Soome-ugri rahvaste pärand Eesti Rahva Muuseumi kogudes / Finno-Ugric heritage in the Estonian National Museum

Piret Koosa, Svetlana Karm
{"title":"Soome-ugri rahvaste pärand Eesti Rahva Muuseumi kogudes / Finno-Ugric heritage in the Estonian National Museum","authors":"Piret Koosa, Svetlana Karm","doi":"10.12697/sv.2022.14.44-71","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The focus of this article is the historical context of the Finno-Ugric collection in the Estonian National Museum (ENM) and how it is positioned in relation to source communities. \nSome of the central issues in the museological discussions inspired by postcolonialist perspectives have been the controversy of non-local heritage in museums and the relationship between museums and source communities. These discussions have not only been limited to the collections with explicitly colonial contexts but have also provoked questions of the power dynamic between institutions/collectors and source communities more widely. This has inspired us to look critically at the history of collecting Finno-Ugric objects and to ask about the collection’s meaning to contemporary Finno-Ugrians. \nThe ENM’s Finno-Ugric collection is the largest non-Estonian museum collection in Estonia. As Estonians belong to the Finno-Ugric language family, the collecting tradition of non-Estonian Finno-Ugric objects has been motivated by the notion of Finno-Ugric kinship and framed within nationalist ideology. To a certain extent, Estonian ethnic consciousness has included other Finno-Ugric peoples as ‘our own’, the idea of being culturally related allowed Estonians to conceptually amplify their nation. The Finno-Ugric cultural heritage has thus been conceptualised as a common legacy of all kindred peoples. Although such a view puts an emphasis on the idea of belonging together, at the same time, a certain othering discourse is also discernible in the gaze of Estonian scholars/collectors. Some aspects of cultural heritage of other Finno-Ugrians’ that do not correspond to the historical experience of Estonians have typically been interpreted as only recent, inauthentic and inherently alien to the ancient Finno-Ugric core. ‘Authenticity’, characterised by the age and cultural ‘purity’ of a tradition or an object has been in the focus of Estonian ethnographers, while contemporary developments and signs of modernity have been prone to be interpreted as signalling cultural decline. However, as we know from the fieldwork diaries, local Finno-Ugrians have sometimes resented the ethnographers’ attention to the “old and unseemly”, interpreting this as showing them being backward. Nevertheless, although the ethnographers’ appetite for the outdated objects perplexed the locals at times, the collecting activities were generally viewed benevolently and also very pragmatically – selling old stuff that people no longer needed was seen as a good opportunity to earn some extra money. \nThe main part of the Finno-Ugric collection was formed during the Soviet period when Estonia was in common geopolitical space with most of the other Finno-Ugric peoples. The central museums in Eastern Finno-Ugric regions also engaged in ethnographic collecting but limited their efforts to the cultural heritage of local people(s). The