A story on how the short period of the British colonialization era in Indonesia affected Indonesian representation in The British Museum collection.
The British only colonized Indonesia in the short span of 5 years from 1811 to 1816. It is one of the shortest periods, just a little above the shortest one which is Japan's occupation (3 years). Within that short period, it is understandable that the British did not quite have enough time to form a strong connection with Indonesia and also collect artifacts from us.
It is quite a unique feeling, looking at the small amount of collection The British Museum has that has a relation to Indonesia. Not only that, there is confusion among the collection where some items have no clear origin but are placed under the umbrella of Southeast Asia.
Over 4000s items under Indonesia related keyword search and near 2000 items acquired in Indonesia — the selection of objects in BM vary a lot.
Though different items might tell a different story, the lack of curatorial comments in many of the items is a clear absence in clarity. This begs the question of the acquisition in the first place. The everyday mundane objects, the paintings and crafts of unknown artisan works, toys and whatnot — one would think they are simply items of happen-chance. It is intriguing to imagine the journey these items have made. For what purposes was these items purchased, changed hands and finally landed in the collection of the museum?
Quote this passage
You can include this passage in your own stories. You can use this to link stories that cover similar subjects, or have other connections
riantigautama — 2 years ago
distinction between prehistoric items (geographically acquired in Indonesia but cultural relevancy to current Indonesia -->?) 1800s-early 1900 objects --- quick history lesson in Indo late 1900s but multiple tag origins ?? --> check purpose of item AND/OR curatorial comments // Indo under the 'exotic' lense -->another asian?
The lack of data, the lack of collection, and the absence of clarity lead to questions about the recognition of our identity from the British Museum's perspective. But do we need that kind of recognition? Isn't it a good thing that our absence means that we were not subject to colonialization for that long by them? Then we can take advantage of this absence by telling our narrative on our own, on our terms.
However, at the same time, invisibility follows suit by the absence of our identity. Our voices are not exactly heard.