Showing posts with label collections research. Show all posts
Showing posts with label collections research. Show all posts

15 May 2022

People and Plants at the Powell-Cotton Museum

 On 11 March 2022, the Powell-Cotton Museum hosted the first workshop of the AHRC funded project ‘People and Plants: Reactivating Ethnobotanical Collections asMaterial Archives of Indigenous Ecological Knowledge’. This meeting was a collaboration between the Museum, the School of Anthropology and Conservation at the University of Kent and the NOMAD Project, which works within Somali communities to engage with cultural heritage in the UK. This workshop met to explore the ethnobotanical specimens at the Powell-Cotton —focusing on those collected by Diana Powell-Cotton in Somalia in 1934-5 — as well as the narratives, knowledge and experiences they inspire, particularly for women within the Somali diaspora.

This workshop featured a tour of the museum galleries with a discussion of their renovation as well as the research of three presenters: Abira Hussein of NOMAD Project/University College London; Rosa Dyer, a CDA PhD student at the Pitt Rivers Museum/Birkbeck College; and our host Inbal Livne of the Powell-Cotton Museum. Following their presentations on digital engagement with cultural heritage within the UK-based Somali community, women’s healthcare in the ethnobotanical collections at Powell-Cotton, and the museum’s goals for decolonisation and inclusive knowledge production, we had an open, unstructured handling session and a discussion centred on ethnobotanical specimens from the museum collection.

As awardees of a bursary for attendance at this meeting, Jonn Gale and Ayesha Fuentes reflect on their experiences below.

The process and non-extractive engagement

At the very beginning of the day, our host Inbal Livne talked about the process being the focus, rather than the end goal for the People and Plants event. The notion of actively being with, and in a process where the outcome is unknown is extremely interesting, thought provoking, and in many ways necessary. Even if the facilitation of some type of intersectional knowledge production was hoped for when the People and Plants gathering was conceived, there really was no pressure or strict guidelines to what that should look like, or on how to arrive there. Embracing this type of open-ended approach is one way to encourage non-extractive engagements within museum collections, as it allows for creative play and the flow of non-linear modes of knowledge (such as storytelling), which may work against the reinstatement of dominant narratives inherent to this particular context. While the event contained a basic structure, time being broken down into specific activities -  lecture, lunch, roam, workshop, etc, with no clear cut outcome expectations, there was a sense of openness to the kinds of things people wanted to explore, discuss or bring attention to.

In the most basic but most positive of terms, we could say this was a matter of ‘we don't know where we're going SO THAT we might wind up someplace else’. This tongue-in-cheek anecdote helps highlight the link between classification and destination but also how they relate to suppression. After all, does not desired outcome imply discrimination, and thus the suppression of other outcomes? So in a sense, any bid for fairer, more multiverse museum practices must go beyond deterministic and discriminating assumptions that things, people, knowledge, and life move in a linear fashion. When we let go of moving towards a desired outcome we allow for the slight anticipation that in doing so something new or somehow different will emerge as a result.

Tim Ingold’s idea of wayfaring is useful for visualizing a process focused approach (see Being Alive: Essays on Movement, Knowledge and Description, 2011). Here, he explains that, ‘the storied knowledge of the wayfarer is neither vertically nor laterally integrated. It is not hierarchical, like a classification, nor is it ‘flat’ or planar, like a network.’ Instead, Ingold argues, ‘the paths of wayfaring, as they thread their way through the inhabited world rather than routing across it from point to point’ make it so the thing itself is ‘movement alongly in the world, creating itself endlessly in the process’.

Jars display the African plant material collected by Diana and Antoinette Powell-Cotton. Photo by Jonn Gale.

 

The People and Plants gathering was non-extractive to the extent that while the museum was host, and interactions synchronized through the collection material, the running theme acknowledged that whatever we were hoping to achieve extends far beyond the space we were occupying. And in doing so it also emphasized and admitted the possibility where the museum could gain nothing as a result of these activities. That in itself is a weird thing to hope for, especially if we think of collecting and collections to be about keeping something aside. But if we think of them as bringing things or people together, connecting people from different backgrounds, bringing together different generations from the communities that hold traditional knowledge (about the plant species in their collections), we can begin to consider how non-extractive engagements not only subvert museum practice but also help to re-create and redefine the role of museum itself.

