Life in the Pacific of the 1700s: The Cook/ Forster Collection of the George August University of Göttingen (review)

As a Tongan cultural practitioner and manager of a large Pacific collection, I found that the objects in the exhibition Life in the Pacific of the 1700s resonated as powerful links between the past and the present. The objects, collected during the second and third voyages of Captain James Cook (1728–1779), included impressive ­ceremonial and ritual items such as a heva (Tahitian mourning dress), kato alu (Tongan ceremonial baskets), and an akua hulu manu (Hawaiian feathered god image). They clearly revealed the amazing technical and creative skills achieved by Pacific peoples more than two centuries ago. For me, it was especially exciting to see what patterns, designs, and techniques were used in the eighteenth century but are no longer practiced today among Tongan weavers and tapa makers.

The exhibit design was appealing. The arrangement of the objects within the cases and the light blue background enhanced their aesthetic qualities. However, I was troubled by the curatorial decision to reduce the text in the main galleries to object labels with minimal information on them. An indigenous view of material culture was therefore not available to visitors. These objects were not made to be viewed in glass cases and their meanings cannot be learned from ­simply looking at them. Seeing a kie fau (waist mat) or fala efu (fine ceremonial mat) displayed like an art object did little to convey its cultural significance for Tongans. It was like seeing a body without a soul.

I found the arrangement of objects by function interesting but undeveloped. While it established a foundation for cross-cultural understanding and a sense of close connections between ancient cultures in the Pacific, it did not explore this in any depth. It would have been equally important to acknowledge what was unique or ­different among the cultures or island communities in the Pacific. For example, many of the differences in the works of various island groups are due to differences in manufacturing techniques, but this was not explained in either the exhibition labels or the catalog essays.

If the exhibition had offered visitors indigenous views on function, it would have enhanced the displays. These objects were artistically crafted with specific uses in mind. The functional and cultural contexts were important in determining their forms and, ultimately, their cultural value. But these interrelationships were never explained. As one of the Tongan elders, Hakiti Mafi, said, a kava bowl is not a sacred object unless it isused in a kava ceremony. In other words, it is only through its ritual use that its sacredness is recognized and its artistic form admired and valued.

Unless visitors purchased the catalogs or were already familiar with an object's historical and cultural contexts, it was probably difficult for them to get a sense of its specific ­cultural significance. According to DrStephen Little, director of the museum, "The limited amount of information in the labels allow[ed] ­theobjects to speak for themselves" (personal interview). I would argue that it created confusion and frus­tration among some visitors. Even worse, the limited information in the labels was often incorrect and misleading. To give just two examples: a Tongan pandanus mat was mislabeled as made from plantain leaves, while another Tongan pandanus mat was mislabeled as made from flax. Incidentally, flax was not commonly used or cultivated in Tonga.

I believe such errors could be ­eliminated in the future by conducting more research—by consulting with more indigenous cultural experts and academic scholars to gather the most accurate information possible for the exhibition's labels and texts. Finally, if we want to present the material cultures of Pacific peoples in exhibitions more accurately, we need to consider different conceptual approaches and organizing strategies that will reflect indigenous points of view more successfully.