Matthew Kocsis's question about how non-professional, non-historical institutions display and interpret material culture and history stirs a can of worms that most have chosen to ignore. The difficulty is that to criticise our amateur colleagues, specially in full knowledge of the often-awful conditions they put up with, seems so uncharitable that one just doesn't can't do it. Moreover, they do the best they can with precious little 'professional' help - which ought to make us chary of casting stones. The fact is that lots of heritage material survives (not highly conserved, but it survives) in the care of amateur groups, and we ought to be grateful to them for soldiering on. 1)What CAN museum professionals do to help? They can take serious policy decisions to devote funds and staff resources to small museum assistance. This might include having amateurs as interns for whatever period they can manage, AND to sending staff out occasionally. This can have wonderful effects on the confidence and self esteem of amateurs, and it's quite a healthy experience for professionals in well-funded museums too. But it does require a committment which I haven't seen among many 'professional' museums. 2) Can private individuals and institutions consistently be appropriate stewards for material culture and its interpretation? Yes of course! The fineness of this question ("consistly be appropriate") is such that it could well be turned on some 'professional' museums too. We must also grapple with the negotiation of what is realistic, what is possible. The care of material culture is such an enormous task that even the biggest, best museums cannot achieve it on their own. We must share the job with amateurs. That means sharing responsibility for training, funding, advocating etc. At the same time, I have to say I believe some local (Australian) attempts to train volunteers in conservation etc aim too high. If we want professional standards (whatever they are - it usually requires money), we need to introduce professionals onto the job. We need to accept that amateurs will not do as satisfactory a job, but to acknowledge that it is much better than nothing, and that many of them do it pretty bloody well anyway. 3) What are the effects of such collections and displays on museums and their collections and relations with the public? This is an interesting question, because it contains just the hint that amateur museums may be turnoffs to the public. Alas, it's true that the musty-dusty image of museum is often perpetuated in amateur museums. But it's also true that lots of people actually like it! I'm sure many of us 'professionals' sometimes regret the spare, thematic presentations that are de rigeur these days. This whole issue needs not just discussion, but action. I know many 'professional' museum people volunteer on the side, but we ought to be campaigning for better state, federal and other support for amateur museums if we really believe the rhetoric of community museums and the value of material culture. Linda Young Cultural Heritage Management University of Canberra [log in to unmask]