European Cultural Heritage Online - ECHO

Recommendations

Info

3.2 Ethnography and museum objects (Karadimas et al)Non-European objects and Societies within the European Museums (NECEP)A report on the state-of-the-art concerning digitized databases dealing with non-Europeanobjects and Societies within the European Museums, ”NECEP” (Non European Componentof European Patrimony) is presented by Karadimas et al (2003). The report is based on aNECEP questionnaire, distributed to a large number of important museums and institutes inEurope. The NECEP report is attached to the present state-of-art report.The NECEP investigation addressed 78 major museums and institutions from 23 Europeancountries. The current estimation of the total number of museum objects was done on 15countries from which data were obtained (on a total of 23). The total sum proved to be morethan 3 million objects (3,086,067). It should be stressed that this sum taken as an estimation isbased on partial information and that it represents a minimum. The estimation will be subjectto continuous revision as further information reaches us. There are, however, a few tentativeobservations to be made from the information currently available.Thus, on the basis of current sampling, the major museums of England, Germany and Hollandhave alone close to the 2/3 of the NECEP objects in Europe (2.062.519).Further, with regard to the percentage of the process of digitalization of the objects present inthe museums, we only have information for 7 of the 23 countries concerned. The dataconcerning this process are thus very incomplete. Again, using the information available, weobserve a rate of digitization of 37% (slightly more than 1/3 of the collections, or 1,150,000objects without counting archives material).The situation, however, is very heterogeneous with respect to the different countries. Thus,the major Dutch and English museums have practically completed the digitalization of theircollections, whereas those of France and Italy, for example, are still in process (for example,the collections of the Quai Branly museum, will be completely digitized by 2005).The museums were also reviewed in terms of the functionality of their web sites. Threesituations were discerned:1. Publicity (general information on the museum; location, contact, etc.)2. Publicity & Diffusion (situation 1 plus some specific collection information)3. Publicity, Diffusion & Research (situation 2 plus presence of a research engineinto the databases of the museums).On the basis of the review, it was found that the great majority of the European museumsdealing with NECEP collections take their web sites as a publicity and diffusion platform(that is, situation 2 above). The first exception to this rule are some museums in Switzerland,Great Britain and all the Dutch ones, which offer a higher functional level representingsituation 3. The second exception are Germany and France, which do not have a systematicpresentation of their material through the Internet.Further, the most advanced situations in making scientific information available throughInternet are the British and Dutch museums web sites.A summary overview of the NECEP questionnaire and its results is presented in Appendix3.2.10
Conclusions and directions for the futureThe summary and conclusions of the ethnography report are• The majority of the European museums are organized around their objects andcollections.• None of the major European museums has, in their object related databases, datarelated to the cultures that produced these objects: even if a field "ethnic group" oftenappears, it only contains the name of the society from which the object originated.• For Echo and its Necep component, the museums will not be able alone to face therequest of information relating to the cultures which have produced these objects. Thestrictly ethnological component of the Necep part is currently underrepresented: onlythe museums (holders of 'patrimonial’ objects) were initially approached.• According to specific and personal surveys of some French and German ethnologicaland anthropological research centres, a large quantity (currently noncalculable) ofrough data relating to the non-European cultures is presently hosted there.• The nature of the data of these centres and institutes is ethnographic investigationmaterial (lexicons, linguistics questionnaires on non-European languages, field notes,accounts, myths, photographs, films and sound recordings…).• This material also takes part in the European heritage concerning non-Europeansocieties although it is not recognized nor inventoried by major ‘patrimonial’institutions. The research centres, which do not have patrimonial vocations, howeverbalk to deposit them in the museums due to the fear of not being able, thereafter, tohave an open access to them.• Until now, only a few research centres where approached, principally those thatalready have important collections (e.g. Cambridge University). Continued work isneeded at the European level to make an inventory of ethnological institutes andresearch centres.• In order to improve the present situation, infrasctructural support at the European levelis essential. Institutes and research centres that will have to account for theinformation to be given on non-European cultures remains to be defined. The questionof the modalities of the choice of those centres also remains to be worked out. Thevarious research groups of will have to be put in contact at the European level (e.g., interms of networks built around the large cultural areas: the Andes, Mesoamerica, sub-Saharan Africa, Amazonia, Melanesia, etc.)3.3 History of science (Renn)Clearing housesSeveral clearing houses covering the area of history of science are available on the Internet(e.g. http://echo.gmu.edu/, http://www.loc.gov). They are intended to support navigation in aflood of unorganized information. Although clearing house-sites provide very usefulorientation, they lack mechanisms to evaluate the user’s feedback and suggestions from othersites, i.e. they don’t cater to the needs of users as is now possible on the web, with dynamicalsites such as “Google” or “Amazon”.11
Page 1 and 2: European Cultural Heritage OnlineEC
Page 3 and 4: 1. Introduction (Renn & Strömqvist
Page 5 and 6: control of the usage of their holdi
Page 7 and 8: The three search words yielded more
Page 9: endangered languages in Siberia; Fr
Page 13 and 14: last paragraph, to be very promisin
Page 15 and 16: Collections and web portals of digi
Page 17 and 18: This framework, called ZUCCARO (Zop
Page 19 and 20: and kindly offered Lund University

European Cultural Heritage Online - ECHO

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?