THE 300TH ANNIVERSARY OF PETER
THE GREAT KUNSTKAMERA (1714—2014)
P. Matveeva
FROM “ZOO HUMAINE” TO ETHNOGRAPHIC MUSEUM
(CHRISTIAN THOMSEN, JENS WORSAAE, ARTHUR HAZELIUS,
ERNEST HAMY, FRIEDRICH RADLOFF)*
Neighbours that are near and those that are far have always interested mankind. The first collectors of the
“wonders of the world” known to us were Egyptian
pharaohs and Roman and Chinese emperors. The citizens
of Rome marvelled at the conquered barbarians that were
driven along the Eternal City by the victors. From ancient time man's ideas about what is normal and that,
which is a deviation from the norm, have been interpreted rather broadly. It has become one of the favourites
of artists and sculptors. The medieval Muslim science
was not only devoted to the study of the human world,
but also came close to the task of scientific systematization of “lands and peoples”. The works of ‘ajƗ’ib
al-makhnjqƗt (“wonders of creation”) genre were unique
“kunstkameras” on their own [1]. Europe, which along
with control over the trade routes took over the scientific
initiative from the Muslims, became the successor of this
tradition. Great geographical discoveries made enormous
contributions to Europeans' perception of the world. Like
never before, they were able to see where and how other
people, so different from them, existed. Cabinets of curiosities or kunstkameras, already known from the
15th century, displayed unusual items in its collections — some of those items were created by nature and
some by men. Oftentimes they exhibited people with
various pathologies as well as people who were of differing anthropological types (figs. 1, 2). The collections
of court kunstkameras were overseen by scientists who
also compiled the first catalogues.
*
In 1714 Petersburg Kunstkamera — the first national
public museum in Russia — was created in accordance
with the decree of Peter the Great. It was a part of
a greater academic project. In 1776—1780 the world
saw the release of the fundamental work of the famous
scientist and traveller, member of St. Petersburg Academy Johann Gottlieb Georgi, A Description of All the
Nationalities That Inhabit the Russian State. It was
a unique collection of essays describing the settlement
history, language, economy, customs and beliefs of
many Russian peoples. 74 colourful illustrations portray
the inhabitants of Russia dressed in national costumes.
The engravings for the book were made by masters of
the Engraving Chamber of the St. Petersburg Academy
of Sciences and then coloured by hand. This first composite ethnographic work about Russia has not lost its
relevance and importance even in our day.
In the meantime, the town squares and various fairs
helped a different perception emerge of “others” in the
context of the culture of the common people. It was produced by circus booths and lubok (figs. 3, 4). Sometimes
kunstkameras became a part of the street culture, as for
instance, the House of Ice (1740), known well beyond
Russia. It was one of the amusements of Empress Anna
Ioannovna. It was a part of the ceremony of the comedy
marriage of the court jester of the Empress, Prince
Mikhail Galitzin and an elderly Kalmyk woman Avdot'ia
Buzheninova. The special masquerade committee chose
a place on the River Neva between the Admiralty and
I am sincerely grateful to acting CEO of the Museum Branly Mr. Karim Mouttalib, as well as to the staff of the hybrid library
Yves le Fur, Anne Faure, Marie-Claude le Vaillant, for their candid help in research work over the course of my business trip to
Paris (January 2012).
© P. Matveeva, 2012
VOL. 18 NO. 1 JUNE 2012
Fig. 1
Manuscripta Orientalia.
Fig. 2
46
P. MATVEEVA. From “Zoo Humaine” to Ethnographic Museum…
47
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
48
Manuscripta Orientalia.
VOL. 18 NO. 1 JUNE 2012
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
49
Fig. 7
P. MATVEEVA. From “Zoo Humaine” to Ethnographic Museum…
50
Manuscripta Orientalia.
the Winter Palace for the construction of the “house of
ice”. At the imperial bidding “two persons of both sexes
of all tribes and peoples” from all corners of Russia were
summoned to the Petersburg wedding. All in all there
were about 300 men, who, for the sake of even greater
attention to details, were given national costumes and
musical instruments.
Speaking of Western Europe, in many respects the
dialogue between cultures of the East and the West,
commenced back in the epoch of the Crusades, and became possible because of the march of Napoleon to
Egypt. The first Oriental architectural facilities were
constructed in the second half of the 18th century, and
luxurious eastern interior designs began to surface. In the
early 19th century Prince Eugène Rose de Beauharnais
ordered Oriental ornamentation for his house and decorated it with a portico in the Egyptian style. In search of
freedom from the spirit of Encyclopaedia, representatives of Romanticism turned to antiquity, biblical history, the Crusades, and the East. In accordance with the
new trends, François-René de Chateaubriand wrote his
Itinerary from Paris to Jerusalem (1811), where admiration for the achievements of the Muslim Middle Ages
was combined with a distinctly hostile attitude towards
the Muslim world at large. The notion of self-sufficiency
of European culture was becoming stronger by the day.
