New York’s American Museum of Natural History Closes Outdated Native American Exhibits
The American Museum of Natural History in New York City has made the decision to close two halls that feature Native American objects. The move comes as the museum acknowledges that these exhibits are “severely outdated” and contain culturally sensitive items. This decision aligns with recently revamped federal regulations regarding the display of Indigenous human remains and cultural items, which many institutions across the United States are now adhering to.
The museum had previously announced in October that it would remove all human remains from public display, with the intention of eventually repatriating these items to Native American tribes and other rightful owners. Now, the closure of these two halls is seen as a further step in changing the museum’s relationship with tribes and how they exhibit Indigenous cultures.
Sean Decatur, the museum’s president, explained in a letter to staff that this move reflects the “growing urgency” among museums to prioritize their relationships with tribes and exhibit Indigenous cultures in a more respectful manner. He stated, “The halls we are closing are vestiges of an era when museums such as ours did not respect the values, perspectives, and indeed shared humanity of Indigenous peoples.”
The closure of these halls is part of a wider trend among museums across the country. The Field Museum in Chicago recently covered several displays containing Native American items, while Harvard University’s Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology announced its intention to remove all Native American funerary items from its exhibits. The Cleveland Museum of Art has also taken similar steps.
Shannon O’Loughlin, head of the Association on American Indian Affairs, an organization advocating for museums to comply with federal requirements, commended these developments but emphasized that the ultimate goal is repatriation. She said, “Covering displays or taking things down isn’t the goal. It’s about repatriation — returning objects back to tribes. So this is just one part of a much bigger process.”
In consultation with Native American groups, the Cleveland Museum of Art is seeking consent to display certain items and reviewing archival records to determine if there are pre-existing agreements. Harvard University’s Peabody Museum has committed to returning all ancestral remains and funerary items, and has increased staffing to expedite the repatriation process. The museum has also pledged to cover the expenses of tribal members traveling to campus as part of this process.
The revised regulations released in December by the U.S. Department of the Interior are tied to the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990. These changes include expanded requirements for consulting with tribes and obtaining their consent to exhibit and conduct research on Indigenous artifacts, including human remains and culturally significant objects.
Native American groups have long expressed frustration with museums, colleges, and other institutions for prolonging the process of returning culturally significant items. O’Loughlin highlighted that the only exception to repatriation is if a museum or institution can prove they received consent at the time the item was taken, which is often difficult due to the violent, stolen, and looted nature of these acquisitions.
Decatur noted that rather than simply covering up or removing items in the Eastern Woodlands and Great Plains Halls, which are closing this weekend, the decision was made to shutter them entirely due to their severe outdatedness. However, certain displays elsewhere in the museum, such as ones showcasing Native Hawaiian items, will be covered.
One consequence of these closures is the suspension of school field trips to these halls. The Eastern Woodlands Hall, in particular, has been a staple for New York-area students learning about Native American life in the Northeast. Despite this, the museum remains committed to supporting the teaching of Indigenous cultures and is currently reviewing the new federal regulations to better understand their implications.
O’Loughlin emphasized that there is not as much ambiguity as museum officials may suggest. She stated, “The new regulations make it crystal clear. It doesn’t prohibit research. It doesn’t prohibit exhibiting native cultural heritage. It only requires prior and informed consent before doing so.”
The closure of these halls represents a significant step towards rectifying past injustices and demonstrating a commitment to respect and collaboration with Native American tribes. Museums across the United States are recognizing the need to reassess their relationships with Indigenous communities and ensure the proper repatriation of culturally significant items. While there is still much work to be done, these closures mark a positive shift in the way museums exhibit and engage with Indigenous cultures.
