Category Archives: Museums

Who wrote that? Forensic analysis of museum specimen labels

Label attached to a Chatham Island snipe specimen collected in 1900. Image: Colin Miskelly, Te Papa

Museum curators often need to identify handwriting. In the Bird department this includes determining who wrote historical register entries and specimen labels, or who was responsible for annotations on original documents. Much of this skill is learnt on the job, and we keep a file of examples of writing by earlier curators. But it is important to recognise your limitations, and when it is time to call on the experts. In this case it was the Document Examination Section of the New Zealand Police whom we called.

Gordon Sharfe and Trish James (NZ Police) and Colin Miskelly (Curator Terrestrial Vertebrates, Te Papa) examine century-old bird specimens in the Te Papa collection. Photo: Alan Tennyson, Te Papa

The enquiry was driven by a 114-year-old whodunit. Who collected the type specimens of the South Island (=Stewart Island) snipe on Jacky Lee Island in 1897 & 1898? The labels on some specimens were signed by Henry Travers, a Wellington-based collector and dealer in bird skins and plant specimens. Although Travers has long been credited with the discovery of this now-extinct snipe, I suspected that – apart from trips to the subantarctic islands in 1890 and 1894 – Travers never ventured south of Banks Peninsula.

The main question that I asked of Trish James (Senior Document Examiner, NZ Police) was whether any of the ‘Travers’ labels on birds collected from the Stewart Island region between 1897 and 1905 had been written by someone other than Travers. And she concluded that some had. Four of the labels had writing that differed from Travers’s, particularly in the form of the capital S and F, and the lower case t. Yet the words were written on the typical ornate labels that Travers used on most of his specimens, and tied on with his characteristic pink cotton.

Labels written by Henry Travers (top row), Sigvard Dannefærd (bottom row), and an unknown specimen collector apparently working for both Travers and Dannefærd (middle three rows). Image: Colin Miskelly (Te Papa)

Even more intriguing, this same writing was evident on a series of snipe and shore plover specimens from the Chatham Islands collected in 1899 & 1900. And this time the writing was on labels characteristic of both Henry Travers and his main competitor at the time, Sigvard Dannefærd (who was based first in Auckland and later in Rotorua). The photo shows in row 1 (A & B) both sides of a label written by Travers, and in row 5 (I & J) two labels written by Dannefærd. In between are six labels (C-H) written by the mystery bird collector. Rows 2 & 3 show Travers type labels, and row 4 shows Dannefærd type labels, but the writing is not theirs.
 

Trish James (Senior Document Examiner) with enlarged images of bird specimen labels at NZ Police National Headquarters. Photo: Colin Miskelly, Te Papa

Between them Travers and Dannefærd sold over 500 bird specimens to the Colonial and then Dominion Museum (now Te Papa), and many hundreds more ended up in either the British Museum of Natural History or the American Museum of Natural History (which purchased Lord Rothschild’s enormous private collection in 1932). Travers and Dannefærd collected or traded many notable specimens, including the name-bearing types of black robin, Chatham Island rail, Stephens Island wren, Snares Island fernbird, Snares Island tomtit, Hutton’s shearwater, and the South Island snipe. But they were both notorious for their poor record keeping. As a result of the forensic examination completed by Trish James, we now know that even the labels and cotton that we thought were diagnostic signatures of both men are unreliable. Both of them must have provided blank labels (and possibly spools of cotton) to others collecting birds on their behalf, and on at least some occasions they were both employing the same man!

More stories than you can shake a tokotoko at

Sorry about the length of time between posts, I’ve been juggling a bunch of different gigs and research duties. The fun don’t stop! But regardless of my shameless plea about time poverty, I better get this blog back up off its flatline….eep.

I’ve only been a curator for 7 months and even if you were the brainiest most well read person in the world, a curator is really only as good as their knowledge of their museum’s collection. So in familiarising myself with the Taonga Maori collection at Te Papa, I’ve been systematically going through all the collection areas, drawers, shelves and trawling our collection database, trying to cast my eye over as many of the taonga as possible. With 35, 000 pieces in the Maori collection alone, you can imagine this is going to be a long getting-to-know-you process. There are stories and mysteries at every turn in the museum, more than you can shake a tokotoko at, the place heaves with detective trails just waiting to be followed up. I’ll eventually try and cover them all, should take me about 200 years.