In the political realm it was related to the ideology of
French Restoration. The origin of colonialism ideology
finds its parallel in Oriental studies, where the Europocentrism trend continues to gain momentum. In the
course of the 19th century these motifs would be popping here and there in the works of European artists, poets, composers and in the architecture of Paris, London,
St. Petersburg, and Vienna. The interest for Oriental art,
and particularly for items of arts, crafts and Oriental interiors, emerged primarily in the second half of the
19th century and world fairs certainly played an important part in the matter.
Exhibitions, which representatives of various races
participated in, started in the early 19th century. First it
began happening in London and then on the other side of
the ocean also, for the public at large. The history
of such exhibitions dates back to the past. The presence
of people of different skin colour at world and colonial
fairs invariably evoked a broad spectrum of emotions in
the spectators — from admiration and rapture to utter
disgust. From the second quarter of the 19th century,
first in Europe (widely reputed under the name of La
Venus Hottentote), and then in the United States (Wild
West Show of Buffalo Bill), the organizers of various
ethnic and circus shows (known also as freak shows)
begin to employ, exploit and promote the phenomenon
of “another” man (fig. 5). In the middle of the
19th century various “ethnic” projects of Taylor Barnum,
who sensed the demand of the public at the right time
and skillfully used it in his best interest, were unbelievably successful. His Panopticon, besides representatives
of “exotic nations”, exhibited trained animals, dwarves,
giants, peculiar stuffed animals and fanciful dioramas
with showings in various cities. He organized trains running between New York and New Haven, so that the
VOL. 18 NO. 1 JUNE 2012
curious could see a Hindu riding an elephant, who
plowed the field in exact compliance with the train
passing by. It must be mentioned that Barnum revealed
a great deal of ingenuity and wit in order to attract the
public to his performances [2].
It was during this period that an exceptional number
of expositions of “ethnic” nature took place on the other
side of the ocean. In London there were exhibitions of
Indians (1817), Eskimos (1824), Bushmen (1847), and
Zulus (1853). The latter became an indicative exhibition
for the whole of Europe. The World exhibition in London (1851), which introduced the series of grandiose
expositions, that were successfully held in various countries up to the World War II, involved collections of the
Near and Middle East, India and to some degree even
anticipated the famous “Cairo Street” (Rue de Caire) of
the Paris exhibition of 1889. It was in the course of those
years that the so-called “anthropozoological” exhibitions
(les zoos humaines) were initiated, which became a solid
part of the European life in 1830—1850s. After the stunning success of the London show of the Zulus, the profitability of these types of events became evident to its
organizers. Eleven men, one woman and one
child — thirteen persons altogether — were brought to
London in the month of March of 1853. During their
stay in Europe, which lasted for one year and a half, they
participated in an enormous number of shows, where
they demonstrated their everyday life as well as their
customs related to their festival ceremonies.
World and colonial fairs forced people to look at the
world, unknown to the wider European audience, beyond
the scope of their civilization, in a new way. The time of
others has arrived. Exhibitions of the achievements in
the field of economics and technology as well as traditional culture of various people groups, became a sort of
incentive to the formation of new identities. Millions of
visitors discovered new horizons: first and foremost
people were coming for the sake of the exotic, yet on
their leaving they were given so much more — not only
understanding of their own uniqueness, but also the
uniqueness of each representative of a different race. For
over one hundred years anthropology and ethnography
were only earned the status of scientific disciplines.
Technical progress, which made travelling to the remotest parts of the world more and more accessible, as well
as the development of photography and the following
exhibition of the artefacts and even “savages” themselves, gave a strong start to the understanding of the
study of what seemed to be merely exotic for so long.
From 1880 the exhibitions of this type were dominated
by France, which was advancing active colonial politics.
Thus Paris becomes a fashion pace-setter (“Paris a toujours besoin d'une attraction special” [3]).
The culture of the East has always evoked lasting associations in the mind of a western man: exotic landscape and the themes a-la “art nouveau”. Neither wars no
political situations could change this “East vs. West”
relation scheme in the mind of people. It, in turn, was
reflected in many works of art. The wondrous world of
the East along with other exotic countries was displayed
for the public at large at world fairs in Paris, which was
P. MATVEEVA. From “Zoo Humaine” to Ethnographic Museum…
distinct from any other location. From the exhibition of
1867 this world of wonder was displayed with an admirable consistency at the Field of Mars — there was
a myriad of restaurants and houses made in the traditional
style. “La tour Eiffel, les architectures exotiques, ca vous
51
met comme dans un rêve. Cette Exposition n'a pas la réalité” — such was the Paris exhibition of 1889 commented in the press [4]. Of particular importance in the
enormous list of exhibitions of this type [5] were Paris
exhibitions of 1867, 1878, 1889 and 1900.
Paris, 1867
The world exhibition of 1867, held in Paris from
April 1 to November 3, aroused interest of over 11 million visitors and became a sort of a watershed in exhibitions of this kind. This celebration of human progress,
besides various achievements in science and technology,
showcased traditional cultures of various ethnic groups.