Storytelling and reactivation

Storytelling is at the core of the decolonising project. As Donna J. Haraway reminds us in Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Cthulucene (2016):

It matters what matters we use to think other matters with; it matters what stories we tell to tell other stories with; it matters what knots knot knots, what thoughts think thoughts, what descriptions describe descriptions, what ties tie ties. It matters what stories make worlds, what worlds make stories.

The matter of storytelling was central to the collection reactivation realized at the ‘People and Plants’ gathering at the Powell-Cotton museum. In a day of attentive exploration we encountered and accounted for the starkly varied in tone, structure and aesthetic, modes of storytelling that echo throughout the biocultural collections of this museum. Confronting both the mythology and actualities interwoven in the collections of the ‘Great White Hunter’, with their meticulous yet ghostly fragmentations of the past and its more-than human actors, Percy Powell-Cotton’s dioramas and gaming displays, portray a cosmology of bemusing conservation, binaries, and competition.

As we shifted our focus to the collections of Percy’s daughters Diana and Antoinette Powell-Cotton, we remarked on the differences of approach between father and daughters. The sisters’ ethnographic sensibilities are evident in their gathering of data relating to the traditional uses of the material they collected, as well as information regarding the locations, livelihoods, medical and sacred realms of the people groups they encountered. Their story speaks both to early scientific pursuit, and to womanhood; inciting our curiosity we consider the types of encounters the anthropologists had in their ability to gain access to women’s spaces, provoking us to question just what the ramifications of such entanglements are, if the voices of the women whom the Powell-Cotton sisters met, had so far been absent.

 

During the workshop we used the catalogue pages
to identify and get additional information on the
 plant material from Somali, Jubaland.
Photo by Jonn Gale.

 












Noting the asymmetry between actors in this story in an introspective discussion, marks only a fraction of the reactivation we sought to attain during the People and Plants gathering. Connecting through the collections of the Powell-Cotton Museum, an assembly of academics, museum curators, artists and diaspora members, we utilized storytelling not simply as a way to fill in the gaps of history, but as means by which to represent the intricate meshwork of interactions, inherent to ethnobotanical collections. The vibrant discussion that ignited while we examined numerous boxes of Somali plant material extended to include personal memories as well as sensory responses. The gathering allowed for the production of storied knowledge, the kind of knowledge Tim Ingold says is ‘open-ended rather than closed off, because it merges into life in an active process of remembering rather than being set aside as a passive object of memory’ (op.cit.). It felt like a mediation, and we inadvertently gained access to or called into life the critical fabulation that researcher Abira Hussein spoke of in her lecture during the event. This critical fabulation, as Abira’s taught us, seeks to intervene into the aloof classifications and distant gaze of the past, by reactivating the emotional component of artifact creation.

 

Museums as meeting places

 

One of the more refreshing parts of this first People and Plants meeting was the ways in which personal narrative and lived experience shaped how people engaged with our themes, as well as each other. This was especially true in the afternoon session where various leaves, resins, roots, flowers, and fibers from the Powell-Cotton collections were placed on a large table around which participants gathered informally, noisily, even awkwardly at times. Participants exchanged words, recipes, questions and suggestions as hands reached over one another or passed between them the clear plastic bags of plant material. At a second, smaller table, we studied a map of journeys made by Diana Powell-Cotton into the northeastern regions of Africa from which these samples had come. We flipped through an album of photographs made there with images of animals, families, dwellings and landscapes.

 

Later, the workshop participants gathered around the larger table and listened to one another, reflecting on the meeting, the collection and the identity of the museum. We mostly spoke in turns, each of us balancing the needs for expressing our ideas, listening and being heard in order to cultivate trust and a reliable means of communication between a group representing a variety of intellectual and educational experiences. Just as our host Inbal Livne had framed the handling session as a workshop without a generative purpose — in the sense nothing was required of it, there was no predetermined outcome — she had framed the museum setting as a meeting place, a safe and accessible space for the exchange of material and cultural knowledge.

 

Reactivating the collection - unboxing plant material at the People and Plants workshop. Photo by Jonn Gale.
 

