THE MUSEUM OBJECT AS HISTORICAL SOURCE AND

DOCUMENT
Ivo Maroević - University of Zagreb, Faculty of Philosophy, Chair of
Museology - Croatia

Abstract
Museum object is the object of any reality, collected and preserved in the museological
context to be the document of that reality. Museum is the institution in which we
actualize and communicate the past using museum objects. In aim to realize this
mission and to develop the understanding of a historical diversity, we constantly
research the historic identity of museum objects and develop the ways and methods of
interpreting their meanings.
There are three main dimensions of interpreting and communicating the history in
museums: the time, the space and the society. Concerning time, we try to understand
any time of the museum's object life, searching for the important points in which the
object participated in historical events. The space is a horizontal scope of any time
period. Every time has different spatial frameworks as: urban, rural, natural, political or
any other scope to be identified. The objects reflect the relations of their life inside or
outside the building. The society denotes relationships among people or groups of
people and the role of objects within any of the social environment. Its characteristics
have been changed concerning time and space, as well as the social development.
Museum objects participate in every of these dimensions or their interrelations. Using
their basic characteristics: material, form and meaning, we can understand the
significance of the object. The material has been changing through the time,
documenting it simultaneously. The form is a part of the space, outer or indoors, with
the function to participate as a tool, furniture, decoration etc. of various historic
environments. The meaning or the importance has the direct relationship with society in
any of its forms: from a family to the nation or the race.
So, the museum object is always a certain historical source and a document of life,
events or any human actions. Any object can be historic document, concerning its
historical and social identity. The classification on: artefacts, objects of art,
archaeological, natural or any other kind of objects is not relevant, if we want to
interpret the history in museums. The most important is their historical evidence, and
their ability to be the witnesses of a historical event, process or time concerned.

Introduction

The museum object is a basic component of the museum objects’ collective fund,
irrespective in which collection it is located, kept and explored. Its basic definition is
that it is taken out of, transferred, from the primary or the archaeological into the
museological context (van Mensch, 1992:135), in which new context it no longer has
either its basic or secondary use function, does not serve the purpose for which it was
made, but has adopted the information or communication function characteristics of the
museological context. In other words, the item that is musealised starts to be looked at
and studied in a different way, leading to a rise in its field of museal definiteness, a
decline in its field of museal indefiniteness. This means that the object takes on certain
new, museological, functions, its origin, appearance and state of preservation being
just some of the input parameters for the definition of its significance.

332
The reality from which an object is taken in order to become a museum object is not
limited. It can be frozen inside an archaeological context and can reflect some
condition from the distant past; at the same time it can be a reflection of the moment in
which the object was detached from life in order to obtain its museum aura. It enters
into museum reality by processes of research and collection, in which purchases,
donations or fortuitous selection can also have a role, with the proviso that in the
museological context, whether this is in an exhibition, a store room, a restoration
workshop or a study office, it always represents a document of the reality from which it
was detached. The dimension of documentariness of the defined reality depends on
the relevant documentation that has been drawn up, in which there is a record of
everything important for the life and existence of the museum object.

Irrespective of all previous definitions of a museum, whether theoretically abstract or

pragmatically concrete, with a listing of descriptions of museum contents and functions,
one thing is absolutely indubitable, and that is that the museum is an institution in
which we use museum objects in order to make the past current, which is to say, bring
the past into the present, and communicate this past in a manner that will be instantly
recognisable and intelligible (Maroevic, 2005:141). That is to say that every new
present can to some extent be changed by a perception of the past, irrespective of its
being founded in the museum often on the same or more or less the same objects.
The interpretation of the past is always connected with a focussing of the interests of
the present, with the proviso that the museum material (a set of selected museum
objects) must enable this kind of interpretation, and must not cast doubt on the veracity
of a given object.

In order to achieve the basic assignments of museum objects, that they should
interpret and communicate some past in the present, and also the basic assignments
of the museum that they should enlarge the understanding of the historical diversity of
the same kind of material, in museums the historical identity of museum objects must
be incessantly and systematically explored. This identity, in a system of the complex
structure of museum identities (van Mensch, 1989:90), contains information and
evidence that relate to a period of time that constantly expands and is defined on the
one hand by the moment of the origin of the object or its factual identity, and on the
other by the moment of our coming to terms with the object or with its actual identity.
In this period the material and structure of the object change, as frequently does its
function, and in particular its relatedness to persons or events in which it has indirectly
or immediately taken part. In other words, the historical identity of an object is the
richness of its path in life and everything that has left a material or spiritual/semantic
trace on the structure and in the meaning of the object. This is in fact the richness of its
evidentiariness, in which the object tells of people and events in the past. Through
investigation into the historical identity of a museum object, the understanding will be
developed of the historical diversity of events that the museum objects have witnessed.
At the same time this kind of research will improve the manners and methods of
interpreting the importance of every individual object. The assumed breadth of meaning
will enable a broad range of possible uses of the object in the processes of the
communication of new knowledge about past times, which will be complementary to
every new angle of vision and any possible new focussing of interests that come
together with every new present.

