Rutland County Museum Large object / agricultural collections assessment Robin Hill October 2018 1 Contents Author’s note .......................................................................................................................................... 2 1 Background to the assessment .................................................................................................. 3 2 Scope .......................................................................................................................................... 3 3 Assessment Criteria .................................................................................................................... 4 4 Results of the Significance Scoring exercise ............................................................................... 5 5 Possibilities for exhibition changes ............................................................................................ 7 6 Rutland’s collection and displays in context .............................................................................. 8 7 Significance scoring framework for RCM agricultural / craft collections ................................. 11 8 Main Hall Display ...................................................................................................................... 12 9 Courtyard Display ..................................................................................................................... 16 10 Poultry Hall Display .................................................................................................................. 18 Author’s note Since the Second World War the pace of change in our countryside has quickened dramatically. Farming operations, once conducted at the speed of the plodding farm horse, have become increasingly mechanised and sophisticated. And with this progress has come a reduction in the number of people working on farms, leaving many of us without a direct link to the land and an appreciation of what went before the modern tractor age. This is where museum collections, such at those of the Rutland County Museum, can maintain our connection with our rural past. Through their objects, stories and images they are able to portray a little of what life was like, and in doing so they are able to bring back memories for some, educate others, and enlighten the majority. At the very heart of a museum are its collections. In Rutland the core of the farming collection was assembled many years ago by a Mr E. G. Bolton, a teacher at Casterton School, who in 1967 passed his rural life collection to Rutland County Council. Nearly fifty years later the museum continues to preserve the past for the benefit of future audiences. As part of this it regularly reviews its policies and practices; what follows is a review that aims to place its large object and agricultural collections within a wider context. RH 2 Rutland County Museum Large object/agricultural collections assessment Robin Hill 1 Background to the assessment Early in 2018 a communication from Lawrence Fenelon, Chairman of the Friends of Rutland County Museum led to a March meeting with members of the museum team. The focus of the meeting was the museum’s large-object collection of agricultural and craft material, and ways in which its significance could be assessed within the wider heritage environment. Following discussions it was agreed that a quantitative assessment framework should be drawn up to appraise the collection prior to any decisions being made on its long-term future. This assessment would be accompanied by a commentary on collection strengths and challenges, as well as ideas on future development of the exhibitions and interpretation. 2 Scope The exercise was primarily designed to assess larger objects currently on display in the three large public areas of the museum. Whilst mostly agricultural in theme, these also include items such as the box mangle and the turret clock in the Main Hall as well as the printing machinery and gallows in the Poultry Hall. Several items currently in store at the rear of the Poultry Hall, such as the straw matting machine, have also been included in the data collection exercise. Although the majority of small items have been excluded, the assessment was extended to include four assemblages of smaller objects – the kitchen in the Main Hall, and the blacksmith’s material, dairy objects and law and order collection in the Poultry Hall. For each of these a score was given to the collection, rather than to the individual pieces. The starting-point for the analysis was the Modes records supplied by the museum team. These were extremely helpful in locating the various objects. There were a number that proved elusive on the data-collecting visit and will need assessment later if that is thought to be advantageous. 3 3 Assessment Criteria a. Uniqueness This rates an object on its rarity – from those of international importance, where very few examples remain, to it being commonplace within other museum and private collections with a similar theme. As this is a key element in placing the museum’s collections in a wider context then this criterion has a weighing by which its score is doubled. b. Surface condition This refers to the visible finish of an object. Highest scores are achieved by those objects that retain the majority of their original surface coating. In the majority of metal items in this study the coating is usually a paint layer and for timber objects a surface patina. Scores here reward careful conservation above more comprehensive restoration. Where wear, oxidisation or timber decay has occurred then the item will record a proportionally lower score. Those objects that have had a full cosmetic restoration, and where nothing of the original finish survives, receive the lowest ranking. c. Completeness/Originality Here greater scores have been given to those objects that remain in an original, unaltered state and retain all of their associated parts. Those where only one or two small components are missing received the next highest rating, as they are still able to reflect the form and function of the item. The lowest ranking is reserved for items that have lost so many parts, or have been much-modified, that their original appearance is less apparent. d. Provenance The associated information that accompanies an object is assessed here. Where there is a full record of past ownership, location and use an item scores more highly. Those where only basic details of its history survive are receive a middle ranking, while anything lacking a provenance or likely to have been collected from outside the defined area specified in the Museum’s Collection Management Policy has the lowest score. e. Production This relates to the maker and manufacturing location of the object. Those that are made in small numbers by local craftsmen have most relevance and highest scores, followed by objects made within the region. Those mass-produced within factories elsewhere in the country complete the picture, but with a lower rating. 4 f. Interpretative Value Some items within the collection can easily draw a response from visitors, and key pieces evoke emotions and excitement with little or no interpretative input from the Museum team. These are highly rated for their interpretative value. Other objects lend themselves to being handled or used, bringing back memories and adding interest. Occasionally there are items in the collection that will be unable to contribute to a storyline or relay a message, and those are given a lower ranking as a result. The full Significance Scoring Framework is attached as Section 7. 4 Results of the Significance Scoring exercise A total of 100 objects were assessed using this procedure. Every object was given a score on each of the six criteria, using a combination of observational skills, Modes documentation records, and external sources. These included standard textbooks on the various specialisms, reports commissioned by the Rural Museum Network and the opinions of specialists in the different fields. Although not an exact science it serves as a good indication of the relative merit/importance of the objects under scrutiny. The collated scores are given in Sections 8, 9 and 10. They are divided by location; Section 8 refers to objects in the Main Hall, Section 9 to the Courtyard and Section 10 to the Poultry Hall. The maximum possible score for an object, given that the ‘uniqueness’ score is doubled, is 36. Totals scored by the assessed objects range from a high of 32 (the wooden-axled wagon from Mr Lawrence of Preston) to a low of 12 (the dry measure). The average across the 100 objects surveyed was 18.5. A total of 23 objects scored 25 points or more, and several of these deserve further discussion. Of these no fewer than 8 were wooden-bodied, horse-drawn vehicles. They form the most significant element in the agricultural/large object collection. Several are considered either of national or regional importance, but it is really the assemblage that merits recognition. They are referred to in standard works (‘The English Farm Wagon’) and cited by experts in the field as noteworthy (‘one of the key collections of local traditional types to be found in a museum in the country’ – D. Viner). Their condition, for the most part, is sound; as with the 5 majority of the agricultural collection, conservation rather than restoration has been practiced for many decades, resulting in a mellow appearance. With careful intervention to a number of