The naturalist’s field is often taken as a romanticized place of awe and wonder or a side activity to scientific work. This special issue seeks to establish the field as neither the origin nor the end of knowledge production. By situating nature, we seek to escape a romanticized conception of fieldwork and argue that the field is not a simple backdrop to knowledge production, nor one step in an idealized scientific protocol. Rather, the field is a space co-produced from entangled interactions between society and environment. Paying specific attention to field practices of collecting opens a critical view of narratives of idealized hardship of exploration in distant terrains. By reconnecting the history of natural history to the contingencies and agencies of fieldwork, we contribute to the contextualization of the production of knowledge about nature. Working towards better political and social definitions and delineations of the field is essential to addressing these gaps in the narrative, particularly in the long nineteenth century when nationalist, imperial and colonial rationales infused field practices. The question of the field is also that of the conditions of amassing collections. At a time of environmental crisis, when museums and collections are set up as protective temples of biodiversity, it seems crucial to question the conditions of the making of their collections and to place them in their contexts and histories. Bringing to light the political and social implications of collecting and collections, we argue, encourages serious reflection on the non-neutrality of museums and collections.
Nineteenth-century zoological collections consisted of large series of animals, which had been trapped, uprooted, hunted, killed, put into containers, dried, and preserved. From distant far-flung outposts overseas, colonial collections were shipped to central metropolitan institutions where they were claimed as a crucial part of the understanding of global biodiversity. Knowledge about nature was reliant on such scientific specimens and, therefore, dependent on fieldwork, which comprised much more than the act itself of sampling nature. Collecting from the field is a matter of access to places, materials, tools, and people with the know-how to find, capture, and interpret nature and, often, to prepare animals as specimens. Although different layers of labor, expertise, and knowledge lie behind zoological collections, much of it was produced and negotiated outside museums’ walls. Using the historical documentation of zoological collections in the Museu Nacional de Lisboa in the second half of the nineteenth century as a case study, this paper highlights the role of colonial suppliers as mediators for the museum’s agenda while adjusting to local circumstances and maintaining their own personal goals. Studies of historical provenance have clarified not only how zoological specimens were gathered and collated but also how their geographical origin was used as a mechanism of centralization of authority.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.