SARAHBYRNE, WITH EVELYN TETEIIU The author describes museum collections as "fragmented, partial. representations of people and things." They definitely are. The household artifact collections that I havebeen examining in the courseof a Santa 9 Isabel Cultural Heritage Programme at first also appear to be fragmented and partial. The difference here is that these items have stories attached to them. In some cases,these are myths, though mostly they are historical Artifacts in WHting accounts of their origin and relationship to the holder. These artifacts are connected through their stories. Altaed Agent) ofMuseum Objects Being focused on the physical appearance of an artifact, most collec. horsfailed to recognize the importance of an artifact's social "place," so this information did not accompanythe artieacts on their wayto museums However, I believe that much can still be done to give these museum collec- Chantal I(nowles tions life. Information we are collecting in Santa Isabel, through empower- ing and training village cultural investigatorsto seekout and photograph the artifacts held by village householdsand to document their stories. is being fed back to the British Museum to better inform its holdings. I agree with the author's idea that ethnographic collections could be reassembledor reclaimed by paying closer attention to the social practices of which they were once a part. However,to get the best from that step described by the author for "reassemblingthe collection," I feel that the association with community should be through a continuing exchange The museumis a repository for artifacts, where they can be stored, of information, as we are doing through links between our Santa Isabel preserved, cared for, researched, and exhibited; through these systems and Cultural Heritage Programmeand the British Museum (and, of course. processes,they acquire value (Clifford 1988; see also the introduction to our own Solomon Islands National Nluseum) . this volume). When museums actively.acquire objects, enabling them to become part of a collection, the things are inscribed with categories and Acknowledgments classifications and are frequently presented as authentic representations of Warm thanks LOMichael Kwa'ioloa, Kenneth Raga, Salome Samou, Mazula Head, a place, time, people, or culture. The classificatory system imposed by the Annie Mcarthur, Vicky Glass,Walter Nalangu, Ambong Thompson, and Peter Solo museum may be alien to the makers or to previous owners, but it implies IGngap.A special thank you to Evelyn Tetehu for sharing her knowledge and insights scientific value, research potential, and authenticity. The resultant cumula- with me and for writing a response to this chapter. I u-ould like to acknowledge the help tive collection is a product of the museum'shistory and the individuals, in of staKfrom the NlelanesiaProject,Jill Hasell,Liz Bonshek,Lissant Bolton, and Ben particular the curators, who work within its institutional framework. When Burt. And a final thanksto Annie Clarke,Rodney Harrison, all SARpardcipanu, and scholarsexamine the history of research or display at a particular museum, [wo anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on this chapter. the sameartie acts are regularly brought to the fore, and consequently many other artifacts remain in waiting for a change in f ashion or circumstance, Note fbr when a different curatorial gazeis turned on them. 1. For visitor figures, see http://www.culture.gov.uk/what we.do/museums.and. Takingas acase studyA.UC.767, a Maori waft, orcanoe(figure 9.1), in the galleries/3375.aspx and http://w]vw.guardiai] .co.uk/culture/201 1/dec/01/national National Museums Scotland (NMS), I will examine the encounter between museums-double-numbers-free-entry. the artifact, artist, conservators,and curator duringits restoration for exhibi- tion in the newPacific Galleryin 2011.This large sculpturalpiece had resided in the Storesfor at least a generation, and as curator of the Pacific collections and lead curator for the gallery, I was keen to see it go on permanent display. za8 229 CHANTAL I(NOWLES ARTIFACTSINIVAITING it were the fact that it had not been on display within living memory and would therefore bc new to the public and that it was a large object, thus con sidered to be a striking visual "hook" fol- the gallery. The canoe, described in the museumdatabase as a war canoe,was incorporated into the gallery's brief and themesas such.The catalog also recordedthat, at only twenty F)GURU 9.i feet in length, it was considerably shorter than other known examples of Maori war canoes,which could reach up to a hundred feet in length, and ['he loaka A. UC. 767 as she was e;caminedin September2006. The abseTtceofrl slevTtpost and wasdamaged to the extent that it would require significant conservation heTdegrrided state ave cteart] visible. © Natiorlal Museurrts Scotland. priorto display. Museum Words It soon became clear that it was badly damaged, lacking a key feature of any war