Historical Background

To acquire an in-depth knowledge on a particular subject, it is often the case that one must retrace its historical roots and review the influences and decisions which shaped its current condition. Ecomuseology has a brief, but important, history behind its evolution in the peripheral field of museology. Therefore, before the following sub-section investigates the recent history of ecomuseology, the developments within the world of museology that led to the creation of the ecomuseum will first be examined. These events have been fundamental in the formation of ecomuseology and affect its defining principles and theory today.

From history’s earliest versions of ‘traditional’ museums in 16th

century Italy up until present day, museums have developed in numerous ways. Two key developments that broke from traditional form, and viewed as key influencers of the ecomuseum, are open- air museums and Heimatmuseums (Babic, 2009: 240; Engstrom, 1985: 207; Davis,

62

1996: 116; Cruz-Ramirez, 1985: 242). Arguably the better known example of the two was demonstrated by Arthur Hazelius in Sweden with his creation of the world’s first open-air museum (1891), Skansen (Davis, 2011: 54). In displaying reconstructed farmhouses to the public in central Stockholm, Skansen represented a new museum model that was a “...new and radical way of interpreting and preserving threatened heritage” (Bergdahl, 2006: 103). Although Germany’s Hietmatmuseums are also considered to be one of the predecessors of ecomuseums, they are often disregarded due to their associations with Nazism (Crus-Ramirez, 1985: 242). However, it was the creation of these local, community museums and their progressive techniques in linking museums with society that established their place in museological history (Babic, 2009: 240). Although these two early concepts played inspirational roles in the development of ecomuseology, the following sub-section will detail other crucial events that started in the 1960s and led to the creation of the ecomuseum within a ‘new museology’ movement.

3.2.1 Shifting from Traditional Museology to Ecomuseology

Ecomuseums were created within a larger movement known as ‘new museology’ (Poulot, 1994: 67). The social and political unrest of the 1960s, combined with the rise of environmentalism and post-modernism, was instrumental in the re-imaging and re- shaping of many cultural organisations, including museums (Maggi, 2006: 63; Davis, 2011: 9). As such, traditional museum methods and roles needed to be re-evaluated (Davis, 2011: 57). General discontent amongst practitioners and the public with the museum’s role in society led to continual changes in museological theory and practice (Corsane, 2006a: 111). Davis (2011: 59) contends, “There was a radical reassessment of both theoretical and practical aspects of museums, with imaginative ideas permeating all museum functions”. It was under these conditions that a new museological movement started to form.

Central to the new museology movement was the desire for museums to step beyond their walls and become more actively involved in the present and future needs of their communities (Graybeal, 2010: 15; Davis, 2011:65). As the values of society became more culturally and environmentally conscious, museums sought to mimic this transformation. Mayrand (1985: 200) similarly agrees, having stated, “The new museology is not just an initiative to promote constant innovation. It mobilises the supporters of a radical transformation of the aims of museology” (see also Donghai,

63

2008: 29). Museums would now be taking on a role where social responsibility, cultural preservation and environmental conservation would be an essential part of their agenda (Davis, 2011: 59).

Also contributing to the new museological movement was the joint UNESCO and International Council of Museums (ICOM) round table meeting (1972) held in Santiago, Chile (Murtas & Davis, 2009: 150). Largely considered a turning point in the new museology movement, the key conclusion of the seminar was that museums need to establish a bond with their communities to inspire both parties in the protection of heritage (Babic, 2009: 246; Davis, 2011: 262). One of the ways in which this community bond would be established is through the model of the integrated museum, where museum philosophy shifts away from institutions and more towards communal ownership, empowerment and collaboration (Davis, 2004: 94). Manifestations of these so-called integrated museums started to appear globally and focused on the democratisation of heritage (Graybeal, 2010: 15). Open-air museums, folk museums, community museums, ethnic museums and others were created to continue the conservation of objects, but also to safeguard technologies and skills that represented the importance of everyday life (Davis, 2011: 56; Graybeal, 2010: 15).

One of the first integrated museums, and another influence on ecomuseology, was created in 1967 in the South-east corner of Washington, D.C. (Kinard, 1985: 220; Fuller, 1992: 329). The Anacostia Neighborhood Museum was created by the Smithsonian Institute as a community-based museum which reflected the contemporary culture of its largely African-American community through their curatorship. This local museum was created with the notion of museums moving beyond the traditional and becoming an “...instrument for social change” which must “...serve its total community” (Kinard, 1985: 218-220). However, in the early 1970s a new tangible expression of the new museology movement was created that would become one of the largest symbols of the movement, the ecomuseum.

The term ‘ecomusée’ first appeared in France in 1971, and is widely considered to be the product of two key French museologists, Georges Henri Rivière and Hugues de Varine (Corsane, 2006b: 403; Davis, 2011: 66-67; Donghai, 2008: 30; Murtas & Davis, 2009: 151; Joubert, 2006: 91). Each had particular contributions to the concept. On the one hand, de Varine wanted museums to become more democratic and involve communities in their work; on the other hand, Rivière wished to place human affairs into broader environmental contexts (Corsane, 2006b: 403; Davis, 2011: 66-67).