The interpretation and communication of history in museums

333
History is an art that explores events in the past on the basis of extant historical
sources, attempting to explain and interpret them. The ancient Romans said that it was
magistra vitae, meaning that it tells us how to live in order to stay out of trouble, making
use of experience. The museum is a specific medium that in given situations presents
and interprets history, basing its credibility on museum objects, the museality of which
is in good part filled with its participation in or immediate or indirect testimony to given
historical events.

If we attempt to make use of our knowledge about a museum object as an INDOC

object (information-documentation object), then we cannot avoid the fact that in a
structural approach to the INDOC object (after Dahlberg; Tudjman, 1983:70) we
distinguish three dimensions within which information about the object and information
that the object emits move. These dimensions are time, space and society. These
three dimensions serve for us to understand all the breadth of the past and to choose
an appropriate manner to interpret and communicate history in museums.

Time, as category of duration, is related to the object as document, which has in itself
and in its material and structure all the essential characteristics that determine the
object as witness of historical events. This is the category in which we analyse and
endeavour to understand every time within the life of the museum object. We look for
important points in which the object has taken part in the historical events or perhaps
definitions that help us to determine the range of time that the object tells us of in its
material and duration. The value of age, with all forms of damage to the material,
contributes to the credibility of the object. The possibility for the linkage and joint
exhibition of objects that in their primary context never lived together opens up new
possibilities of the depiction of knowledge about some phenomenon from the past,
particularly about history as a cogent interpretation of the past.

Space, as the second dimension, in which the form and size of the object are found in
real space, enables the communication of a message in a horizontal sense. Space is
in effect a horizontal cross section of any given temporal moment. In other words, in
any historical moment there was a space in which the historical events took place. It is
a changeable category, but it is essential for the understanding of the function of
objects of the material world. Space is a framework of events and it is necessary to
summon it up and discover the real function and position of the museum object in the
space of a given historical event, with the proviso that its communicative function at an
exhibition will be manifested in a virtual space, which only in certain sequences will
allude to the real space of the time in which the things unfolded. Every time has its
different spatial frameworks such as: urban, rural, natural, political or any other that can
be determined by research. The discovery of the interdependence of an object and the
space in which it lived is a necessary precondition for the spatial framework in which
some historical event to be reconstructed and communicated can be defined. This will
then be in some exhibition venue, in situ, in historical buildings or some other historical
site. One ought not to lose sight of the fact that objects also reflect relations between
the life inside or outside a building. The differences between the life of an object
outdoors and indoors will necessarily have to be stated in the interpretation of a
historical event in a museum environment.

Society, the last of these three dimensions, determines the relations between people or
groups of people. The social meaning or status defines the role of an object inside any
of the historical or current social milieus. Social significance has a variable magnitude,
hence the theory of social relativity helps us to understand that some object can have
in certain periods a high and in other a low social significance. This significance, which
does not depend on the value of an object, or on its factual testimony about some
event, rather on the interpretation of the understanding and meaning of the object in

334
relation to the angle and place of observation of some historical event, is a variable
category, and the sinusoidal curves of its variability will be yet another of the input
parameters for registering the value of the material world in the revelation and
communication of the past. All the newly produced information that depends on the
relativity of the social relationship will have the character of cultural and structural and
not of scientific or selective information (Maroevic, 1993: 107). This information is
changeable, dependent on the moment and the intention in the interpretation of some
event, time or the role of the object in that historical event. At the same time the
features of society change in relationship to the time and space, taking part in a
process that we consider the assumed social development.

Museum objects are observed, researched and interpreted within each of these
dimensions, or perhaps inside a series of interrelationships of them. Of course the
comprehension of the life of an object within each of these dimensions cannot be
isolated. It can be considered as phenomenon of time, space or society, but ultimately
always together, with all the links that lead from the analytic approach to synthesis.
Making use of the fundamental features of each object, and thus of museum objects,
such as material, form and significance, we can gradually understand the importance of
a given object. The material and structure of an object change over time,
simultaneously documenting it. Every event, even the course of time itself, leaves
traces on the object, which lived and served its basic and sometimes its second
purpose in the primary context. Some of these material testimonies are inscribed into
the structure of the object and impart a special value to it.