These diverse structures, which symbolized the culture
of each invited nation, took the central spot at the ethnographic part of world exhibitions. For instance, the
Egyptian exposition, where over one fourth of the structures displayed the culture of this people from the moment of its beginnings, became the central part of the
world exhibition of 1867, which for the most part was
held in the open air. The other sections of the
“non-European” part displayed the clothing attire of
peoples unknown to Europeans. It must be noted that the
ethnographic part of the exhibition of 1867 mostly presented the material culture of various peoples and not
their physical diversity as much. The chamber world, set
at the Field of Mars, radically influenced not only the
future of all expositions, held under the world and colonial title; it also divided the world into advocates of the
universal culture and those, who singled out the conquerors and the conquered.
The world fair of 1867 in Paris, — with the aid of
the French architects, — presented the types of constructions, which were later referred to as les pavillons
nationaux. Furthermore, at the request of the organizers,
these pavilions were “populated” by local culture representatives, clothed in traditional attire. It should particularly be noted that the expositions portrayed families of
French labourers so that the visitors could get to know
the mode and way of life so unaccustomed-to by many.
Moreover, some of the representatives of various vocations carried out their daily tasks in the sight of the public. That was the way the entire ethnographic part of the
exposition was virtually put into shape — it was titled
“The History of Trades” and consisted of ten sections.
Several years later the organizers of this type of exhibition, inspired more by the commercial side of things
rather than by its scientific approach, began organizing
this type of event with enviable regularity. For instance,
by the end of the 19th century the Paris Zoo would become one of the leading locations for this type of event,
and from the world fair of 1878 ethnographic shows will
become an integral part of exhibition projects, having
indeed become their business card.
Paris, 1878
Muséum ethnographique des missions scientifiques,
where ethnographic and archaeological collections of the
world fair of 1867 were moved to, was organized at the
initiative of the Ministry of Popular Education a few
months prior to the formal opening of the world fair in
1878. During the entire 19th century the Ministry of
Popular Education played a major part in organizing and
financing expeditions to different parts of the world.
Their goal was to collect geographic, linguistic, ethnographic and physical anthropology materials. Collected
materials were to show the world the civilizing role of
the French colonial politics. The museum collections
included American, African and Central Asian ethnographic collections, which subsequently were moved to
the Field of Mars, having become the nucleus of the ethnographic part of the world fair of 1878. This exhibition
lasted practically for six whole months — it began on the
1st of May and was closed on the 10th of November of
1878, having occupied the territory of nearly
750 thousand square meters between Pont d'Iéna and the
Field of Mars. Its major part was hosted by Palais du
Trocadéro, built specifically for this purpose. It was not
without reason that the organizers decided to pay special
attention to the ethnographic side of things: thus, they
focused on the successes of the colonial politics of the
country. Ethnographic collections were displayed in the
hall of “Scientific expeditions”, devoted to the collection
of the articles related to the “non-European” peoples.
There were exotic constructions arranged in the Trocadéro Park — Egyptian, Persian and Algerian palaces,
Swedish and Norwegian chalets, Tunisian houses and
bazaar, Chinese quarter and much more. There is no
doubt about the fact that in accordance with its large
scale this fair surpassed all preceding exhibitions; it was
called to display not only natural resources and diversity
of each country represented, but also their cultural, technical and colonial achievements. Six statues made of gilt
bronze and symbolizing Northern and Southern Americas, Africa, Asia, Europe and Oceania, were erected by
Palais du Trocadéro, and in front of its façade. 22 more
sculptures were made in the same manner, representing
India, England, Australia, Norway, Sweden, Japan,
China, Russia, Denmark, etc. This time around the organizers titled this part of the exhibition “L'art historique
ancien et l'ethnographie des peuples étrangers à l'Europe”. It was arranged in Palais du Trocadéro, in the
right wing (named “Paris”) in which was the “European
Art” exposition and the left wing (“Passy”) was entirely
52
Manuscripta Orientalia.
devoted to the “non-European” peoples. When it comes
to the European part, it was chiefly represented by the
articles of the way of life of Scandinavian people: “mannequins portrayed the scenes of everyday life in the interior of traditional dwellings” [6].
For this exposition, presenting the way of life of the
northern countries, the director of the first museum under the open sky, Swedish Skansen, Arthur Hazelius
(1833—1901) was awarded with a gold medal. It must
be noted that this subject matter will also drew the attention of the following Paris exhibition (1889), where the
exposition of “The History of Human Dwelling” widely
presented traditional houses. Known French architect
Charles Garnier was its author. 44 different buildings
altogether, offering the retrospective review of dwelling
houses of various peoples, were constructed. The national part of the exhibition displayed the French mother
country and its colonies and consisted of five divisions:
“Ethnology”, “Ethnography”, “Linguistics”, “Prehistoric
anthropology” and “Demography”. Since the first half of
the 19th century the idea of the Western influence upon
non-European countries has become predominant, along
VOL. 18 NO. 1 JUNE 2012
with the study and exhibition of other countries as vanishing. Thereupon, the change of the term must be
noted — if before non-Europeans were referred to as
“savages” (le sauvage), now it was changed to “local
resident” (l'indigène). Such exhibitions and then the ethnographic museum, developing out of these exhibitions,
played an exceptionally important role. First, they served
the purpose of training French patriotism, and understanding of the uniqueness of national culture in relation
to cultures of others. A great effect of this cause was the
perception of the diversity of the world and human culture. Ethnographic exhibitions and subsequently museums became the catalysts not only for the study of articles of material culture, but also for the study of the origins of human races in their physical and cultural aspects: “ils réclament non pas un simple muse ethnographique, où seule les productions matérielles seront
théoriquement exposées, mais un veritable muse anthropologique combinant la quête des origines de l'homme et
la description tant physique que culturelle des ‘races’ et
peuples de la terre” [7].