64

Although de Varine had coined the neologism, Rivière had been introducing ecological ideas into museums since the early 1930s where his involvement in ethnography led a desire to demonstrate previous and current French culture in its original location (Donghai, 2008: 30; Davis, 2011: 67; 1996: 115; Xiangguang, 2006: 38; Heron, 1997: 11; Hubert, 1985: 186). As Poulot (1994: 67) stated about Rivière, “…he defined the scope, inspired the philosophy, and envisioned the practical applications of the ecomuseum”. Focused on these two ideologies outlined by de Varine and Rivière, the ecomuseum movement was initiated and began to develop a theoretical structure and codes of practice (Corsane, 2006b: 403).

A symposium held in Paris in 1972 on the ‘Museum and Environment’ listed several conclusions based on the ecomuseum ideal. It stated that museums were at the service of their communities, and that “...a new kind of museum would be created, specifically and fully ecological, and which could justifiably receive the name of ‘ecomuseum’” (ICOM, 1973: 120). Indeed, the ecomuseum, with its innovative approach to community empowerment in local environments would be considered a revolutionary model in the museum world and tangible evidence of the new museology movement (Davis, 2011: 62). This type of museum would move beyond the physical walls and embrace a community and its territory, emphasising the importance of place (Fuller, 1992: 329).

Although a pioneering concept, the ecomuseum movement can trace its origins to many of the earlier events and museum models listed above (Davis, 2004: 95). Social change, new innovations such as the Anacostia Neighborhood Museum, further development of open-air museums in Scandinavia, community museums in Mexico, international seminars such as Santiago in 1972 and the formulation of new museological concepts in the early 1970s all contributed to the formulation and rise of ecomuseology (de Varine, 2006a: 54). Davis (2011: 87) explains that ecomuseums “...originated as a very special way of working, an enabling mechanism that would result in the conservation of cultural and natural heritage, the maintenance of local cultural identity, the democratisation of the museum and the empowerment of local people”. The following sub-section will discuss one of the first organisations to use the ecomuseum label and review how its structure and operations has influenced ecomuseum philosophy and practice globally.

65

3.2.2 Ecomusée du Creusot-Montceau-les-Mines

Traces of ecomuseology can be found in the early rural work of Rivière, but it was the joint collaboration with de Varine and Marcel Evrard (1971-1974) that established one of the world’s first ecomuseums around the French towns of Le Creusot and Montceau- les-Mines (Babic, 2009: 238; Davis, 2011: 68; Hudson, 1996: 15; Poulot, 1994: 71). Encompassing an area of approximately 500 sqm, the Ecomusée du Creusot-Montceau- les-Mines is comprised of lands formerly used for iron and steel works (Le Creusot) and coal mining (Montceau-les-Mines) (Davis, 2011: 73). Due to the rapid industrial decline after the Second World War, there had been rising unemployment during the 1960s in the area (ibid). It is at this point when de Varine, Evrard and Rivière, along with local administrators, initiated a new museum experiment that would provide jobs and help locals rediscover their own identity (Babic, 2009: 238; Hubert, 1985: 187). Bellaigue-Scalbert, former director of the ecomuseum, stated that the museum was a community based project founded on the “...exploration of ordinary daily life” (Bellaigue-Scalbert, 1981: 228). The project was supported around and toward the community (Poulot, 1994: 72). Thus, there were no visitors to the ecomuseum, but “inhabitants” who possessed and managed its collections (de Varine-Bohan, 1973: 244- 246). A unique feature of this first ecomuseum was the usage of in-situ antennae, or satellite sites, throughout the community, which were dispersed around the chateau- based headquarters. The antennae ranged from educational and cultural centres to research hubs (Evrard, 1980: 227-228; Hudson, 1996: 16). de Varine-Bohan (1973: 242) described the ecomuseum during its construction, stating, “The experiment undertaken by the urban community of Le Creusot-Montceau-les-Mines reveals a new conception of the role and very nature of museums”. Today, the ecomuseum remains an important aspect of museum culture, and also in relation “…to rural life and economic development” (Davis, 2011: 74).

The Ecomusée du Creusot-Montceau-les-Mines would go on to influence institutions and individuals globally and acted as a catalyst for the ecomuseum movement (Evrard, 1980: 230; Davis, 1996: 116; Hudson, 1996: 16). Indeed, Davis (2011: 72) stated that the “...significance of Le Creusot cannot be overstated”. After an expansion in France during the 1970s, the new museological approach then found functional settings in other parts of Europe and francophone Canada before moving to Latin America and Asia (Maggi, 2006: 63; Fuller, 1992: 330). Contemporary examples of ecomuseum

66

practices are discussed further in later chapters (7&8). The next section reviews the philosophical framework and defining characteristics behind ecomuseology.