The Society and The Museum: Essex Archaeological News, Summer 1973

Essex Archaeological News Summer 1973

(later called the Essex Society for Archaeology and History)

Extracts from Newsletter No 43

THE SOCIETY AND THE MUSEUM.

David T-D.Clarke.

One of the original objectives of the Essex Archaeological Society was the creation of a museum 'for the preservation of the objects of antiquity it may acquire by its own exertions, and the donations of its supporters'.

There had been attempts to establish a museum in Colchester before; Charles Gray, who owned and restored Colchester Castle had a collection of coins, some of which still survive, and in 1820 the Colchester Philosophical Society had a museum in Queen Street, which was destroyed by fire in 1835. The real founder of the museum idea, however, was William Wire, the assiduous, but impecunious watchmaker, who began a museum in 1840 on somewhat commercial lines ('Coins etc. Bought, Sold or Exchanged'). Alas, his heavy debts and ill health defeated the full realisation of this project, but quite a number of the objects which he found and carefully recorded in his diary and albums (which still survive) were bought by Lord Acton and subsequently came back to Colchester or were laid to rest in the British Museum.

Meanwhile Colchester had been the first Borough to adopt the Libraries and Museums Acts of 1845, which allowed the expenditure of up to a penny rate on Museums. There was however little action until 1852 when the town received a bequest of the bronzes, including the head of Caligula, of Alderman Henry Vint. The terms of his will demanded action, and the then Treasurer of the Society, Charles Gray Round, offered the crypt of the Castle, of which he was the owner, as suitable premises. Mr Round's portrait hangs in the Castle, and he is shown holding the Title Deed by which this chilly, but secure, home was made available.

The Museum was to be jointly administered by the Town and the Society, with a Committee consisting of three members of each body, and this arrangement still continues, although the number of the representatives has been modified. (The Society now has four seats, but has made one available for a County Councillor in respect of School Service which it finances.)

So it was that the Museum in the Castle was born on September 27th, 1860. A Curator was to be appointed at a salary of £25 a year, with a free cottage inside the Castle ruins, and a working budget of £5.

The full story of these events and the subsequent growth of the collections, is told in E. J. Rudsdale’s 'History of the Museum', as issued, after his untimely death, for the Centenary in 1960, and need not therefore be detailed here.

In the intervening century the pattern of collection has expanded to cover material objects from all periods and to include extensive series of sherds as well as whole pots. Greater emphasis is placed on stratigraphy and association and hence more sophisticated documentation is required. Since information retrieval is a vital part of museum work, and since the collections, as well as the written information, are now very extensive, this still calls for much diligent attention, and the use of mechanical aids will undoubtedly be necessary in the very near future.

Of late years too the 'antique collection' vogue has had a serious effect on the flow of gifts, and it is now almost impossible to obtain objects of any date without paying for them. Purchase funds, already limited, may therefore soon prove inadequate.

Much greater emphasis is now placed on conservation. New chemical techniques have made it possible for objects of perishable substances such as wood and textiles to be stabilised and to arrest the corrosion of bronze and iron. In this latter category specimens which have been in the museum for some time still need extensive treatment.

As an example, out of our 400 Iron Age coins, some 300 need treatment. We have not as yet had time even to inspect all our 10,000 Roman coins, but undoubtedly many will need attention, if they are not, as alas some of the finds from the Camulodunum excavations have done, to deteriorate beyond all reasonable hope of recovery. Newly excavated finds are therefore being treated as they come in, and this absorbs almost all the available time.

The visitor pattern, too, has altered. More universities mean more detailed requests from scholars, from whose researches our knowledge of history is advanced. There is also a greater demand for information from general visitors, who expect higher standards of display and general amenities.

Schools are now making increasing use of museums for teaching and finding new and creative outlets for study in the galleries. Over 20,000 children came to Colchester Museum last year, and received, as far as possible, individual attention.

All these jobs are obviously well worthwhile, but they take time. Time is labour, and labour needs to be paid for. Our local revenue comes from local taxation, and is inevitably limited by the other demands for local services.

It should not be thought that the above applies to Colchester alone. In the intervening century other museums have been created, or have developed from similar beginnings. Some have salaried staff, some have not, but all are crippled by the lack of resources, which alone can demand the professional approach necessary in a technical age. These museums, and possibly new ones in historic or population centres also have their part to play.

Where do we go from here?

The time appears to be ripe for a long cool look at the Museums of Essex as a whole, and to consider how a museum service, in the fullest sense of the word, can best be developed. The interests to some extent might be thought to conflict; - collections in a limited number of centres offer the best possibilities for conservation, research, and for the presentation of a comprehensive story, but casual visitors are best encouraged by being able to visit museums within a reasonable distance of their homes. Local contact, too, tends to bring in local finds which might otherwise be lost.

The reconciliation of these factors may not, however, be as difficult as it might at first appear. The key requirement is the recognition by the governing bodies that museums are links in a national chain, rather than departments of purely local administration. From this it follows that museums have a responsibility to each other and to the subjects they cover.

Given this premise, the related needs in terms of records, collecting policy, conservation and staffing could be worked out on a co-operative basis, which seems preferable, at this stage anyhow, to a tidily co-ordinated structure which could follow later if it were generally felt necessary.

The ramifications are very great; archaeological excavation, nature conservancy, the preservation of historic sites and monuments, county publications, conservation, computerised documentation, tourism, all these and others are related to museums, but are developing under their own varied organisations. There are also specialised bodies for the study of costume, industrial archaeology, mammals, butterflies, even bricks. Education for children, and adults, offers countless opportunities. All these need the help of museums and are needed by museums.

This then is the moment for intelligent action - are the needs to be co-operatively anticipated or lost through lack of sensible planning? It is up to all those who care about museums to ensure that the opportunity is not thrown away.