Shrunken Heads in Oxford

Most great museums have an object or two that invites debate—an item that has garnered political or ethical interest. When it is considered that museums were usually established through a foundational (and originally private) collection, the objects upon which the debates are centered become unified. In an extremely old private collection, curious objects were acquired through conquest and brought to one’s home country. This obviously attracts discussion about the ethical situation of displaying the foreign object.

Additionally, there is the age-old conflict about how human remains ought to be displayed…or even if they should be displayed at all. If we consider the debate surrounding human dissection (drawing the parallel because both display the human body for the purposes of education) we see there has always been controversy. The Greeks allowed dissection while the Romans outlawed it. England prohibited dissection completely until the 16^th century. Italy allowed dissections even on women, for some time the most lenient of all European nations. The fact that these are, after all, human remains creates ethical implications, whether they are dissected or permanently displayed. It is a historic controversy, and it will continue as long as there are humans to discuss it.

One example that I have seen in Oxford is the shrunken heads in the Pitt Rivers museum. The shrunken heads are doubly divisive because of the tie not only to the ethical debate of where they belong but also how they should be displayed as human remains. To gain a better understanding of the controversy, we must learn about the heads in question.

Shrunken heads were originally made by the Shuar and Achuar peoples, distinct tribes with similar cultures. One aspect of the two cultures that unites them is their tradition of shrinking the heads of their enemies. The reason behind the head-shrinking becomes clear when we realize that the native people considered the head to contain the spirit of the person. This spirit could be contained by the head-shrinking process, allowing the killer to take it back to his tribe. The possession of one or more shrunken heads and their accompanying spirits was expected to bring the tribe good luck. Additionally, the spirit was believed to take revenge on its killer if released, and so head-shrinking was a means by which the spirit could be controlled and disaster avoided. Not allowing the spirit of a person to be set free meant that they were never allowed in the afterlife—another aim in head-shrinking because a tribe didn’t want their enemies attacking dead relatives in the next world. In paralyzing the spirit of the enemy through head-shrinking, the Shuar and Achuar believed that they were destroying the human soul.

When the white man began to infiltrate the region of the Shuar and Achuar in 1850s, the curious and awe-inspiring story of shrunken heads began to reach the outside world. Visitors from all over the world came to the area looking to procure a shrunken head souvenir. In 1930, it was possible to buy a shrunken head for $25. Little did the visitors know that their interest in the shrunken heads of the Shuar and Achuar people had created a demand for which further killing was the only supply.

Those that are for the display of the shrunken heads claim that they allow the museum-goer to understand an entirely different culture. Ted Dewan, who has offered his own head to be shrunk upon his death to be given to the Pitt Rivers Museum should the originals be returned, said that “[t]he Pitt Rivers Museum is a wonderfully inspiring and Holy place for me... an ethically sensitive institution that

honours the belief systems of indigenous peoples, no matter how obscure” (BBC).

However, those that are against the display use all the ethical arguments outlined above to argue their case. They fall into two categories: those that dissent for the ethical reasons of humanity or those that lobby for the return of the objects to their original regions. They claim that the display shows a lack of respect for the native cultures and the humanity of the object.

I believe that it is important for us to see other cultures that are different from us in many ways. The growth that comes in reflecting on the diversity between cultures cannot be replicated. It is crucial that this uniqueness is properly appreciated and understood. If every culture kept itself and its artifacts separate from the rest of the world, very few of us would ever have first-hand knowledge of objects outside our own area. With objects from one area spanning the globe, we can truly travel the world in a museum and at the end of our tour be a much better educated person.