Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:14:38.603Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Science and the politics of colonial collecting: the case of Indian meteorites, 1856–70

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2006

SAVITHRI PREETHA NAIR
Affiliation:
Department of History, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, UK. Email: [email protected].

Abstract

The case of Indian meteorite collections shows how, during the production of science, knowledge-making institutions such as museums were sometimes strongly linked with coercive institutions such as the police. If geological collecting in India in the Company period was mainly geared towards satisfying the demands of metropolitan science, the period after the 1850s saw a dramatic shift in the nature of collecting and the practice of colonial science, with the emergence of public museums in India. These colonial museums, represented by the Indian Museum, Calcutta, began to compete with the British Museum for the possession of locally formed collections in an effort to form an exemplary ‘Indian’ scientific collection. This resulted in conflicts which changed the very nature of colonial science. This paper shows how the 1860s marked a break with the past. A new breed of colonial scientist arrived, prepared successfully to challenge the status of the British Museum as the ‘centre of all sciences’ and to defend scientific institutions in the land of their practice, the colony. Rather than being driven by a feeling of scientific dependence or independence, or even the patriotic aspiration to build a national collection in London, it was scientific internationalism backed by the strength of local knowledge that now determined their practice.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
2006 British Society for the History of Science

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

I am most thankful to Professor Simon Schaffer and the anonymous referees for their immensely helpful comments on the paper. Thanks also to Susan Snell and Polly Smith of the Archives at the Natural History Museum, London, for their patience and cooperation in providing material for consultation.