If we look at the object exclusively as artefact or naturefact, then it can happen that in
consequence of the interests of a fundamental scientific discipline (art history,
archaeology, ethnology, and so on) we will lose a number of testimonies in some
conservation and restoration procedures that often channel the object towards its
original condition, i.e., towards its factual identity. Historical identity, which tells of the
time of the duration of the object, often in patent changes, in destruction or some
secondary use tells more about historical events, that does the actual fact of its
existence. For example, some damaged and preserved military flag can tell us more
about the time than a restored specimen of it, which brings it back to the time in which
it was created, paying no attention to the way it took part in the conflicts of war.
The form of the object is a component part of space, outdoor or indoor, with a clear
intention of taking part in it as tool, furnishing or decoration and so on. Various
historical settings bring in new elements for the assessment of the design and
importance of the shape in the purpose and significance of the object. Historical
space can be merely adumbrated as one of the possible horizontals in which space
cuts across the time ribbon. This space is in every later present time a virtual category
that has to be taken into consideration but which will only intermediately affect the
communication of the importance of the object. This space can be reconstructed or
defined by some indicators that are of particular importance for it. Each reconstruction
of a space will depend on the degree of preservation of the material framework, which
is more frequent in indoor than in outdoor spaces. Some settings, such as Dubrovnik
or Diocletian’s Palace in Split, to mention just two of the most important examples in
Croatia, can provide part of the visuality of the historical space, with a smaller amount
of abstraction than that where the whole of the ambience is historically changed during
the course of later periods. Space hence can be a concrete and an abstract category
and the manner of communication will depend on the degree of linkage between the
moveable and the immovable heritage, that is, museum objects in preserved historical
settings. For examples, palaces and castles with preserved interiors and furnishings
tell much more effectively of the time and the society than the abstract hints of an
archaeological site or of a sequence of vanished or essentially modified settings in

335
which museum objects are frequently used as just metaphors of time in an imaginary
space.

The significance or importance of a museum object has a direct relationship with

society in any of its forms – from family to nation or race. If we exclude at this moment
its material (monetary) worth, we shall see that the level of social identification,
recognition and assessment of the value of an object is most important in the scale of
the different levels of its evaluation. Professional or scientific evaluation is an essential
precondition in the process of ascribing value, because through it a clear system of
selection is carried out. But the significance or importance of a museum object comes
most patently to the fore in the communication processes in which the museum mission
via exhibitions or other forms of communication is directly transferred to the level of the
current social moment. All kinds of social groups fine answers to some of their
questions when they come face to face with the museum object. The museum object,
particularly in those situations when it tells of historical events, to some extent plays
down the valorisation processes that judge it only as artefact, naturefact or work of art.
In the suffusion of the achieved values, the significance of the museum object will rise if
it obtains social support. In this context some objects will become sacrosanct, while the
museum aura will bring some to a certain level of alienation (Maroevic, 1993:153).

Conclusion

It is not hard to conclude that the museum object, studied and interpreted in one of the
said ways, will become a historical source and a document of life, events or any kind of
human activity in the past. But it is proper not to lose sight of the fact that every object
can be a historical document if we take into account its historical or social identity.
Everything depends on the fact of whether during its lifetime it has acquired those
layers of credibility without which it can be believed only with difficulty. On the other
hand, the common life of objects in a museological context, objects that in the past
never lived together, opens up new possibilities for the representation of knowledge or
at least a complex structure of knowledge in which the input parameters of each
individual object will be crucial for a conclusion about the whole. This is very
characteristic of historical museums and historical exhibitions. The classification of
museum objects in general or special museums into – artefacts, artistic, archaeological
or natural history objects or any other kind of object is not relevant if we want to
interpret history in museums. Every object, irrespective of origin and kind, can be the
bearer and transmitter of information and messages about the past. The most
important thing is its historical testimony and its ability to give authentic testimony
concerning historical events, processes or times that we connect it to, in any of the
communicational museological processes. The special ability of the creator of museum
communication lies precisely in the selection and quality connection and juxtaposition
of museum objects so as to be able to present a given subject authentically and
credibly. This creates a new reality that corresponds with the past and which makes the
past current in the present, in a manner that meets the requirements and conditions of
this new present. The interpretation of the past thus becomes part of the museological
communication process, which leads us in the direction of the relativity of the past. The
aggregate of views onto the past, at once made current and yet relativised, via the
choice and interpretation of museum objects, approximates a general and at the same
time a virtual view into the past. Thus the museums and their communication serve for
a simultaneous making-current and a relativisation of the past, which sometimes enters
into the scientific sphere of history, and sometimes remains at the level of a possible
view of the past through the ever-present prism of the present.

References

336
Maroevic, I. (1993) Uvod u muzeologiju/Introduction to Museology, Zavod za informacijske studije, Zagreb,
Maroevic, I. (2005) Towards the new definition of the museum, in: „Définir le musée/Defining the Museum”
(Ed.: François Mairesse, Lynn Maranda, Ann Davies), ICOM/ICOFOM, Musée royal de Mariemont,
Morlanwelz, Belgique, pages : 135-146,
van Mensch, P. (1989) Museology as a scientific basis for the museum profession u: „Professionalising the
Muses“, AHA Books, Amsterdam,
van Mensch, P. (1992) Towards a methodology of museology, manuscript, PhD thesis, Faculty of
Philosophy University of Zagreb, Zagreb,
Tudjman, M. (1983) Struktura kulturne informacije /The Structure of Cultural Information, Zavod za kulturu
Hrvatske, Zagreb.

337