HISTORY IS WRITTEN IN OBJECTS
By Arthur C. Parker,
Director,
Rochester Museum of Arts and Sciences
When the science of archeology began to take form,
gradually there dawned the idea that the artifacts of past ages spoke of
mankind's record in terms by no means entirely uncertain. The so-called
relic became eloquent. No longer was it a mere curiosity of the past but
a sentence from the buried record.
The same idea is true of other enduring products of
human manufacture. The feathered cape of the Hawaiian, the knot bowl of
the pioneer, the spice boxes of our great-grandmothers, all are records
of a particular time and environment. It remains for the student who
classifies material culture to assign each object to its proper
place and then to begin his descriptive interpretation. In other words
history can be written by piecing together the evidences of man's
thought as revealed by his handiwork.
But this history cannot be reconstructed by haphazard
methods. Visible storage in museum cases of miscellaneous articles is
not history. It is mere confusion. Order and sequence are necessary; the
proper association of artifacts in their intended relations is
necessary. Let us give an example.
A telegraph instrument, a desk, a chair, a number of
buttons, a hooked rug, an old safe, a ragged ledger and a gas fixture
might be distributed in a number of cases or even shown in one. We could
state that these things were relics of the Western Union Telegraph
Company. But what picture would this reveal? Nothing, perhaps, save that
these things were used at the same time, which, of course, would have a
certain significance. Let us try them another way. A room can be
constructed showing the first Western Union office in Rochester. The
articles may be placed in their logical positions and a figure of an
early operator or official placed in the room. In this instance we have
a picture, a convincing fact vividly presented. The relation is
complete.
If we are unable to have such presentations we may
still show the horizontal stratification of our culture by showing the
typical utensils and implements of each stage of our historical
development, thereby "writing" a record of culture progress that will
bear comparison with the better types of ethnological exhibits. Indeed,
our own productions are records of our own ethnology and should be
treated as such. When this is accomplished we shall be able to read
history in a new and more convincing manner and museums of history will
take on a new and more significant meaning. -- Reproduced from Museum
Service. vol. 11, no. 9.
|