Soviet Museum Ethnography at the VII International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnographic Sciences: Restoration and Conservation of Disciplinary Heritage under the “Gaze” of the West
[Sovetskaia muzeinaia etnografiia na VII Mezhdunarodnom kongresse antropologicheskikh i etnograficheskikh nauk: restavratsiia i konservatsiia distsiplinarnogo naslediia pod “vzgliadom” Zapada]
DOI: https://doi.org/10.31857/S0869541524020048
EDN: CLFMXC
Type of publication: Research Article
Submitted: 09.01.2024
Accepted: 18.01.2024
About author(s)
Stanislav Petriashin | http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4410-7224 | s-petryashin@yandex.ru | Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology, Russian Academy of Sciences (32a Leninsky prospect, Moscow, 119991, Russia) | Russian Museum of Ethnography (4/1 Inzhenernaia Str., Sankt-Peterburg, 191186, Russia)
Keywords
history of anthropology, anthropological congress, museum ethnography, restoration, conservation, State Museum of Ethnography
Abstract
Soviet museum ethnography at the VII International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnographic Sciences in Moscow (1964) is considered in the article as a discussion space within which ethnographers and museum workers presented and debated different views on the past and present of their discipline. Archival materials are explored through the concepts of restoration and conservation – rhetorical strategies that involve different forms of interpretation of disciplinary heritage and projects for action. Projects for the “revival” of the Museum of the Peoples of the USSR in Moscow and “Materials on Ethnography’s” edition in Leningrad mostly referred to the ethnography of the 1920s, which was suppressed and criticized during the transition to Marxist methodology in the 1930s. The restoration strategy led to the recognition of the unspoken lag behind Western anthropology and museum affairs. The reconstruction of fragments of the past was proposed as a solution to the problem. The conservation strategy, on the contrary, saw Soviet museum ethnography as ahead of foreign ones. The legacy of the “marxization” of the 1930s, according to this rhetoric, was the key to victories in the past and present, and its criticism and rejection deprived Soviet ethnography of its advantages. Museum practices of research and representation of the culture and life of collective farmers and workers, and the active use of mannequins and life-size dioramas to show social relations were recognized as such a positive legacy.
Funding Information
Russian Science Foundation, https://doi.org/10.13039/501100006769 [grant no. 22-18-00241]
Citation
Petriashin, S.S. 2024. Sovetskaia muzeinaia etnografiia na VII Mezhdunarodnom kongresse antropologicheskikh i etnograficheskikh nauk: restavratsiia i konservatsiia distsiplinarnogo naslediia pod “vzgliadom” Zapada [Soviet Museum Ethnography at the VII International Congress of Anthropological and Ethnographic Sciences: Restoration and Conservation of Disciplinary Heritage under the “Gaze” of the West]. Etnograficheskoe obozrenie 2: 68–88. https://doi. org/10.31857/S0869541524020048 EDN: CLFMXC
Full text is distributed by eLIBRARY.ru