ENM differed in its holistic approach to the Finno-Ugric peoples, aiming to obtain a collection that would represent the material culture of all kindred peoples. While the collecting efforts of the ENM could also be viewed being in a certain competition with the local museums, collaboration with regional museums and research institutions has been in the foreground. \nSo far, the main users of the Finno-Ugric collections have been Estonians. In recent years, there has been a slight increase of interest from the FinnoUgric museums and researchers in Russia. Unfortunately, as the documentation in the archives is in Estonian, it has restrained their ability to delve into the materials. \nOur preliminary study among people of Eastern Finno-Ugric descent living in Estonia, which focused on their attitude towards ENM’s collecting tradition and Finno-Ugric collection, revealed modest interest in the latter. While this seems to suggest that the objects of material heritage kept at the museum have no particular personal or emotional meaning for the respondents, they did attribute the Finno-Ugric collection and permanent exhibition with certain symbolic value and importance. With a reference to the fragility of cultures of small peoples and ethnic groups, the Echo of the Urals exhibition is conceptualised as a possibility to introduce these peoples to a global audience. And even though one might not have an active interest in the collection or a need to personally relate to it just now, the knowledge that the heritage of their ancestors is being preserved and cared for in the museum, and that it is accessible in case there will be such need and interest in the future, was considered somehow reassuring. In addition to this, more practical expectations of the museum were expressed. For example, it was proposed that the museum might be the venue for a regular meeting place for the Finno-Ugric communities. Stronger emphasis on ethnic origin came to the fore in the case of families with children – living in Estonia. The potential of the museum as an aiding context for passing on the knowledge about traditional culture to the younger generation was noted. \nThe museum is thus assigned the role of entrusted steward and the idea of  Finno-Ugric kinship has played a certain role in shaping the communities’ positive attitude towards ENM. Keeping in mind the principles of cultural sensitivity and reciprocity as key concepts in contemporary museological practices, it is crucial that the museum acknowledges its responsibility and ethical duty to offer possibilities for the source communities to participate in decisions concerning the representations of their cultural heritage. The main challenges for the museum are finding ways to share the knowledge about the collections and making these accessible for the communities, but also creating channels to put forward their own ideas and desires in representing this heritage. \nKeywords: cultural heritage, museum collections, Finno-Ugric, ethnic identity, Estonian National Museum","PeriodicalId":245575,"journal":{"name":"Studia Vernacula","volume":"76 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studia Vernacula","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12697/sv.2022.14.44-71","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The