But for this blog I thought I’d talk about one interesting little object that I stumbled across in one of the drawers in our collection stores.  In a small metal drawer, secured in a cliplock plastic bag was this little oddity.

Small, about the size of an outstretched hand, and weighing about as much as a tea cup – it had no information other than a small accompanying cardboard label in the plastic bag.

 

Now immediately before anyone gets the wiriwiris, this isn’t a skull tiki. Even I blanched a bit when I saw the label but most of the objects made from modified human bone or remains are all in a specially designated room in Te Papa, well-secured and with restricted access. So I knew it was highly unlikely that this was human bone. It was too heavy and dense a material, and there was a glossy quality to its surface that looked too artificial to be bone. I guessed it was probably ceramic or something along those lines but held off making a decision until I had investigated everything.

I examined it carefully, photographed it, weighed it, noting any strange qualities or clues. It was a beautifully carved four-limbed creature. Piko-o-rauru (plain spirals) embellish the buttocks, while rauru (notched spirals) are found on what could be termed the back/shoulders. The head is small with two large very round blue-glazed eyes, a mouth with teeth, and a small suspension hole. The splayed left hand is held upright while the right hand terminates in a manaia joined to the right foot. On the reverse side, there are pencil markings and cross-hatch markings, presumably from a mesh cloth used in a plaster-making process (establishing pretty quickly it was probably made from plaster or ceramic). A small length of coarse twine is tied to the hole between the right hand and foot.

Once I was satisified with the physical once-over of the object, I went to the archives to check if any record existed of it (none did). So I happily went on a detective hunt (the fun part of the job).

First thing is start with the written material that came with the object. The cardboard label held a clue that I used to establish the most probable period or year the replica might have been made. The G.R. and the image of the crown is a definite time marker. The G.R. stands for George Rex, a regal stamp for George V. George Vs reign started in 1910, so the label has helped me figure out that the replica was made at least after 1910 and no later than 1936, when George V’s reign ended. Good, timeframes are handy for museum records…

The second lookup was to scan for any mention of ‘skull tiki’ and I found several references relatively quickly. The best were found in two written sources: a 1932 JPS article by Henry Skinner about Maori amulets and a large book published 1898 by James Edge-Partington called Ethnographical Album of the Pacific Islands. The James Edge-Partington book was probably the most helpful. In the late 1800s, Partington – a keen collector and ethnologist of Pacific material – researched and documented private and public collections of Pacific and Maori material. These collections were found in NZ, England, and Australia; his book is a fascinating sketched record of holdings at that time. And nestled within the pages of this enormous book was the following sketch of a “skull tiki” held at the British Museum, recorded between 1890-98 (Partington’s research period for the book):

Bingo. So what I had at Te Papa was probably a plaster replica of a British Museum original. I tracked the records at the British Museum and reconciled on our database where the Te Papa copy came from. The original at the BM is classified as a ‘skull tiki’ and probably from the occipital section of the skull. The British Museum has no acquisition information about this piece but they have made an attribution to Taranaki, early 19th century. It was worn as an adornment, across the chest hanging from the neck. While it is described as a tiki by the British Museum, there has been some korero among my curatorial colleagues and me about whether it can be rightly called a tiki. It deviates from the template a hei tiki usually conforms to. But that can be left for a proper discussion at another time.

So I now have a source for the replica and a year it probably made its way to Te Papa’s museum predecessor – the Dominion Museum. But what was still unknown was how did it get into the collection store? Why did Te Papa have a copy of a British Museum piece? To answer that required more archival digging…

Because I now had a date (circa 1910), I hunted through old correspondence held from that time in the museum’s archival records. There was one letter from Augustus Hamilton dated June 4th 1909 addressed to James Edge-Partington requesting permission to take a cast copy of a putorino (bugle flute) that had caught his attention after reading Edge-Partington’s book mentioned earlier.

Also in the letter, Hamilton mentions he had written to the British Museum asking for casts of pieces he had seen. It suggests that as he read Edge-Partington’s Ethnographical Album of the Pacific Islands, Hamilton may have been treating it almost like a shopping catalogue and, he would have seen the image of the British Museum skull tiki and added that to his list of requests for replicas.

