The role of ethnographic museums was. to begin with, that of imparting information about foreign cultures. These were, often enough, described as the polar opposites of the civilized places in which ethnographic museums could be found.The museum objects metaphorically represented primitive stages in human development. They appeared like relics even if produced recently. Anthropology, ethnography, or ethnology was the academic discipline which concerned itself with primitive cultures. The ethnographic museum with its harvests of colonial booty therefore seemed like the self-evident medium for conveying anthropological information. Today the preconditions for this constellation have changed. Have museums become inappropriate to communicate anthropological knowledge?KEYWORDS Museums, exhibition strategy, temporality, scientific popularization W hereas anthropology as an academic discipline to an increasing degree defines all human social and cultural life as falling within its domain of research, the definition of what counts as relevant to show in an ethnographic museum remains more constrained. Once a museum was either the self-glorifying institution of national romanticism seeking the roots ofthe nation in an idealized rural background, or an exoticizing museum depicting the colonial other. In territories where indigenous peoples were subjected to European conquest these two categories are today often muddled, signaling new relations between nation-building and indigenousness. Rather than indigenousness being excluded from the imagery of the nation, the two interact in a complex way. Because of its connotations of natural and localized roots, indigenousness offers resources of identity that can be capitalized by the state. As implied by Kelly in this volume, origin and naturalness are still the core themes ofthe ethnographic museum, also shapETHNos, VOL. 65:2 2000 (pp. 157-171)