focus of this article is the historical context of the Finno-Ugric collection in the Estonian National Museum (ENM) and how it is positioned in relation to source communities. Some of the central issues in the museological discussions inspired by postcolonialist perspectives have been the controversy of non-local heritage in museums and the relationship between museums and source communities. These discussions have not only been limited to the collections with explicitly colonial contexts but have also provoked questions of the power dynamic between institutions/collectors and source communities more widely. This has inspired us to look critically at the history of collecting Finno-Ugric objects and to ask about the collection’s meaning to contemporary Finno-Ugrians. The ENM’s Finno-Ugric collection is the largest non-Estonian museum collection in Estonia. As Estonians belong to the Finno-Ugric language family, the collecting tradition of non-Estonian Finno-Ugric objects has been motivated by the notion of Finno-Ugric kinship and framed within nationalist ideology. To a certain extent, Estonian ethnic consciousness has included other Finno-Ugric peoples as ‘our own’, the idea of being culturally related allowed Estonians to conceptually amplify their nation. The Finno-Ugric cultural heritage has thus been conceptualised as a common legacy of all kindred peoples. Although such a view puts an emphasis on the idea of belonging together, at the same time, a certain othering discourse is also discernible in the gaze of Estonian scholars/collectors. Some aspects of cultural heritage of other Finno-Ugrians’ that do not correspond to the historical experience of Estonians have typically been interpreted as only recent, inauthentic and inherently alien to the ancient Finno-Ugric core. ‘Authenticity’, characterised by the age and cultural ‘purity’ of a tradition or an object has been in the focus of Estonian ethnographers, while contemporary developments and signs of modernity have been prone to be interpreted as signalling cultural decline. However, as we know from the fieldwork diaries, local Finno-Ugrians have sometimes resented the ethnographers’ attention to the “old and unseemly”, interpreting this as showing them being backward. Nevertheless, although the ethnographers’ appetite for the outdated objects perplexed the locals at times, the collecting activities were generally viewed benevolently and also very pragmatically – selling old stuff that people no longer needed was seen as a good opportunity to earn some extra money. The main part of the Finno-Ugric collection was formed during the Soviet period when Estonia was in common geopolitical space with most of the other Finno-Ugric peoples. The central museums in Eastern Finno-Ugric regions also engaged in ethnographic collecting but limited their efforts to the cultural heritage of local people(s). The ENM differed in its holistic approach to the Finno-Ugric peoples, aiming to obtain a collection that would represent the material culture of all kindred peoples. While the collecting efforts of the ENM could also be viewed being in a certain competition with the local museums, collaboration with regional museums and research institutions has