"We Never Knew": The Differences between Museum History and Academic History Explored through an Exhibition of the New Zealand Wars

<p>Public history and academic history have been viewed both as opposites, two practices related only by their concern with sharing the past, as well as conceptualised as similar fields with close connections to each other. Museum history exhibitions are an obvious example of public history in action. However, is the history that exhibitions present all that different from what is produced in the academy, or is this history academia in another form? Initially this dissertation aimed to explore the relationships between academic and public histories as discipline and practice, assuming a relationship rather than divide between the two fields as suggested in some of the literature. However, the eventual results of the research were different than expected, and suggested that in fact public histories manifest very differently to academic histories within a museum context. Using an adapted ethnographic research methodology, this dissertation traces the development of a single history exhibition, "Te Ahi Kā Roa, Te Ahi Kātoro Taranaki War 1860–2010: Our Legacy – Our Challenge", from its concept development to opening day and onwards to public programmes. This exhibition opened at Puke Ariki in New Plymouth in March 2010, and was a provocative display not only of the history of the wars themselves, but of the legacy of warfare in the Taranaki community. Other methods include partially structured interviews which were conducted with ten people involved in creating this exhibition, who outlined their roles in its production and provided their views on its development, and also a brief analysis of the broader social and historical context in which the exhibition was staged. Through tracing the creation of this history, the findings suggested that the history produced at Puke Ariki is a history in its own right, with noticeable differences from academic histories. The strongest correlation between public and academic history in this instance was the shared aspiration to be rigorous in conducting research and, as far as possible, to create an accurate portrayal of the past. Otherwise the history created by Puke Ariki through the exhibition proved to be different in that it was deliberately designed to be very accessible, and it utilised a number of presentation modes, including objects, text, audiovisual and sound. It was interactive, and had a clear aim of enabling the audience to participate in a discussion about the history being presented. Finally, it was a highly politicised history, in that decision making had to be negotiated with source communities in a collaborative fashion, and issues of censorship worked through with the council, a major funding source. The dissertation concludes that producing history in a museum context is a dynamic and flexible process, and one that can be successful despite not necessarily following theoretical models of exhibition development.</p>

"We Never Knew": The Differences between Museum History and Academic History Explored through an Exhibition of the New Zealand Wars

<p>Public history and academic history have been viewed both as opposites, two practices related only by their concern with sharing the past, as well as conceptualised as similar fields with close connections to each other. Museum history exhibitions are an obvious example of public history in action. However, is the history that exhibitions present all that different from what is produced in the academy, or is this history academia in another form? Initially this dissertation aimed to explore the relationships between academic and public histories as discipline and practice, assuming a relationship rather than divide between the two fields as suggested in some of the literature. However, the eventual results of the research were different than expected, and suggested that in fact public histories manifest very differently to academic histories within a museum context. Using an adapted ethnographic research methodology, this dissertation traces the development of a single history exhibition, "Te Ahi Kā Roa, Te Ahi Kātoro Taranaki War 1860–2010: Our Legacy – Our Challenge", from its concept development to opening day and onwards to public programmes. This exhibition opened at Puke Ariki in New Plymouth in March 2010, and was a provocative display not only of the history of the wars themselves, but of the legacy of warfare in the Taranaki community. Other methods include partially structured interviews which were conducted with ten people involved in creating this exhibition, who outlined their roles in its production and provided their views on its development, and also a brief analysis of the broader social and historical context in which the exhibition was staged. Through tracing the creation of this history, the findings suggested that the history produced at Puke Ariki is a history in its own right, with noticeable differences from academic histories. The strongest correlation between public and academic history in this instance was the shared aspiration to be rigorous in conducting research and, as far as possible, to create an accurate portrayal of the past. Otherwise the history created by Puke Ariki through the exhibition proved to be different in that it was deliberately designed to be very accessible, and it utilised a number of presentation modes, including objects, text, audiovisual and sound. It was interactive, and had a clear aim of enabling the audience to participate in a discussion about the history being presented. Finally, it was a highly politicised history, in that decision making had to be negotiated with source communities in a collaborative fashion, and issues of censorship worked through with the council, a major funding source. The dissertation concludes that producing history in a museum context is a dynamic and flexible process, and one that can be successful despite not necessarily following theoretical models of exhibition development.</p>

The Lives and Deaths of an Ethnographic Museum: History, Violence and Curatorial Collaborations in Guinea-Bissau

This article discusses the history of the National Ethnographic Museum of Guinea-Bissau (West Africa) and an exhibition we curated about it in Bissau in 2017, which serendipitously led to its reopening. The Museum, which was created in 1988, had ceased to exist because of a civil war in 1998-99. Thanks to a reconstruction of contact prints in the archives of Bissau, we were able to organize an exhibition and to conduct research on the history of the museum. Methodologically, the article illustrates the potential of photography in museum historiography and revitalization. Thematically, it exemplifies the history of museography in West Africa from the mid-1980s through the 1990s, the role of museums in the creation of national heritage, and, by looking at the present situation of the Museum at stake, the fragile place that ethnographic museums have in the politics of culture in today’s Africa.

Restoration and storage of Buddhist painting from the Khara-Khoto collections of XII–XIV centuries

The paper is devoted to the conservation and early stages of maintenance and storage of the unique collection of Buddhist painting that was gathered by P. K. Kozlov in Mongolia in 1907–1909, 1926 and now belongs to the State Hermitage museum. History of its primary conservation is reconstructed using previously unexplored archival data. Of special interest are conditions of maintenance and actions taken to protect the monuments before they were given to the Hermitage. The article also analyses reasons why damage was caused to them. All this information is essential for fi guring out modern methods for their restoration that is a job of the Laboratory of scientifi c restoration of eastern painting of the Hermitage. The research goes beyond local museum practices as it helps to defi ne general problems in restoration of Buddhist painting

XINALIQ TARİXİ-ETNOQRAFİYA MUZEYİNİN YARANMASININ TARİXİ SƏBƏBLƏRİ

Key words: Khinalig, museum, history, ethnography, exhibit

Things that time forgot Native American objects in Danish Museums Problems and possibilities

We present a hitherto unresearched part of a shared Danish and American cultural heritage: Native American objects in Danish regional museum collections. Thus far, we have identified more than 200 Native American artefacts in 27 local museums, largely a result of Danes abroad privately collecting in the late 1800s and 1950s–70s. The majority of these artefacts, many of which are prehistoric in age, have never been displayed and have lingered in storage since they were accessioned, understudied and often unrecognised for what they are. Recent deaccessioning pressures from the Danish Agency for Culture and Palaces potentially place these objects at risk of destruction, making the discussions presented here a timely issue. These Native American objects, like the unknown numbers of other non-Danish artefacts held by regional museums, hold tremendous potential to elucidate overlooked parts of Danish museum history, trans-Atlantic networks and interconnectedness in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, as well as rich material cultures originating far from Denmark. We argue that this perspective is highly relevant and should be utilised in Danish museums, as it begets reflections on Danish glocal identity and society in a post-colonial world.