Where a cultural institution admits its visitors openly, where it provides areas to sit and rest, where it invites play and conversation, or where it acts as an educational arena with the potential to be reconstructed and redirected according to an individual’s interests and curiosity, these are characteristics of a museum with the capacity to expand and adapt to a public need. In this first handling session, in the physical exchange of materials and circulation of narratives and expertise, a framework for activating the museum as a meeting place was tested and one which connected rather than alienated its diverse community of visitors through a shared interest in the relationship between people and plants. By leaving our exchange unstructured yet oriented around a specific set of materials and questions about them, this workshop achieved a platform for a curiosity that could be articulated through a broad range of vocabularies, expertise and experiences. Refreshingly, nothing else was expected of us.

A multiverse of sciences

An investigator who hoped to learn something about what scientists took the atomic theory to be asked a distinguished physicist and an eminent chemist whether a single atom of helium was or was not a molecule. Both answered without hesitation, but their answers were not the same. For the chemist the atom of helium was a molecule because it behaved like one with respect to the kinetic theory of gases. For the physicist, on the other hand, the helium atom was not a molecule because it displayed no molecular spectrum. Presumably both [people] were talking of the same particle, but they were viewing it through their own research training and practice. Their experience in problem-solving told them what a molecule must be. Undoubtedly their experiences had had much in common, but they did not, in this case, tell the two specialists the same thing.

As Thomas Kuhn examines in the example above and throughout The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962), science, as a system of empirical learning, is conditioned by what he describes as its ‘paradigm’, its social, political, historical and intellectual setting. And yet these paradigms — like the traditions of scientific thinking they support — can be interrupted, revised and expanded. Further, they require maintenance and continuity but should also remain adaptable in order to manage periods of crisis.

There is an underlying assumption in many narratives of museum practice and dominant methodologies for the study of the natural world that both museums and science as methods of knowledge production are historically European innovations, and that other localized cultural groups and their intellectual traditions lacked fully-formed systems for empirical learning and/or the preservation and public display of material heritage. And yet, through this workshop, we were participating in the reconstruction of an ethnobotanical tradition which existed and exists in Somalia and abroad based on the knowledge and experiences of those who have historically inhabited or identified with that landscape and valued its material culture. If, as Kuhn suggests, all formal scientific learning is a combination of received knowledge and its application, how should one draw distinctions between systems of custodianship or forms of expertise based on culture or geography? Moreover, how is it possible — or even useful — to describe these various human traditions of learning as independent of one another?

 


Jubaland objects: Seashells used as perfume. Photo by Jonn Gale.



 










Possibly this is a distinction based on the documentary language used to develop these systems of learning; there was much discussion of regional linguistics at the table, just as there was of the various contingencies to be considered in the harvest of plants and their derivatives including the season, the inter-related components of the plants, its storage, etc. But what was refreshing about this workshop —  and which is evident at many other museums and cultural institutions — was a diminished process of gatekeeping, wherein the methods of engagement are subject to the control of the institution whose concern is primarily the material integrity of its collections. Instead — as our host had stated in her welcome and our speakers had demonstrated with their research — where safe handling and intellectual access can be facilitated, one has the impression that there are an infinite number of empirical traditions and standards of care which might activate these materials and add value to the lives of those who care about them from both within the museum and beyond.

In conclusion, we would like to thank the organisers of this workshop for their effort and willingness to expand. The ‘People and Plants’ project will continue over the course of the year with additional workshops at Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew and National Museums Scotland. Attendance is limited but the project will keep you informed through this and similar channels.

Jonn Gale joined MEG in the recent months. They are an artist and ethnobotanist working with the Economic Botany Collection at Kew and currently researching Thomas Clarkson’s chest at the Wisbech and Fenland Museum.

Ayesha Fuentes has been a member of MEG since 2019 and is currently Isaac Newton Trust Research Associate in Conservation at the University of Cambridge Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

 

 

 

 

19 April 2021

Keeping Connected – Repatriation

By Johann Zetterstrom-Sharp (Chair)   

 On March 16th we hosted the first of MEG’s Keeping Connected events, focusing on repatriation.

These events emerged through conversations about what MEG is and what we have to offer, and the recognition that MEG is a community. It has been a place where colleagues have felt supported, able to ask questions they struggle asking within their organisations, talk things through and get advice in a friendly, supportive environment. We have been thinking this past year about what we can do to support our members to do important work, particularly around opening up access (including through repatriation) and decentring knowledge about collections.

