On Friday evening the Ministry of the Presidency issued a press release stating that the Walter Roth Museum of Anthropology had been “air-marked” – not earmarked, it seems − for a major upgrade and change of location. The Government of the Cooperative Republic of Guyana, said the statement, had made a decision to house the Walter Roth in the western-wing of the Guyana National Museum. This appeared after our Friday edition had reported Minister Joe Harmon as saying at a post-Cabinet press briefing that Cabinet was considering it.
Clearly, somewhere between Thursday afternoon and Friday evening a lightning decision was taken to finalise the matter, or, more likely, at the time of Mr Harmon’s announcement this course of action had already been determined but the government decided to convey the impression to the public that the matter was still open for discussion. Some hours later they thought better of that idea because it might encourage controversy, and they presented the nation with a fait accompli. They have now put themselves in a position where they have left no obvious space for retreat.
Their problem is that this is not a minor issue, and they have no notion of what is involved.
They took the decision because they thought they would like the space next to State House, and it was a simple matter to move everything out. There was no preliminary investigative work to see what the Walter Roth held; whether in fact there was space for the artefacts and documents in the National Museum; what the difficulties were in transferring the holdings from the Walter Roth, and whether we had the expertise in this country to accomplish that; what the nature and significance of the collection was and how it would be affected by a move into an amorphous museum setting; what the argument for having a separate Museum of Anthropology and Archaeology was; what the whole academic tradition associated with this institution is; and what the background to its foundation was.
They also, it is apparent, did not waste any thought on the consequences of such an eviction, neither did they enquire as to whether there was a museums policy in place before the move was made. So here we have another of those decisions taken in a policy vacuum, and in the absence of any kind of enquiry as to its appropriateness or feasibility, or following contact with experts to whom ministers might be able to appeal for guidance. It was just another of those whimsical thoughts that passes through the mind of the coalition from time to time.
They obviously believed that all these matters would be covered by the Ministry’s statement that work would be conducted to ensure that both facilities met international standards. However, if they think that ensuring the facilities meet international standards is simply a matter of display requirements, they know nothing whatsoever about museums. The kind of work which would be required to bring Guyana’s museums to international standards is very substantial, although it would be easier in the case of the Walter Roth, because of its academic tradition and ongoing archaeological programme.
Most countries have separate museums of anthropology, whose ethnographic collections are not melded with those of other collections which cover the historic period, unless they are very modest indeed. But that is not so in Guyana’s case; apart from the anthropological and archaeological artefacts et al inherited from earlier anthropologists and donated by more recent ones, there is the ongoing acquisition of material. There is significant work in the field of archaeology, and the purpose of any museum such as the Walter Roth is to support research of this kind, and provide an academic centre which would enlarge our knowledge in the field and provide a base for the cross-fertilisation of ideas with others working outside Guyana.
And no one in Cabinet need believe that the archaeological research here is of a minor character. It is the work of the Walter Roth which has given us our sense of antiquity, providing as it has specimens and artefacts not hundreds, but thousands of years old, and in regions like Berbice, uncovering the raised field system of early inhabitants with their complex drainage arrangements. This is quite apart from archaeological work being undertaken in the Rupununi and elsewhere, for example. The Walter Roth is the base from which we are developing our understanding about how our prehistoric predecessors confronted one or another part of the local environment, and it is the institution from which young junior archaeologists have set forth, to be sensitized to an ancient past, and to be given basic training to embark on their own small excursions into our pre-historic past. A few of those, hopefully, will become archaeologists themselves in due course, and contribute to building a cadre of specialists in the field here.
It was one of the great polymaths of the region, Dr Denis Williams, who was instrumental in founding the Walter Roth and who succeeded in acquiring the current building, a heritage structure, in 1974. He was the first local archaeologist – a pioneer, if you will – and given his formidable academic credentials and enormous capacity for hard work he quickly built up a reputation for the museum. Its academic merit was transmitted through the journal which Dr Williams founded, Archaeology and Anthropology, which was recognized everywhere ‒ and particularly in the world of tropical archaeology ‒ as a foremost academic journal in its field. He had no difficulty in attracting contributors of the highest calibre.
The current building stands as a testament to the work of this country’s first archaeologist, and his creation of a field of local endeavour of which the nation should be proud. While the work continues with the assistance of collaborating external institutions such as Boise State University of the US, the local base could be reinvigorated if the right appointment was made there, and this government showed some interest. It has some academic foundation on which to build so it can become one of the centres of tropical archaeology in South America.
But no, this government wants to destroy Dr Williams’ associations with the building and his bequest, and cram the collection – which is continuously expanding – into some display cases in a structure which shows a model of Fort Zeelandia, and the machine which printed the black & magenta stamp. These are not the same kinds of operation at all.
Yesterday, a letter from Ms Jennifer Wishart, a co-founder of the Walter Roth, was published in this newspaper, in which she warned of the fragility of the collection, and the high likelihood of damage and loss if it was moved. “We do not as yet have the expertise required,” she wrote, “for the removal of such delicate and very ancient artifacts dating back to some 7,200 years ago.” Will this not give the authorities pause for thought? Or are they prepared to sacrifice the prehistoric heritage of this nation for the sake of their own convenience?
And what, the enquiring citizen will want to know, is going to occupy the space vacated by the Walter Roth? It was not precisely spelt out in the Ministry of the Presidency’s press release, but there is an implication that it might be the Department of the Environment and the Department of National Events. There was a word used in these columns before on occasion in relation to the last government, although it was not anticipated that it would have to be employed in relation to this one. However, if this decision goes ahead, as appears to be the case, it would be nothing short of an act of philistinism.
