Well stated Lisa!  A good example of a facility that has tackled this issue
is the American Frontier Culture Museum in Staunton, Virginia . . . if
possible, go have a look at how they are dealing with the "real vs
reproduction" issue.

Lee Langston-Harrison
Dir. of Curatorial Ops
Montpelier, Home of James & Dolley Madison
Montpelier Station, VA

----------
From: Lisa Craig Brisson (Lisa Brisson) <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Museum Purpose (was Introduction and Inquiry)
Date: Thursday, January 21, 1999 8:57 AM

I think the issue of using originals and reproductions in a living history
setting is more complicated and is one that almost every historic site
deals with.  It begins with the use of historic buildings, which are
themselves usually part of a museum's collection, and leads to a can of
worms with artifacts as well.

This seems especially true for historic sites with living history programs.
 Most living history sites I know struggle to find a balance between
showing "the real things" and showing a way of life or a process.
Collecting and preserving PROCESS is a big part of some museum's collecting
mission.  In order to demonstrate (preserve) processes, you have to USE
stuff.  When you use something, it tends to deteriorate.  Unlike some other
types of museums, where all artifacts are in carefully protected and
regulated environments, artifacts (or reproductions) at living history
sites are out in the open and at risk for all kinds of dangers.

It would be pretty irresponsible of me (and MANY people would not be
amused) if I let the interpretive staff at the Biddle House conduct cooking
demonstrations with an original wooden bowl that belonged to Agatha Biddle.
 They are great interpreters, and great cooks, but they tend to be a little
hard on things.  To have them use the bowl just because it's the "real
thing" would completely contradict the part of our mission that charges us
to "preserve."  Instead, we buy reproduction items for the staff to cook
with.  They can be used for their original purpose, and are easily replaced
if destroyed.

One way that we and many other sites give visitors the opportunity to see
"the real thing," while still allowing for good living history programs, is
to have original artifacts exhibited in separate spaces.  Often these
exhibits are in visitor centers or other buildings on site.  It allows us
to both protect the things we are charged with preserving and give visitors
access to original artifacts.  That's where I think the Biddle bowl
belongs.

For more information about how living history sites think about artifacts,
take a look at the article "The Challenges of Collections Care in Living
History Museums" written by Bob Cottrell in the Summer 1995 issue of
History News.

I've worked at several living history sites and heard the question "Is that
real?" thousands of times.  I've found that while many visitors expect to
see original artifacts, many other visitors mainly want to see "how it
was."  When I explain that we are using reproduction to show a process that
would destroy an original artifact, most visitors understand and are happy
to know how we operate.  This is just my opinion (it would be a neat study
though) but I think it is shared by many others working at living history
sites.

One thing that Museum-L helps me to understand is how truly diverse the
museum community is.  We share many of the same struggles, but all have our
own challenges and rewards as well.

Lisa Craig Brisson
Museum Educator
Mackinac State Historic Parks
[log in to unmask]
----------