Paris, 1889
Paris world exhibition of 1889 is a quality change in
this industry, and the appearance of the so-called “Cairo
street” (Rue du Caire) is a confirmation to this change. If
the previous exhibition (that of 1878) could boast of the
so-called “pavilions in national style”, this time the organizers decided to reproduce the entourage of one of
the streets of the Egyptian capital in its entirety. Over
30 million people came to experience the culture of
Egypt and saw over two hundred of its representatives.
This part of the exposition, which had a tremendous suc-
cess, was subsequently displayed at the exhibitions in
Chicago (1893), Antwerp (1894), St. Louis (1904) and
influenced the formation of all further exhibitions of this
kind, having consolidated the trend of exhibiting not
necessarily items of material culture as much as its representatives. It must be noted that it became the forefather of systematic re-creation of ethnographic villages. It
was back in 1878 that the organizers presented a Senegal
village, and in 1889 — six villages (the regions of Indochina, Oceania and Africa to the south of Sahara).
Paris, 1900
The grand final world fair of 1900, where the Empire
appeared before the French in all its glory and diversity,
became the most attended fair — it was attended by over
48 million people. There, a great scope of natural and human resources of the colonies, controlled by France, were
displayed in addition to technical achievements. At the exhibition, abundantly illustrated with photographic material,
each colony had its own pavilion, where along with ethnographic materials, organizers attempted to show the importance of each conquered territory for the industry and
commerce of France. The pavilion of the Ministry of Colonies was called to summarize the material represented at
various national pavilions. Its painted ceiling showed the
population of French colonies of many faces, and the walls
boasted the photographs made by different missions. The
same Ministry exhibited ethnographic collections, brought
by missionaries from different countries, as well as maps
and atlases developed by them over the years of work in
colonies, and the dictionaries of foreign languages.
Entertainment material played an enormous part at
the exhibition, just as it did at the previous Paris fair.
A panorama, displaying French colonies, was a great
success. It moved along, creating an illusion of
a round-the-world trip. Even more visitors were surprised by the “Mediterranean Sea” stereorama, which
conveyed not only the illusion of motion but also that of
presence. The idea of such a show goes back to the fair
performances (fig. 6). Russia took an active part in world
fairs, and it had its specific nature: it presented “others”
for Europe, but it did “its own” for itself.
Among the examples of Russian participation in the
world fairs, the success of “The Turkestan Album” in
particular can be cited. The album was made by order of
the Turkestan governor general K. P. von Kaufman under the leadership of A. L. Kuhn, an Orientalist, and included over 1,200 photographs, offering the diversity of
ethnical types. In 1875 the album was awarded with the
highest prize of the International Geographic Exhibition
in Paris, held within the framework of the Geographic
Congress. The Russian department of the exhibition was
organized by the Russian Geographic Society, which
was naturally intended to display the entire diversity of
P. MATVEEVA. From “Zoo Humaine” to Ethnographic Museum…
cultural and ethnical types of the country (fig. 7). It
needs to be noted that social direction and realism, so
typical for Russian art at the turn of the 19th and
20th centuries, defined the greater democracy of the ethnographic photographs made in Russia in comparison
with western analogues of the same timeframe, where
colonial models undoubtedly exercised dominion.
Participation in these exhibitions was a matter of the
state. Preparation for the exhibition of 1900 was being
done on the basis of the highest regulation dating October 28 (November 10) of 1895, and it was rather successful. Thus in 1851, Russia was represented by only
365 articles and in 1873 — the number of 1680. The
area, allotted for the exposition of Russia, was
24 thousand square meters, which considerably surpassed the former dimensions (for comparison purposes
here is the exposition area of the previous exhibittions — 500 square meters). The artistic part of the department was headed by Vice President of the Academy
of Arts, Count TolstoƱ, and the national pavilion was
designed by architect Melzer: constructed in the tent and
tower-like style of the Moscow Kremlin, it was located
at the hillside in the Trocadero Park. Nearby there was
one more small “unprofessional pavilion”, which displayed decorated and applied arts, including the works of
art of traditional national crafts. World recognition of the
authority of Russian science was expressed by means of
the inclusion of Russian scientists and specialists into the
jury of exhibitions (Russia was represented by chemist
Mendeleev and metallurgist Chernov, artists Repin and
Benoit, geographer SemČnov-Tian-ShanskiƱ and many
others). Russian exhibits were awarded with 1,589 prizes
altogether (of the overall number of 42,790 articles).