At the moment this support feels important. The urgency of acknowledging and working through the colonial nature of our institutions and collections is crucial, but many are working in isolation with little, or unstable, institutional support. Colleagues are often expected to provide quick and complete answers to requests for action within organisations whom publicly promised change in the summer of 2020 without necessarily being ready for it. In other contexts there is the institutional will, coupled with anxiety over risks to funding. We feel sharing best practice and making changes collectively can help.

Repatriation, restitution and return have been flagged repeatedly as something our members feel passionately about, want to support, and see as important to their roles. In many cases, however, our institutions, processes and policies are not ready: there is no clear road map. This is a barrier for all concerned. Institutional inexperience and unreadiness (at CEO, Director or Trustee level) can get redirected towards people whose job it is to care for collections, but have very limited direct power about what happens to collections beyond their status as museum objects. Likewise for individuals and organisations who would like to make a request for the return of their belongings or material heritage, the lack of a clear road map means they do not know how their request will be received, what supporting evidence will be required, or what emotional labour will be expected of them. This is harmful and disrespectful.

The Keeping Connected workshop included short introductions by JC Niala and Juma Ondeng, Emma Martin, and Stephen Welsh, about building trust, writing repatriation policies, and processing requests. Members were then able to indicate who they wanted to speak to and seek advice from in break-out rooms. Some of the conversations had are explored below.

Building Trust

JC Niala and Juma Ondeng reflected on their experience as part of the Rethinking Relationships and Building Trust around African Collections project based at the Horniman Museum in South London, MAA in Cambridge, Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford and World Museum, Liverpool. This project was focused on developing new ways of working in order to build the trust needed to have equitable conversations about the futures of collections, including repatriation. As a result of Covid-19, the project became increasingly focused on understanding and working through barriers to digital access, in recognition that for the majority of community members who would like to access their material heritage in European collections, this access will happen digitally.

Both Juma and JC highlighted how trust is not a given, it takes time and is based primarily not on models of working or templates, but on individuals and their relationships with each other. Relationships are not between museums and communities, they are between people.

A question was raised about how to work through conflicting needs and opinions within communities where the future of collections are concerned. We were reminded that community dynamics are not ours; that includes making decisions about whose opinion is most valid, but also playing the role of arbitrator. By focusing on access and transparency (about collections and provenance, but also crucially museum processes and terminologies) we can provide a community with the information they need to reach decisions that work for them.

For me this is a reminder that we are often impatient to see clear and neat conclusions that fit within the structures of ownership and entitlement that our professions already work within. What is needed is patience and openness. It also highlights that trust goes both ways: we also need to trust that communities know themselves how to manage and work through differences in opinion.

As part of demonstrating that trust, Juma noted the importance of taking the time to identify cultural gatekeepers, leaders and elders within a community, and showing them due respect. This includes ensuring they are kept informed from the beginning so that everyone is on the same page and has all the relevant information.

Repatriation Policy Development

Emma Martin spoke about the process of developing a new repatriation policy at World Museum, Liverpool. The last few years have seen the development of individual repatriation policies for museums across the UK, rather than relying on Arts Council templates. This is significant because it has in many cases forced a reflection on what these policies need to do in anticipation of a rise in formal requests made directly to the museum. For Liverpool, the formal policy will be accompanied by a document written for individuals and organisations who want to approach the museum to make a request or claim. This aims at clarity around process, with step-by-step guidance to build a clear road map. This is as much about supporting the claims process as it is being honest and open in order to manage expectations. That includes the time that it takes to process claims, the potential costs involved, and how claims will be assessed.

This honesty is crucial. Whilst it is understandable that museum leaders want their institutions to be perceived as ethical and committed to social justice, raising expectations that requests for restitution will be always granted, or that the process will be straightforward - when this is not the case - is both disrespectful and harmful. It serves no useful purpose.

Emma reflected on the importance of taking time over the writing of policy, thinking carefully about who will read and use it. At Liverpool this meant speaking with colleagues in the organisation as a first step, ensuring that the whole organisation was on board. This included senior management who would need to defend and understand the policy to advocate for it, and get it signed off. It also included an external public conversation focusing on how this policy might affect visitors to the museum. It is important to recognise that people feel strongly about the museums they love, and may be afraid of change. There is rarely space to discuss what repatriation or restitution actually means in practice, why it is important, and what changes visitors might see, through examples and case studies. The result was that the museum was able to bring people on board who were initially resistant to a transparent and clear policy that might encourage claims.

