouldhave in terms of its effect on the development of Chicago’scultural identity. In fact, the fair was seen as the “criticalmoment” in the transformation of Chicago into a viable “culturalcenter” (Lefkowitz-Horowitz 1976:43).Chicago’s business leaders — the smallest but most powerfuleconomic group in the city - were not “descendants from old andvenerable families” but, like Edward Everett Ayer, were hardworking entrepreneurs (Badger 1979:39). The cultural agenda setforth by this group was motivated by a need to elevate theirstatus, both personally and collectively. Their associations withthe Columbian Exposition, and later the Field Columbian Museum,facilitated this quest to “legitimize” their status.The preceding chapters have outlined Putnam’s central role in the74development of this “cultural alliance.” In an 1894 letter to hiscolleague Edward H. Thompson, Putnam specifically addresses hisrelationship with Chicago’s cultural philanthropists, in terms ofthe development of the Field Columbian Museum:In Chicago, all would be drive arid rush and largelysensational effects. This is what they are now after,and it is natural in a place which has started out withgreat hopes and plenty of money and a feeling thatmoney will do anything. By and by they will realizethat while money is an important factor in the work, italone will not make a scientific institution (Putnam inHinsley 1991:15).This quote, according to anthropologist Curtis Hinsley, simplypositioned Putnam as “a scientific voice in the commercialwilderness” (1991:15). I argue that this quote reveals much more.Through these words, Putnam demonstrated his reliance on privatebenefaction, as well as a frustration with its limitations.Initially, this confluent relationship was consciously promotedand exploited by Putnam. His association with the World’sColumbian Exposition, and his subsequent role in the developmentof a permanent collection for Chicago, positioned Putnam withinthe framework of the larger cultural movement, and establishedhis role as a key promoter of Chicago’s “cultural alliance.”However, while Putnam recognized the need to nurture thedevelopment of this relationship in the early stages of Chicago’sinstitutional development, it is apparent from this quote thatPutnam sought to move past this alliance, in order to reassert a“scientific” position — one perceived as distinct from existinggovernmental models, and free of such economic associations.75In Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste,Pierre Bourdieu provides an analytical framework for the study of“culture” in terms of its relationship to economics andeducation. “Culture” is categorized as a particular form of“capital” — the others being economic, social and educational(Bourdieu 1984:12-13). Bourdieu looks closely at how socialstatus is achieved through the acquisition of such “capital,” andsubsequently how notions of culture are developed, supported andlegitimized within modern Western society.The World’s Columbian Exposition and the Field Columbian Museumserved important roles in the construction of legitimacy forChicago. The status of these institutions, reflected in theirspecific “educational” and “scientific” associations, in turnserved to “legitimize” the social and cultural status ofChicago’s business and economic leaders. What is revealed is theformation of an interdependency between the two factions,manifested in the form of a solid “cultural alliance.” Thisalliance was formed at a crucial time in Chicago’s transformationinto one of the leading cities in the United States. According toBadger, the latter half of the nineteenth century was a time whenChicago became “conscious of itself” (1979:38). With thisawakened consciousness came an interest in a “municipal identity”and a “commitment to more than economic progress” (Badger1979:38). In terms of Bourdieu’s equation, Chicago was a citybuilt upon new commerce and business opportunity (“economic76capital”) striving to gain social recognition (“social capital”)through the establishment of autonomous cultural institutions(“cultural capital”) (1984:53), in turn legitimated through theacquisition of a specific form of educational “capital” - namelyPutnam’s “new” anthropology.Both Putnam and his “new” model for the display of NativeAmerican artifacts were embraced by his financial backers as away to legitimize their claims of status . The asserteddifference illustrated in his cultural relativist model ensuredthat the displays prepared by Putnam would stand alone,independent of the established institutional models presented bythe United States