It is important to note that Russian expositions had
an indispensable part to them — results of the winners of
the Russian fairs were shared. The greatest event of the
kind in Russia was the famous NizhniƱ Novgorod Fair
(1817—1917), which represented not only the heart of
the country but also its national outskirts.
In relation to the aforementioned, the fate of “the
Yakut project” of the All-Russian industrial and art exhibition of 1896 is of great interest. A special committee
for the organization of the Yakut subdivision of the exhibition was founded. The committee led the collection
of materials according to the special program, intended
to organize the selection of exhibits that gave a good
idea of traditional culture of the population of this part of
the Russian empire. The first batch of items — 22 boxes — was sent by merchant Pikhtin to Irkutsk in 1895
from there, the boxes were sent to NizhniƱ Novgorod by
rail. Altogether, from September of 1895 to April 1896,
27 boxes with 209 exhibits. Future MAE colleagues of
Radloff — political exiles Vladimir Bogoraz and Veniamin Johelson (the latter particularly presented the
photographs of the culture and way of life of local people groups) were listed among the collectors of these
exhibits. A considerable portion of the collection was
exhibited at the exposition of the Suburban Department
of the Paris world fair of 1900. 192 exhibits were sent to
the exhibition, of which about 80% were of ethnographic
nature. In spite of the directions to return the Yakut col-
53
lection to Russia, the manager of the Russian department, merchant Pikhtin, having noticed the interest of
western colleagues for the collections from Russian outskirts, sold almost the entire collection to the Leipzig
Museum.
In 1898 the Russian museum named after emperor
Alexander III was opened to the public. It was located in
the very heart of Saint-Petersburg in the luxurious MikhailovskiƱ palace and reflected the new understanding of
the historical roles of the Russian imperial culture. The
new museum included Ethnographic department. In
1902 it was separated from the main museum structure
and became the basis for establishing of the State Museum of Ethnography of the Peoples of the USSR
(now — the Russian Ethnographic Museum). “Studying
of ethnography of Russian empire, Russians and
neighbouring countries” became the main aim of the
department. It is significant, that one of the first collections of the new Ethnographic department came directly
from the Paris World Fair of 1900. The collection is devoted to the culture of the Russians of Tobolskaia guberniia (call No. 9) and included 112 objects. Obviously
the collection was sent to Paris due to the aid of the Tobol'sk GubernskiƱ museum (opened in 1870). Along with
other provincial museums (for example MinusinskiƱ museum, established in 1877), this museum sent its collections to Paris world fair.
A striking example of the direct interaction between
an ethnographic museum and a world fair is found in the
materials of the expedition of 1899 to Semirechensk,
Akmolinsk and Semipalatinsk Oblasts with the purpose
of collecting ethnographic data among the Kazakh. It
was the employer of the MAE, Samuil Dudin who was
sent to the trip. This expedition went down in the history
of the Museum as one of the greatest and most fruitful
scientific enterprises of the late 19th and early
20th century. The objective of making the special exposition for Paris world fair of 1900, which was supposed
to be accompanied by a detailed study in the form of
a photo album, was devoted to the traditional culture of
the Kazakh. The project was brought to fruition by the
famous “Ethnographic Bureau”, established by Russian
manufacturer and patron Prince Viacheslav Tenishev
(1843—1903) in 1897 in St. Petersburg. The main objectives of the enterprise were the organization and
holding the collection of data from the Russian peasantry
in accordance with “The Program of Ethnographic Data
about Peasants of Central Russia”, Compiled by Prince
V. N. Tenishev. The “Ethnographic Bureau” worked
actively until 1901 and its contribution to the study of
the materials related to Russian people can scarcely be
overestimated.
In 1897 V. N. Tenishev was appointed Commissioner-General (i. e. the head) of the Russian Department
of the world fair, and the Kazakh project apparently became a natural decision for him. It is becoming clear
today that, at a certain stage, Tenishev was ready to
broaden the research scope of the “Bureau” frames. The
following text was placed into two issues of the “Russian
Turkestan” newspaper in the “Asian Echo” column
(dating July 14 and August 11, 1899):
54
Manuscripta Orientalia.
VOL. 18 NO. 1 JUNE 2012
course of the trip he managed to make over
500 photographs of the nomadic way of life of the Kazakh: everyday scenes and landscapes, people's portraits,
their engagements, the interior of their dwelling places,
winter stations, nomadic encampments, clothing and
musical instruments. Dudin made some sketches of Kazakh ornamental patterns and gathered a collection of
ethnographic items. When it comes to the diversity of
subject matter and the number of pictures taken, collection No. 1199, given to the MAE in 1907 by Dudin, can
fully be considered a photographic encyclopaedia of the
traditional Kazakh way of life. Some photographs also
remained in the form of negatives, several were hand
coloured by the author (plate 1).