been in the foreground. So far, the main users of the Finno-Ugric collections have been Estonians. In recent years, there has been a slight increase of interest from the FinnoUgric museums and researchers in Russia. Unfortunately, as the documentation in the archives is in Estonian, it has restrained their ability to delve into the materials. Our preliminary study among people of Eastern Finno-Ugric descent living in Estonia, which focused on their attitude towards ENM’s collecting tradition and Finno-Ugric collection, revealed modest interest in the latter. While this seems to suggest that the objects of material heritage kept at the museum have no particular personal or emotional meaning for the respondents, they did attribute the Finno-Ugric collection and permanent exhibition with certain symbolic value and importance. With a reference to the fragility of cultures of small peoples and ethnic groups, the Echo of the Urals exhibition is conceptualised as a possibility to introduce these peoples to a global audience. And even though one might not have an active interest in the collection or a need to personally relate to it just now, the knowledge that the heritage of their ancestors is being preserved and cared for in the museum, and that it is accessible in case there will be such need and interest in the future, was considered somehow reassuring. In addition to this, more practical expectations of the museum were expressed. For example, it was proposed that the museum might be the venue for a regular meeting place for the Finno-Ugric communities. Stronger emphasis on ethnic origin came to the fore in the case of families with children – living in Estonia. The potential of the museum as an aiding context for passing on the knowledge about traditional culture to the younger generation was noted. The museum is thus assigned the role of entrusted steward and the idea of  Finno-Ugric kinship has played a certain role in shaping the communities’ positive attitude towards ENM. Keeping in mind the principles of cultural sensitivity and reciprocity as key concepts in contemporary museological practices, it is crucial that the museum acknowledges its responsibility and ethical duty to offer possibilities for the source communities to participate in decisions concerning the representations of their cultural heritage. The main challenges for the museum are finding ways to share the knowledge about the collections and making these accessible for the communities, but also creating channels to put forward their own ideas and desires in representing this heritage. Keywords: cultural heritage, museum collections, Finno-Ugric, ethnic identity, Estonian National Museum
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
本文的重点是爱沙尼亚国家博物馆(ENM)中芬兰-乌戈尔藏品的历史背景,以及它如何定位于与来源社区的关系。受后殖民主义观点启发的博物馆学讨论中的一些核心问题是博物馆中非本地遗产的争议以及博物馆与源社区之间的关系。这些讨论不仅局限于具有明确殖民背景的藏品,而且还引发了更广泛的机构/收藏家和来源社区之间权力动态的问题。这激发了我们批判性地审视收集芬兰-乌格里亚物品的历史,并询问这些藏品对当代芬兰-乌格里亚人的意义。ENM的Finno-Ugric藏品是爱沙尼亚最大的非爱沙尼亚博物馆藏品。由于爱沙尼亚人属于芬兰-乌戈尔语族,收集非爱沙尼亚的芬兰-乌戈尔语族物品的传统受到芬兰-乌戈尔语族亲属关系概念的推动,并受到民族主义意识形态的框框。在某种程度上,爱沙尼亚的民族意识已将其他芬兰-乌戈尔民族视为“我们自己的”民族,文化上的联系使爱沙尼亚人能够在概念上扩大他们的民族。因此,芬兰-乌戈尔文化遗产被定义为所有同族人民的共同遗产。虽然这种观点强调共同归属的观念,但与此同时,在爱沙尼亚学者/收藏家的目光中也可以看到某种其他话语。其他芬兰-乌格里人的文化遗产的某些方面不符合爱沙尼亚人的历史经验,通常被解释为只是最近的、不真实的、与古老的芬兰-乌格里人的核心格格不入。