Tsantsa and the Responsibility of Museums

Tsantas, more commonly known as shrunken heads, were made in Ecuador and Peru by the Shuar and Achuar people, who believed that the heads allowed them to obtain the power of their enemies. When foreigners traveled near Ecuador and Peru in the late 19th and early 20th century, they sensationalized the practice and created a commercial market for the tsantas; this market developed to the extent that fakes were made to meet demands. Eventually, tsantas were displayed at museums, with 12 tsantas (7 human) in the Treatment of Dead Enemies display at the Pitt Rivers Museum at Oxford University. 

Although the Treatment of Dead Enemies display is one of the most popular in the Pitt Rivers Museum, there has been much debate about whether it should be exhibited to the public because it contains important cultural artifacts and human remains. The director of the museum, Laura Van Broekhoven, is consulting with the Shuar people to determine what should be done with the display. No one knows the culture of the tsantas better than the Shuar people, thus they should determine the best course of action to be respectful of their culture and human remains. Instead of relying on the embellished and racist information gathered by colonizers in the 19th and 20th century, modern historians and museum curators should speak with the subject of the history themselves. There has been an unfortunate pattern of oppressing and dehumanizing indigenous people by foreign peoples, which extends to museums; the true effect of the museum display can only be determined by the Shuar people since they are the ones living with the consequences. 

The Pitt Rivers Museum doesn’t only have to consider if their display is respectful, but more broadly the public opinion it creates of the Shuar people. When many visit the display, they reinforce racist and stereotypical ideas that the Shuar are a savage and brutal people. This is not a fair assessment at all. Just like any group of people, the makers of tsantas are complex and shouldn’t be treated as a monolith. It is easy to see the people behind artifacts as incomplete when in a museum, because only one part of their culture is being displayed. However, it is important to understand that making decisions about the character of an entire group of people based on one piece of evidence is not equitable. 

Thus arises the question of responsibility for the negative and incomplete opinions: what responsibility should the museum take for providing the evidence which the opinion is based upon, and what responsibility should fall on the holders of the opinion? The answer is complicated. Much of the responsibility lies on the holders of the unfair opinions because they are not using their knowledge in an ethical way, but the museum should take some responsibility. It’s not like the Pitt Rivers Museum is directly giving visitors misinformation, but they are the ones giving visitors the opportunity to grow their negative beliefs. As a marginalized group of people, the Shuar don’t have nearly as much power as museum curators at Oxford to protect their interests, therefore curators have the responsibility to protect the Shuar. People in power have the responsibility to use their power for the betterment of people without power.

Here’s the bottom line: we will never understand the history of a culture as well as the people in a culture. Museum curators as people with power to contribute to popular opinion have the responsibility to represent marginalized cultures with the utmost care. 

Brooke Baggett is a senior at Plano East Senior High in Plano, Texas. She is a student in the International Baccalaureate program and has been involved in National Honor Society as well as varsity and show choirs. She likes reading, birds, and anything scientific.