Processing Claims

Something that comes up repeatedly is the lack of experience colleagues have in working on requests for restitution. This also means that there is a lack of transparency about process for individuals or organisations making a claim. This can be a source of mistrust and misunderstanding for all those involved. It is difficult to provide reassurance that claims will be dealt with respectfully when there are no other examples to point to, likewise inexperience can mean that the integrity of a request is not taken seriously.

Stephen Welsh was invited to talk about his experience working with AIATSIS (Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies) during the unconditional repatriation of secret, sacred and ceremonial objects to Aboriginal communities in Australia. AIATSIS is a collecting, publishing and research institute dedicated to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures and peoples, and led the Return of Cultural Heritage project. Stephen highlighted how once the formal claim was made by AIATSIS, the processing of the claim by the museum took 10 months. This accelerated timeframe was enabled by existing research and experience of repatriation at Manchester Museum, and the experience of AIATSIS working with external repatriation processes and policies, as well as the fact that they had been able to resource their own research process into the collections.

This is of course vital when museums are themselves under resourced to do this work themselves. Agreements had further already been made on the costs and logistics of the return, including clarity about where the belongings would be returned to. There are a total of 3039 Aboriginal and Torres Strait objects in the collection at Manchester, and 43 of these were subject to the request. It is worth adding that although AIATSIS has been incredibly successful acting as an intermediary between communities and museums in supporting the return of objects, some Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities approach relationships with museums, cultural rejuvenation and repatriation in other ways.

This case study highlights the importance of building strong relationships prior to the claim, but also how the processing of the AIATSIS claim was relatively uncomplicated because the senior management at the Manchester Museum trusted the organisation and its research methodology. It is important to consider the power of governmental legitimacy, and how this is difficult to translate in contexts where communities do not have that platform nor its resource to make their case, or where the case for return sits in tension with a national position. It is also worth considering the fact that there are strong claims for the return of objects that were clearly taken under duress and have significant spiritual value in other contexts, that have not been answered. This highlights how although policies often state that claims will be answered on a case by case basis, it is not only the details of the case that determine the outcome, but also the way in which a case is articulated and by whom, and how it is resourced. This brings us back to the importance of trust, and access. Without trust and the conversations it enables, we are scrambling around trying to pull pieces together into a mold that was not built to accommodate them.

--------------------------------------

 

At MEG we feel as a collective that enabling the possibility of restitution to become a normal part of museum work is the way to building a better and more humane future for museums with colonial era collections. Crucially, it will help build the trust that is so vital to enabling good work, to understanding our collections better, being more representative, creative and useful to community members and visitors alike. If you have ideas or suggestions as to how we can support you, please get in touch.

5 October 2020

Ipswich Museum seeks World Art Consultants

Ipswich Museum is seeking consultants to ensure that Ipswich Museum’s important World Cultures Collections are better understood, documented and readily accessible to facilitate use in new displays and decolonisation programme. To contribute towards a smooth, well-documented programme of ‘decanting’ collections in advance of building works.

 

There are 6 packages of work 


Package 1.        Specialist Overview/ report on the World Cultures Collection as a whole

Package 2.        Improving storage and basic documentation – World Cultures collections from Oceania, Indian sub-continent, North America and elsewhere

Package 3.        Improving storage and basic documentation – African Collections

Package 4.        Collections documentation research

Package 5.        Further specific specialist collections advice

Package 6.        Participation in networks with source communities

 

Regarding package 6, participation in networks with source communities, it is the intention of Museum Staff that current contacts and work in the previous 5 packages will inform and connect us with the appropriate activity, in particular the consultant should include recommendations of projects and contacts that would be useful to the work they are outlining.


Please contact James Mellish, Heritage Project Manager, Ipswich Borough Council for more information on the roles and the tendering process. 


James.Mellish@ipswich.gov.uk




18 May 2020

Job Opportunity: Postdoctoral Researcher: The Restitution of Knowledge - artefacts as archives in the (post)colonial museum, 1850- 1939 Pitt Rivers Museum, Oxford





Applications are invited for the position of Postdoctoral Researcher on the project The Restitution of Knowledge: artefacts as archives in the (post)colonial museum, 1850- 1939, based at the Pitt Rivers Museum, University of Oxford, and led by Professor Dan Hicks (Oxford) and Professor Bénédicte Savoy (Technische University, Berlin). The position is funded by Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC) and the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), and is a fixed-term position for 30 months, running from 1 August 2020 to 31 January 2023.