canoe--the Zau71zPa(stern post), an intricately carved fretwork piece Analysisof the documentation,classification, and cultural context of that rises high abovethe canoe hull and at the baseof which would be the canoe becamethe startingpoint for the pr(cect that eventually unfolded. seatedthe chief when the vesselwas at sea. In the conservation workshops The original, undated, handwritten register entry read: "A.UC.767.War a series of questions about the genesisof the canoe and its early history Canoe,Maori. Prow highly carved: upper portion of sidescarved with gro- were raised, and it became apparent that the canoe was not what it was tesque hgures in M mich the eyes are inlaid with mother-oF-pearl and lashed thought to be. The archival record suggestedthat its inherent complexities to the boat by strong cord. Wood. L. 20'6." W. 2' (Damaged)." The entry had led to its being overlookedby visiting researchersand the museum provided an early date for the object by labeling it "A.UC.,"indicating that curators, and T therefore looked to members of the Maori community to it was part of the Edinburgh University Collection, which was the found- better understand the object and find a solution that would enable its dis- ing collection for the national museum in 1854.'The damage suggesteda play and interpretation for a wider public. need fbr conservationor repairs, which, given its age and purpose for use This object is a conundrum; it survived nearly two hundred yearsof in warfare, was not unusual. There were three supplementary notes, each being ignored. The canoe was not reminiscent of other waka, being an ill- attributed to visiting researchersfrom New Zealand.The earliest reads: fitting assemblage of component parts, and hence did not fit the received "According to Mr Duff, of Canterbury'Museum, Christchurch, N.Z., Jan. museum categories. It has required active participatory engagement with 1948,this is probablya small river canoe convertedinto a canoe model the object to get beyond that. This project confronted the canoe as a mar- by the addition of top strakesof a full size canoe."zThis suggestedthat ginalized object (Douglas2010l1966J; the introduction to this volume), the original museumcategory of "war canoe" might be flawed and mis- which was therefore unstable in its anomalous state. Rather than abandon leading. The second note provided a regional provenance and also queried the object in favor of something more complete and simpler to display, by the origina] entry: "Mi]]ed]?] planks, prow of Sterntoo small, hull may be bringing it back into place within Maori culture and museumpractice, I a real one-man canoe which has been remodelled by flattening the keel. sought to challenge people to engage with it, which became a key strategy Gisborne area:D. Simmons,.June ]978."' The most recent reads: "2 July of the project. The new gallery presenteda unique opportunity to con- 1998: War canoe. c. 1830s/1840s:Roger Neich, Auckland Museum, N.Z."' front this artifact's ambiguity, addressits historical importance, and make Each scholar had visited the collection before commenting on the canoe, it accessible to a wider audience. and it is believedthat they sawthe canoe hrsthand. None of these scholars singledout the objectas an item of note, nor mentionedit in their diaries KNOWLEDGE AND CLASSIFICATION: WORDS AROUNI) or notes pertaining to their trip.' Although several Maori visitors had come THINGS to the museum between 1997 and 2002 and could have seen the canoe in Early in the development of the new Pacific Gallery, the Maori canoe the museumstores, no responseto the canoe wasattributed to them.' The regional card index was checked for further information, and was identified as a key artieact. Principal drivers in choosing to include information about the artieact wasfound to be filed under the region "New a3o CHANTAL KNOWLES ARTIFACTSIN\WAITING Zealand" and object type "canoes,paddles," with the card for the canoe 20 feet is quite small for a war canoe. The side strakes [znuawa] additionally recording in pencil "abovecase" and "58--61,"notes that most and prow arecarved in the very specificform for a war canoe-- likely located the canoe abovethe numbered wall caseswithin the ethnog- you would not see these compositions on a fishing canoe.... I raphy gallery at some point before 1940.V would sayit is definitely a war canoe, probably from the Bay of As stated above, the canoe had originally come from the Edinburgh Plenty,and looks to date from about the 1830sto 1840speriod UniversityMuseum as part of the founding collection of the National The stern post would have been quite tall and completely com- Museums Scotland, and on consulting the daily record books, I found posedof open-work carving, with a small figure at the basefac an entry dated 29 November 1827:"Yesterday arrived from Kelso a large New Zealand Canoe," followed three weekslater on 22 December with the ing into the canoe.It would probablybe the largestwar canoe in an overseasmuseum.