“真实性”,以传统或物体的年龄和文化“纯洁性”为特征,一直是爱沙尼亚民族志学家关注的焦点,而当代的发展和现代性的迹象往往被解释为文化衰落的信号。然而,正如我们从田野调查日记中了解到的那样,当地的芬兰-乌克兰人有时会对民族志学家对“老而不体面”的关注感到不满,认为这表明他们落后。然而,尽管民族志学家对过时物品的兴趣有时会让当地人感到困惑,但他们的收藏活动通常被视为仁慈,也非常务实——出售人们不再需要的旧物品被视为赚取额外收入的好机会。芬兰-乌戈尔族藏品的主要部分是在苏联时期形成的,当时爱沙尼亚与大多数其他芬兰-乌戈尔族处于共同的地缘政治空间。东芬兰-乌戈尔地区的中央博物馆也从事民族志收集工作,但其工作仅限于当地人民的文化遗产。ENM在其对芬兰-乌戈尔民族的整体方法上有所不同,其目的是获得一个能够代表所有民族的物质文化的集合。虽然国家博物馆的收藏工作也可以看作是与当地博物馆的某种竞争,但与地区博物馆和研究机构的合作已经成为前景。到目前为止,芬兰-乌戈尔系列的主要用户是爱沙尼亚人。近年来,芬兰博物馆和俄罗斯的研究人员对芬兰的兴趣略有增加。不幸的是,由于档案中的文件是爱沙尼亚文的,这限制了他们深入研究这些材料的能力。我们对生活在爱沙尼亚的东芬兰-乌戈尔人后裔进行了初步研究,重点关注他们对ENM的收藏传统和芬兰-乌戈尔人收藏的态度,结果显示他们对后者的兴趣不大。虽然这似乎表明,博物馆保存的物质遗产对受访者来说没有特别的个人或情感意义,但他们确实认为Finno-Ugric收藏和永久展览具有一定的象征价值和重要性。考虑到小民族和少数民族文化的脆弱性,乌拉尔回声展览的概念是向全球观众介绍这些民族的可能性。即使一个人可能对这些藏品没有积极的兴趣,或者现在没有必要亲自与它们联系起来,但知道他们祖先的遗产正在博物馆里得到保护和照顾,而且如果将来有这样的需求和兴趣,这些遗产是可以访问的,这在某种程度上是令人放心的。除此之外,还表达了对博物馆更实际的期望。例如,有人提议将博物馆作为芬兰-乌戈尔社区的定期聚会场所。在有子女居住在爱沙尼亚的家庭中,更加强调族裔出身。 本文的重点是爱沙尼亚国家博物馆(ENM)中芬兰-乌戈尔藏品的历史背景,以及它如何定位于与来源社区的关系。受后殖民主义观点启发的博物馆学讨论中的一些核心问题是博物馆中非本地遗产的争议以及博物馆与源社区之间的关系。这些讨论不仅局限于具有明确殖民背景的藏品,而且还引发了更广泛的机构/收藏家和来源社区之间权力动态的问题。这激发了我们批判性地审视收集芬兰-乌格里亚物品的历史,并询问这些藏品对当代芬兰-乌格里亚人的意义。ENM的Finno-Ugric藏品是爱沙尼亚最大的非爱沙尼亚博物馆藏品。由于爱沙尼亚人属于芬兰-乌戈尔语族,收集非爱沙尼亚的芬兰-乌戈尔语族物品的传统受到芬兰-乌戈尔语族亲属关系概念的推动,并受到民族主义意识形态的框框。在某种程度上,爱沙尼亚的民族意识已将其他芬兰-乌戈尔民族视为“我们自己的”民族,文化上的联系使爱沙尼亚人能够在概念上扩大他们的民族。因此,芬兰-乌戈尔文化遗产被定义为所有同族人民的共同遗产。虽然这种观点强调共同归属的观念,但与此同时,在爱沙尼亚学者/收藏家的目光中也可以看到某种其他话语。其他芬兰-乌格里人的文化遗产的某些方面不符合爱沙尼亚人的历史经验,通常被解释为只是最近的、不真实的、与古老的芬兰-乌格里人的核心格格不入。“真实性”,以传统或物体的年龄和文化“纯洁性”为特征,一直是爱沙尼亚民族志学家关注的焦点,而当代的发展和现代性的迹象往往被解释为文化衰落的信号。然而,正如我们从田野调查日记中了解到的那样,当地的芬兰-乌克兰人有时会对民族志学家对“老而不体面”的关注感到不满,认为这表明他们落后。然而,尽管民族志学家对过时物品的兴趣有时会让当地人感到困惑,但他们的收藏活动通常被视为仁慈,也非常务实——出售人们不再需要的旧物品被视为赚取额外收入的好机会。芬兰-乌戈尔族藏品的主要部分是在苏联时期形成的,当时爱沙尼亚与大多数其他芬兰-乌戈尔族处于共同的地缘政治空间。东芬兰-乌戈尔地区的中央博物馆也从事民族志收集工作,但其工作仅限于当地人民的文化遗产。ENM在其对芬兰-乌戈尔民族的整体方法上有所不同,其目的是获得一个能够代表所有民族的物质文化的集合。虽然国家博物馆的收藏工作也可以看作是与当地博物馆的某种竞争,但与地区博物馆和研究机构的合作已经成为前景。到目前为止,芬兰-乌戈尔系列的主要用户是爱沙尼亚人。近年来,芬兰博物馆和俄罗斯的研究人员对芬兰的兴趣略有增加。不幸的是,由于档案中的文件是爱沙尼亚文的,这限制了他们深入研究这些材料的能力。我们对生活在爱沙尼亚的东芬兰-乌戈尔人后裔进行了初步研究,重点关注他们对ENM的收藏传统和芬兰-乌戈尔人收藏的态度,结果显示他们对后者的兴趣不大。虽然这似乎表明,博物馆保存的物质遗产对受访者来说没有特别的个人或情感意义,但他们确实认为Finno-Ugric收藏和永久展览具有一定的象征价值和重要性。考虑到小民族和少数民族文化的脆弱性,乌拉尔回声展览的概念是向全球观众介绍这些民族的可能性。即使一个人可能对这些藏品没有积极的兴趣,或者现在没有必要亲自与它们联系起来,但知道他们祖先的遗产正在博物馆里得到保护和照顾,而且如果将来有这样的需求和兴趣,这些遗产是可以访问的,这在某种程度上是令人放心的。除此之外,还表达了对博物馆更实际的期望。例如,有人提议将博物馆作为芬兰-乌戈尔社区的定期聚会场所。在有子女居住在爱沙尼亚的家庭中,更加强调族裔出身。 有人指出,该博物馆作为向年轻一代传授传统文化知识的辅助环境的潜力。因此,博物馆被赋予了受托管家的角色,芬兰-乌戈尔族亲属关系的概念在塑造社区对新民族主义的积极态度方面发挥了一定的作用。将文化敏感性和互惠原则作为当代博物馆学实践的关键概念牢记在心,至关重要的是,博物馆承认其责任和道德义务,为源社区提供参与有关其文化遗产代表的决策的可能性。博物馆面临的主要挑战是找到分享藏品知识的方法,让社区能够访问这些知识,同时也创造渠道,让他们在代表这一遗产时提出自己的想法和愿望。关键词:文化遗产,博物馆藏品,芬兰-乌戈尔族,民族认同,爱沙尼亚国家博物馆
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Savihoone renoveerimise lugu: tagasivaateid esimesele projektile / Renovating a traditional Estonian earth building: reflections on my first project Harjutamine teeb meistriks ehk käsitöölise muljeid Richard Sennetti raamatust „Taidur“ / Practicing makes the master. A craftsperson’s perspective on Richard Sennett’s “The Craftsman” Sõnastades sõnatut / Expressing tacit knowledge Linukaid võib kanda mitut moodi: ei ole õiget ega valet kandmisviisi / Linukas, traditional tailed coif, can be worn in many ways Kultuurilisest omastamisest maailmas ja meil: saateks / On cultural appropriation in the world and in Estonia: a preface
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1