So the mystery is sort of solved…the British Museum ‘skull tiki’ would have been seen by Hamilton in Edge-Partington’s book around 1909. Hamilton then sent a request to the BM asking for a cast replica to be made, which would have made its way back to New Zealand around 1910. And ever since then, it has sat in the Collection Stores. There are no records of it ever being exhibited and certainly, it has never been researched until now. It had never been registered and no records were ever kept with it and, the funny thing about museums, if an object isn’t registered or recorded, it is almost as if it is invisible or doesn’t exist.

So now after a bit of hunting, we are able to figure out this quirky little object’s history and reconcile the records accordingly. It is a replica of an even more mysterious original held in a museum thousands of miles away. And even though it’s a replica and easily dismissed because it is a copy, I think its existence and story alludes to some interesting trade/copy traditions between 19th/early 20th century museums. I’m not sure if today you would see such a willing response by a museum to copy a collection item for another museum. And in a time of Google or Collections Online where access to other museum’s collections around the world is usually at the click of a mouse button, it is should be easy to imagine how eager museum professionals of the late 19th/early 20th century would have received or taken up opportunities presented by a large book such as Edge-Partington’s tome.

How to broaden your museum’s audience

Donna Williams for The Met in New York

Donna Williams for The Met in New York

On Thursday 25 June Donna Williams, Chief Audience Development Officer from the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, spoke at Te Papa about how the Met is diversifying its audience.

Here are the main points I teased out of the talk:

Relationships is the key word
The Met started the Multicultural Audience Development Initiative with a diverse committee of people who are involved in and believe in the arts.

Pick people from organisations with the right criteria to work with you. Listen to these people so you know what you are doing right and wrong. Listening to what they think should be part of your museum’s strategy.

‘Friendraising’ to make your museum work
Make everyone feel like they are a friend of your museum. Approach and welcome new and diverse communities, multicultural and multigenerational groups to be a part of your museum’s fibre.

Collaborate

  • With other museums.
  • With your staff members. They are the best ambassadors for an initiative like this, internally as well as externally.
  • With your museum’s trustees. They are just as interested in diversifying the museum’s audience as you are.

Celebrate all communities
Acknowledge and celebrate all heritage events. The Met celebrates Martin Luther King Day, Diwali, Women’s History Month, Latino Hispanic holidays, and has a gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender community group that enjoys special events in the Museum as well.

Don’t be afraid to ask people
Get out in your community and ask people to be part of your museum. Ask people to help you. Celebrities in New York have started doing public service announcements and interviews about the museum on TV for free!

Get out there!
40% of Donna’s time is spent out there in the communities, letting people know they are all part of the same story and the same museum family. Do whatever you can to find out about relevant events you can tag your museum onto.

Media outreach
Make sure you are in the community papers as well as the main paper. Most people read both. By getting your presence in both, it shows you care.

Local outreach
Reaching out to the local community is even more important now in this economic climate. Don’t just target the international visitors – you have to get the people at your own back door to come more often. Make it attractive to them.

Diversity in programming
Acknowledge different communities’ celebrations at your museum. Through exhibitions, lectures, gallery talks, receptions, and education programmes the Met recognises Native American Heritage, Hispanic/Latino heritage, Asian heritage, South Asian heritage, African American heritage, women’s heritage, social justice etc.

Branching out

  • Mentoring programme for college students. These are potential future staff members. All communities should be represented. The Met is able to help students go forward in their careers. They are able to come and work at the Met for 10 weeks and receive a stipend. One of their most successful initiatives was a toga party that attracted over 3000 young people into the Museum.
  • In addition there is a College Advisory Group at the Met for 18-23 year olds. This age group is often forgotten about. Twenty-five students from all over New York strategised about how to get their age group to the Met.

Family programming

The Met has visitation programmes that cover a lifetime.

  • Starting with programmes for parents with babies.
  • The Met then has family programmes which attract 500,000 students a year.
  • Visitors can then move onto the high school internship programme.
  • Then the college group.
  • Then adult membership.

Everyone needs to be able to find a spot in the museum circle.

Listen to Donna Williams’ talk or download Donna’s presentation

This blog is also on NZMuseums

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 281 other followers