Seth Bruggeman scrutinizes the concept of remembrance using George Washington’s birthplace. He focuses on the roles of gender, object fetishism, historical archaeology and replicas in constructing public memory. As an anthropologist I really enjoyed what he had to say in chapter 4 “A Contest of Relics”. 

The main focus of this chapter is that historical truth isn’t really up for debate, but “how best to convey it” (Bruggeman, 114). Often times material objects are used to tell a story in a museum. These artifacts can be presented in various ways to tell a story. The way we portray them can shape the truth. Bruggeman argues that in the case of Washington’s birthplace we see 3 types of artifacts; indexical, symbolic, and iconic relics.

“Indexical relics are, quite simply, the “real” thing.” (Bruggeman, 115). Indexical relics lend an authenticity to the site. In the case of Washington’s birthplace many of the original leaders responsible for creating and preserving this site wanted the real thing for their museum. However, wanting and having are two different things. It was actually very difficult for Hough and others to get their hands-on indexical relics.

Symbolic relics “bear no necessary relationship to their referents” (Bruggeman, 116). These are not the real relics. However, these relics do still tell a story and can help the audience visualize the truth. The birth house at Washington’s Birthplace is not the actual house that Washington was born in. That home had burned down in 1779. Washington move out of that home with his family at a young age. 

The third type of relics are iconic relics. These relics “reproduce as closely as possible the material realities of their referents.” (Bruggeman, 116).  This type of relic would ultimately bring Washington’s birthplace validity among museums. It would gain a reputation for historical authenticity due to the dedication to the skill needed for successful reproduction.

Despite the differences in these types of relics they all still tell us a story about Washington, but is it a true one? Is it an honest one? Each one seems to have a certain level of validity to it. Indexical relics still being the golden child of relics, because what beats the real deal? Iconic relics seem to be a close second. There is a level of mastery required to them. Additionally, they are not just pulled out of nowhere. Some thought needs to go into them, and they need to be honest replicas to be worthwhile. Finally Symbolic relics seem to take the biggest hit. They seem to be the “filler” and not real enough. They seem the most like a lie, even if they are true, they are not quite real enough.

This chapter was interesting. Bruggeman does a good job at defining the values of each party behind these relics at the Washington site. Additionally, he explains their purpose well. I enjoyed this chapter most of all because it allowed me to question truth and if what I am seeing at a museum is real.

Citations:

Bruggeman, Seth. Here, George Washington Was Born: Memory, Material Culture, and the Public History of A National Monument. Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 2008.