World fairs, which were tremendously popular and
attracted millions of visitors, had one substantial defect — they were temporary. Nevertheless, it made it
possible to formulate the people's demand and preferences, and thus put the project that everybody needed,
into action.
For the purpose of the Paris exhibition the ethnographic
bureau of Prince Tenishev will publish an extensive study
of the Kirghiz people, supplied with illustrations. The execution of which is entrusted to artist Dudin, sent to the
Steppe region specifically with this mission [9].
Within the framework of this project the Russian Geographic Society addressed enthusiasts of photographic
art with a request to submit photographs of different locations. Thus, the RGS had various views of the Semirechensk Oblast (VerniƱ, Almaty today) at their disposal,
made by photographer LeƱbin. The merchant Iuldashev
sent his materials to the Photograph Collection Committee from the Jarkent Uyezd of the Semirechensk
Oblast. The preparation of the photo album in Tashkent
was taken up by the aide-de-camps of the army commander of the Turkestan command, P. RodstvennyƱ. He
established the Photographic Society in Tashkent, and in
September of 1899 he opened a photo exhibition. Dudin,
however, was the only photographer who was specifically sent to Kazakhstan to work in this program. In the
***
As we witnessed, ethnographic museums of Europe,
which mostly evolved from court kunstkameras and private collections, also included the most important “entertainment element”, associated with world fairs, historically
dating to the circus and show booth. Leibniz's answer to
the question of Peter the Great “What is a museum?” was
mathematically precise: “Theatre”. It is fully typical for the
MAE as well as for Parisian Trocadero, to combine collections of a number of rarities (Cabinet du roi, Cabinet du
Jardin du roi, Cabinet des médailles et antiques de la Bibliothèque nationale). From the second half of the
19th century forward, the picture of the evolution of mankind became the goal of virtually all European ethnographic museums. And in many respects, it became possible thanks to exhibiting the items of material culture. In
accordance with the opinion of the director of Trocadero,
anthropologist Ernest Theodore Hamy (1842—1908),
“l'objet sert donc à illustrer les diverses categories du
système”, “l'objet est appréhendé par rapport à sa place au
sein d'une série d'objets du même genre” [10].
The catalogue of the library of Ernest Hamy, published after his death, is a testimony of the active exchange of ideas between the directors and curators of the
leading European museums of the time. His correspondence and scientific works provide a clear understanding
about the notion of undertaking a trip to Scandinavia,
and in particular to Denmark, with the purpose of
studying local museums and arranging ethnographic affair in that country. The choice of that country was not
by mere chance. From the second half of the
19th century, the National Museum of Denmark was in
the vanguard of the museum study, and it was this museum that defined the development of the new type of
ethnographic museums. From the 19th century, there is
interest about national culture in Scandinavia. Danish
museums, primarily the National Museum of Denmark,
professed a strictly scientific approach to the material.
That was why the business trips of ethnographers and
archaeologists of the 19th century to Scandinavia were
akin to the trips of sculptors and painters to Italy.
Many archive sources refer to Academician Radloff,
the organizer of the modern Museum of Anthropology
and Ethnography in Petersburg, actively studying experiences of leading European museums. He did not just
go abroad annually, but he also actively sent his colleagues abroad on business trips. Thus, History and Philology Department of the Academy sent associate (junior) ethnographer of the MAE Bruno Adler to Paris and
Copenhagen in May of 1907 with a special mission of
getting to know collections of local museums [11]. This
trip played the most important role in the development of
the MAE. Radloff noted that
there are enormous universal ethnographic museums
everywhere — not only in the main centres of Western
Europe and North America, but also in the capitals of
smaller countries, such as Copenhagen and Stockholm,
only we, in Russia, have nothing of the kind [12].
One of the closest colleagues of Radloff, Samuel Dudin,
mentioned above, set out for Europe as an artist. The
arrangement of museum affairs and the design of expositions were the main objects of his interest. Travelling
from one city to another, Dudin visited museums. His
suggestions for the organization of museum exhibitions
in Russia were stated to Radloff in the form of letters.
Thus, on his way to Paris, he stopped in Vienna and Munich, where he visited a number of museums and art exhibitions [13]. In 1907 he “was specifically sent abroad
with a purpose of working in ethnographic museums” [14]. Academician Radloff writes about his trip in
his “Report of the Business Trip for the Purpose of Surveying Ethnographic Museums” on October 31 of 1907:
…on September 18, accompanied by N. I. Vorob'Čv,
attached to the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography,
P. MATVEEVA. From “Zoo Humaine” to Ethnographic Museum…
and artist S. M. Dudin, I set off to Stockholm via Finland
and from there went to Germany via Copenhagen [15].
From the beginning of the 19th century French and
Scandinavian science organizers begin to regularly exchange gained experiences and share opinions concerning prospects of ethnographic museum development as
a whole. The French followed the example of the work
of Danish scientists, where the Scandinavian, in contrast
to the French, focus in the first place on the scientific development as such and the propaganda of patriotic feeling was less important. It was the Danish model that
Hamy began actively introducing in his country. He
delicately caught the trend of the period and clearly understood that various cultures needed to be studied in the
first place and not just displayed.