'The Restitution of Knowledge' is a major new transnational UK-German collaboration combining historical and curatorial approaches to understand the status of collections from the continent of Africa in European museums as colonial legacies. The project seeks to intervene in current dialogues about restitution by generating and sharing of knowledge about the ongoing histories of colonial loot. The project combines digital scholarship, provenance studies, and military history to expand public understanding and debate around incidents of colonial plunder, joining the dots between museum collections and these violent histories. The Restitution of Knowledge thus revaluates the status of anthropological museums as places filled not just with objects but also with historical knowledge of conflict, violence and loss. It explores how Europe's “world culture” museums might be reframed as places of cultural memory, at which research can start to support restitution processes, from remembrance and the sharing of knowledge to the physical return of property.

The successful candidate will hold a PhD in anthropology, history, archaeology or another relevant discipline, completed before 1 July 2020. The post will start on 1 August 2020, or as soon as possible thereafter. 

The closing date for applications is 12.00 midday on Thursday 11 June 2020. Interviews are likely to take place week beginning 15 June 2020.

Applications are particularly welcome from black and minority ethnic candidates, who are under-represented in academic posts at the University of Oxford.

17 February 2020

AHRC Collaborative Doctoral Award: Rupununi re-collections: historical photographs, Indigenous knowledge and heritage in Guyana


Applications are invited for a PhD studentship on historical photographs, Indigenous knowledge and heritage in Guyana at Royal Holloway University of London, in partnership with the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG) and Kew Gardens. This award is made by the Science Museums & Archives Consortium under the AHRC’s Collaborative Doctoral Partnership scheme. The project, due to begin in September 2020, will be supervised by Prof Jay Mistry and Prof Felix Driver at Royal Holloway and Dr Catherine Souch at the RGS-IBG, with further support from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew.

This project aims to reconnect historical photographs documenting Indigenous peoples and practices to contemporary initiatives concerning Indigenous knowledge and heritage development. Working in the Rupununi region of Guyana, the project will explore the use of significant photographic archives as a resource to enrich the understanding of Indigenous knowledge and practices, Indigenous heritage, identity and rights in contemporary Guyana. It will link work on Indigenous knowledge and memory with collections-based research, using methods of visual elicitation and digital repatriation in collaboration with the relevant Indigenous communities. The project combines (a) archival research in UK collections with (b) field-based photo-elicitation in the Rupununi. A participatory action research framework will allow research questions to be refined and addressed with participants in an iterative way to produce tangible benefits. The student will be encouraged to use participatory video as a way of creating new interpretative narratives. The possibility of a small-scale exhibition will also be considered in order to engage with wider audiences in Guyana.

A full project description is available here

Further information on eligibility, funds and how to apply is available here 

The application deadline is 31 March 2020

Interviews will be held at the RGS-IBG, provisionally on 16 April 2020.


Further Information

Details of the project and how to apply:

PhD research in Geography at Royal Holloway:

RGS-IBG collaborative doctoral research:

AHRC Collaborative Doctoral Partnerships:
https://www.ahrc-cdp.org/

31 January 2020

Request for help: Clement Lindley Wragge


Staffordshire County Council (Archives and Heritage) are looking into the whereabouts of any items from what was Stafford’s first museum – the Wragge museum, given to the town of Stafford by Clement Lindley Wragge (1852-1922) in 1878.  Wragge was a traveller, meteorologist and collector and was quite a character.  The collection consisted of natural history and ethnography, including items chiefly from Australia, but also southern Africa, India, Sri Lanka, Egypt, Fiji, Tahiti and New Zealand, collected during his travels.   The story of the collection since the opening of the Museum has been mixed, and nothing remained in the Stafford Museum collection when it was first fully catalogued in the early 1960s.

What remained from the ethnographic collections was given to Mr J.T. Hooper of the Totems Museum in Arundel, Sussex in 1957.  This closed in 1963 and James Hooper disposed of his collections, or returned them to Tahiti and Fiji, between 1976 and 1983.

If you know of items which have been identified as part of Wragge’s collections please can you contact Chris Copp, Senior Museums Officer at Staffordshire County Council.

chris.copp@staffordshire.gov.uk>