government. Through their support of thisindependent model, Chicago’s economic leaders were able to createa separate identity for themselves, and an autonomous “cultural”position. Thus, the alliance forming around Putnam and Boas’s“new” American anthropology can be seen as linked to the largercultural movement taking place in Chicago in the late nineteenthcentury. It was a “win win” situation for both theanthropologists and their financial backers, setting the stagefor the establishment of new cultural institutions. Theseinstitutions were not only designed to reflect their wealth andpower, but served a “legitimizing” function in terms of theassertion of a new and competitive cultural elite. At the sametime, these institutions attempted to fabricate a “comfortable”slot for Native Americans, appropriating their objects and77defining their authenticity, in order to clear the way for theemergence of what they perceived to be a “progressive” and“modern” America.78References CitedAnonymousl893a Quackuhis are Here. Chicago Daily Tribune (22 May).Anonymous1893b Shows Many Customs: Ethnological and ArchaeologicalDisplay Excellent. Chicago Daily Tribune (30 April).Anonymous1893c Quackuhls at Home. Chicago Daily Tribune (7 May).Anonymous1893d Professor Putnam’s Hard Luck. New York Times (22 May).Anonymous1893e In Study of Mankind: Wonders of the EthnologicalBuilding’s Sections. Chicago Daily Tribune (2 July).Anonymous1893f Are Useful Citizens. Chicago Inter-Ocean (16 May).Badger, Rodney Reid1975 The World’s Columbian Exposition: Patterns of Change andControl in the 1890’s. PhD Dissertation, SyracuseUniversity.1979 The Great American Fair: The World’s Columbian Expositionand American Culture. Chicago: Nelson Hall.Bancroft, Hubert H.1893 The Book of the Fair: Columbian Exposition, 1893, 4 Volumes.Chicago: Bancroft.Bloom, Sol1948 The Autobiography of Sol Bloom. New York: G.P. Putnam’sSons.Boas, Franz1887 Museums of Ethnology and Their Classification. Science 9(228): 587—589.1893 Ethnology at the Exhibition. The Cosmopolitan 15 (5): 607-609.Bourdieu, Pierre1984 Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judement of Taste,Translated by Richard Nice. Massachusetts: HarvardUniversity Press.79Buel, J.W.1894 The Magic City. St. Louis: Historical Publishing Company.Carnegie, Andrew1889 The Best Fields for Philanthropy. The North American Review:682—698.Chatfield-Taylor, Hobart C.1893 Chicago’s Entertainment of Distinguished Visitors. TheCosmopolitan 15 (5): 600—602.Cohodas, Marvin1993 High on the Rivers: The Basketry of Elizabeth and LouiseHickox. Manuscript.Cole, Douglas1985 Captured Heritage: The Scramble for Northwest CoastArtifacts. Seattle: University of Washington Press.Deans, James1893 Totem Posts at the World’s Fair. American Antiquarian 15(4): 281—286.Dexter, Ralph1966 Frederic Ward Putnam and the Development of Museums ofNatural History and Anthropology in the United States.Curator 8: 315-332.1970 The Role of F.W. Putnam in Founding the Field Museum. Curator12—13: 21—26.Dippie, Brian W.1982 The Vanishing American: White Attitudes and U.S. IndianPolicy. Connecticut: Westeyan University Press.Dominguez, Virginia1986 The Marketing of Heritage. American Ethnologist 13 (3):546—555.Fabian, Johannes1983 Time and the Other: How Anthropology Makes its Obiect. NewYork: Columbia University Press.Goler, Robert I.1990 Visions of a Better Chicago. In A City Comes of Age: Chicagoin the 1890s, edited by Susan E. Hirsch and Robert I. Goler.Chicago: Chicago Historical Society, pp. 90-153.Gruber, Jacob1970 Ethnographic Salvage and the Shaping of Anthropology.American Anthropologist (Dec 1970): 1289-1299.80Handy, Moses P., edited1892 Department M: Plan and Classification. Chicago: World’sColumbian Exposition Press.1893 World’s Columbian Exposition, 1893: Official Catalogue:Department M. Chicago: W.B. Conkey Company, Publishers.Hinsley, Curtis M.1981 Savages and Scientists: The Smithsonian Institution and theDevelopment of American Anthropology. Washington, D.C.:Smithsonian Institution Press.1985 From Shell-Heaps to Stelae: Early Anthropology at the PeabodyMuseum. In Obiects and Others: Essays on Museums and MaterialCulture, edited by George W. Stocking Jr. Wisconsin:University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 49-74.1990 The World as a Marketplace: Commodification of the Exotic atthe World’s Columbian Exposition, Chicago, 1893. In ExhibitingCultures: The Poetics and Politics of Museum Display, editedby Ivan Karp and Steven D. Lavine. Washington: SmithsonianInstitution Press, pp. 344-365.1991 Collecting Cultures and Cultures of Collecting: The Lure ofthe American Southwest, 1880-1915. Museum Anthropology 16 (1):12—20.Hirsch, Susan E.1990 The Metropolis of the West. In A City Comes of Age: Chicagoin the l890s, edited by Susan E. Hirsch and Robert I. Goler.Chicago: Chicago Historical Society, pp. 24—89.Hough, Walter1908 Otis Tufton Mason. American Anthropologist 10: pp. 661-667.Jacknis, Ira1985 Franz Boas and Exhibits: On the Limitations of the MuseumMethod of Anthropology. In Obiects and Others: Essays onMuseums and Material Culture, edited by George W. StockingJr. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press, pp. 75—111.Johnson, Rossiter1897 A History of the World’s Columbian Exposition, Four Volumes.New York: D. Appleton Publishers.Lee, Molly1991 Appropriating the Primitive: Turn-of-the-Century Collectionand Display of Native Alaskan Art. Arctic Anthropology 28(1): 6—15.81Lefkowitz-Horowitz, Helen1976 Culture and the City: Cultural Philanthropy in Chicago fromthe l8BOs to 1917. Lexington: University Press of Kentucky.Lewis, Russell1983 Everything Under One Roof: World’s Fairs and DepartmentStores in Paris and Chicago. In Chicago History 12 (3):28—47.Lockwood, Frank C.1929 The Life of Edward E. Aver. Chicago: A.C. McLurg.Mark, Joan1980 Four Anthropologists: An American Science in its EarliestYears. New York: Science History Publications.Mason, Otis Tufton1890 The Mutual Obligation of the Ethnologist and the Historian.Papers of the American Historical Association Volume 4(3):5—12.1894 Ethnological Exhibit of the Smithsonian Institution at theWorld’s Columbian Exposition. In Memoirs of theInternational Congress of Anthropology, edited by C.Staniland Wake. Chicago: The Schutte Publishing Company.1895 Similarities in Culture. American Anthropologist 8 (2):101—117.Putnam, Frederic Ward1889 The Peabody Museum of American Archaeology and Ethnology inCambridge. In Proceedings of the American Antiquarian SocietyOctober 1889, pp.180-190.1893 World’s Columbian Exposition. 1893: Official Catalogue,Department N. Chicago: W.B. Conkey Company.1899 A Problem in American Anthropology. In The Annual Report ofthe Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution.Washington: Government Printing Office, pp.473-486.Putnam, Frederick Ward and George R. Davis1892 Plan and Classification: Department M. Chicago: World’sColumbian Exposition Press.Rydell, Robert W.1984 All the World’s a Fair: Visions of Empire at AmericanInternational Expositions 1876-1916. Chicago: University ofChicago Press.82Starr, Frederick1893 Anthropology at the World’s Fair. Popular Science Monthly 43:610—621.Stocking, George W. Jr.1985a Essays on Museums and Material Culture. In Obiects andOthers: Essays on Museums and Material Culture, edited byGeorge W. Stocking Jr. Madison: University of WisconsinPress, pp. 3—14.1985b Philanthropoids and Vanishing Cultures: Rockefeller Fundingand the End of the Museum Era in Anglo—AmericanAnthropology. In 0biects and Others: Essays on Museums andMaterial Culture, edited by George W. Stocking Jr. Madison:University of Wisconsin Press, pp.112—145.Turner, Frederick Jackson1893 The Significance of the Closing of the American Frontier. InAmerican Historical Association Annual Report for 1893.Washington: Smithsonian Institution Press, pp. 199-227.83Appendix IList of FiguresFigure 1: Frederick Ward Putnam, Chief of Department N, World’sColumbian Exposition, Chicago, 1893.From H. Bancroft’s Book of the Fair.Figure 2: Map of the Exposition Grounds:A. Anthropology Building, Department M.B. Outdoor Ethnographic Display, Department M.C. Model Indian School, U.S. Department of theInterior.D. Ethnological Hall, Government Building.From H. Bancroft’s Book of the Fair.Figure 3: Interior View, Anthropology Building, Department M.From H. Bancroft’s Book of the Fair.Figure 4: Outdoor Ethnographic Display, Department M.From J.W. Buel’s Magic City.Figure 5: Model Indian School, U.S. Department of the Interior.From H. Bancroft’s Book of the Fair.Figure 6: Interior View, Ethnological Hall, Government Building.From J.W. Buel’s Magic City.Figure 7: Edward Everett Ayer, First President of the FieldColumbian Museum, Chicago.From F. Lockwood’s The Life of Edward Everett Aver.‘-II.,-IIco.MAP OF THEEXPOSITION GROUNDS.SCALE OF FEElo 100 200 300 •00 500EXPLANATION OF COLORS.lyltelyOl 01810200 AND (ROCOCO NY____lUILOI005 (01*700 IV (*02017005*50 0050050ION*I015IUILDI001 ERECtED SY 1)017(0 STATES1011.01005 (0(0710 IT STATESIUlt0l0OltflECE #01110085Figure 2‘ASUINOTO86Figure 387Figure 4I,..•r--co4Ico89Figure 6,,f ia:90Figure 7


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items