The collections of the National Museum of Denmark
spring from the Royal Kunstkamera, the foundation of
which was made up of artworks, paintings, ethnographic
exhibits, weapons. With time the collection was supplemented by each following Danish ruler. The Royal
Committee for the Preservation of Antiquities was
formed in 1807, which subsequently did much work in
classifying the exhibits in the museum's collection.
Christian Jurgensen Thomsen (1788—1865), a Danish
archaeologist, holding the office of the custodian of the
National Museum, was known for the creation of the
famous system of the development periodisation of mankind, which included three ages: Stone, Bronze and Iron.
This idea was being developed back in the 18th century,
but in his engagement in the classification of antiquities,
Thomsen substantiated it from the scientific viewpoint.
Thanks to his work, the classification system, harmonized with the concept of the evolution of mankind, was
introduced into scientific circulation. In many ways,
thanks to this innovative approach, this type of museum
was formed. In France this model was followed by
Hamy at first, and then — by Paul Rivet (1876—1958)
and Georges Henri Rivière (1897—1985), who practically became the creators of Musée de l'Homme in Paris.
Thanks to Radloff the Petersburg Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography also actively utilized experiences
of Danish colleagues. An accounting system of the Copenhagen Museum was adopted, where each collection was
given a museum number and each individual article and
item — a double number (a number of the collection it
belonged to and a serial number). That was the principle
used when the registration of the MAE collections began.
It is also important that the system came into circulation at
the time when other European museums did not widely use
such a collection division yet.
Three ages — Stone, Bronze and Iron — which
Thomsen used for the purpose of illustrating the development of humanity at large, corresponded to the three
stages of cultural development (the so-called “evolutionary scheme”): the savage (sauvages), the primitive
(primitifs) and the civilized (civilizes). Articles, illustrating each age, were grouped together according to the
principle of correspondence between each of them. Such
classification in accordance with ages was adapted to
each of the existing peoples. Articles were chosen in
55
accordance with their functional features and joined together within the frames of their belonging to a particular people.
The successor of C. Thomsen, Professor of archaeology of the Copenhagen University, Jens Jacob Worsaae (1821—1885) improved the system by adding divisions according to geographical and chronological principles. He subdivided peoples into existing and vanished,
and thus the articles illustrating the culture were also to
be divided according to time and geographical principles. Exhibits were further grouped according to different categories such as, “religion”, “origin of man”,
“weapons”, “dwelling” and “art”. It was that particular
model, developed by Thomsen and improved on by
Worsaae, that found its broad application both in France
and Russia. Two factors, which were conducive to this
development, may be singled out. First, from the 1870s
both France and Russia experienced great interest for
national values, just as did the Scandinavian countries.
The climax and one of the most significant outcomes of
such interest in Russia was the activity of the Ethnographic Bureau of Prince Viacheslav Tenishev (1843—
1903). Secondly, in 1851—1852 Worsaae lived in
France and there he actively popularized Danish scientific ideas and studies, having particularly published
“The Memories” of the Royal Society of Archaeologists
of the North (la Société royale des antiquaires du nord).
The secretary of this society, Eugene Beauvois, also
a member of the society of ethnographers, was translating the works of Worsaae into French. It was to Worsaae, concerned with the problem of the origin of the
human race and its distribution upon the face of the earth
as well as with evolution of culture at large, that the
merit of introducing new principles for the article selection, selection criteria and classification system was due.
He followed the strictly scientific principle of collecting
and acquiring collections, and he deemed this principle
to be extremely important. Concerned with the study of
the origin of man and evolution of humanity and human
culture, he did not divide ethnography and archaeology.
The impact of Worsaae spread to Sweden as well,
and in 1872 Arthur Hazelius founded his famous ethnographic museum in the open air. The construction of the
exposition of this museum, collections of which number
over 23,000 articles, employed a method, which was
rather pioneering for the time being and yet it had been
actively employed in organizing ethnographic expositions of the world fairs in Paris:
les objets étaient exposés dans leur milieu d'origine avec
des intérieurs complets animés de figures et de groupes
représentant des scènes de la vie intime et des occupations
de la vie domestique [16].
The director of the Trocadero Museum, Hamy, was
familiar with the works of northern colleagues even before his trip to Scandinavia. It is important that the impact of the so-called Scandinavian model was not restricted to the 19th century, but extended to the first third
of the 20th century. Under its influence Musée de
l'Homme in Paris continued to be built by its founders
56
Manuscripta Orientalia.
Paul Rivet and Georges Rivière [17]. There is no doubt
of the significance of the impact of the Royal Society of
Archaeologists of the North (la Société royale des antiquaires du nord) in the work of spreading the ideas of
Scandinavian archaeologists. As well, the role of the
Paris world fairs of 1867 and 1878 in the whole process
is unquestionable. Hazelius must have quickly picked up
the trend and in 1873 he presented his first historical and
ethnographic exposition with dwellings and mannequins
in Stockholm. At the Paris exhibition of 1878 he was
awarded with a gold medal:
C'est une excellente manière de faire conna‫ۺ‬tre les habitants d'un pays, que de les représenter dans les conditions
ordinaires de leur existence [18].
In developing the approaches of Scandinavian museums to the classification system, the French go further
down the road: it was suggested that the building of the
Trocadero Museum, where the collections were kept be
equipped with semicircular galleries, where each of them
would be filled with either items from the same country
of origin or series of items of the same type, demonstrating the similarity of cultures. Thus, an analogy between the architecture of a building itself and the classification system (“un batiment spécial en forme circulaire, don't chaque tranche serait occupée par un pays et
où chaque série d'objets similaires se suivrait par les
galleries circulaires”) [19]. The arrangement of the
items, done according to the geographical principle, as in
the Copenhagen Museum, made it possible to draw parallels and analogies between cultures of various peoples:
VOL. 18 NO. 1 JUNE 2012
In spite of the evident focus of Radloff upon European museums of the time, one substantial difference
defined the future developments of the Petersburg Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography. It is the notion
of the museum of universal culture, which can be stumbled upon in Russian and European sources, and which
was apparently used by the organizers of the MAE and
French museums. At first sight it might seem to make
them ideologically closer, whereas in reality it proved to
be a principal difference between them.
Historical fortunes of Russia, the territory of which
enveloped the greater part of Eurasia, preordained the
formation of a particular type of culture among the peoples populating it under the paradigm of “living together
while remaining diverse” [22]. At the time when the colonial and imperial trend dominated Europe, Radloff
implemented a project, unique in its own way, entitled
the museum of universal culture. This was of major state
significance in that
…no other country has such a vast field for ethnographic,
prehistoric and anthropologic studies at their disposal as
does Russia. This is due to its enormous territory and the
great number of nations of different tribes populating it.
Therefore, the establishment of the spacious Museum of
Anthropology and Ethnography, where collections and
materials on the subject matters of the aforementioned sciences, would be gathered, is nowhere as important and
necessary as in Russia [23].
First of all, “the Scandinavian model” was good inasmuch as it addressed the past in the study of a vanishing
culture and it attempted to understand and recreate the
process of evolution of human culture at large. It was
this particular approach that was later perfected in the
MAE to mathematical precision by Lev Sternberg, who
The selection of staff played its important part as
well. It was considerably made up of exiled revolutionaries, who, while located in far corners of the country,
began to study the culture of the peoples, with whom
they were brought in contact with by fate, from the democratic standpoint.
It was after the death of Radloff, in the 1930s, and
also with the interest in Marxist science, French organizers of science Rivet and Rivière made the Leningrad
Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography, the only
museum of universal culture in the USSR [24], an example for imitation. In their establishment of Musée de
l'Homme they even attempted to establish an exchange
with the Leningrad Museum [25]:
thought of the Museum within the framework of an establishment, the mission of which was to present a full picture
of human culture, and not only in the present, but also in its
past; and not in statics only, but in dynamics as well, in the
process of its evolution and variability [21].
Le but du nouveau musée n'est plus montrer, comme au
XIX siècle, les productions matérielles des peuples,mais
bien de render compte tout à la fois de l'unité de l'espèce
humaine et de la diversité des forms… un panorama de
l'évolution et de l'activité humaine [26].
ce n'est pas une collection brillante d'objets de luxe ou de
grande valeur, mais un musée avant tout purement scientifique, qui ne dédaigne pas l'objet le plus futile, quand il
peut faire suivre une évolution [20].
Notes
1. This theme is specially studied by Professor Efim Rezvan (St. Petersburg).
2. See: J. Markschiess-van Trix, B. Novak, Artisty i cirkovoƱ plakat (Artists and Circus Poster) (Moscow, 1986), pp. 24—28.
3. Exhibitions: l'invention du sauvage (Paris, 2011), ɪ. 160.
4. See: Exotiques expositions. Les expositions universelles et les cultures extra-européennes. France. 1855—1937 (Paris,
2010), p. 12.
P. MATVEEVA. From “Zoo Humaine” to Ethnographic Museum…
57
5. Some of the most significant exhibitions that took place in the time frame that interests us are: 1851 — London; 1855,
1867 — Paris; 1873 — Vienna; 1876 — Philadelphia; 1878, 1889 — Paris; 1893 — Chicago; 1900 — Paris; 1904 — St. Louis;
1929 — Barcelona; 1937 — Paris.
6. N. Diaz, Le musée d'ethnographie du Trocadero (1878—1908). Anthropologie et museology en France (Paris, 1991),
pp. 144—150.
7. F. Grognet, Le concept de musée. La patrimonialisation de la culture des «autres». D'une rive à l'autre, du Trocadero
à Branly: histoire de metamorphoses. Thèse de doctorat en Ethnologie en deux volumes dirigée par Jean Jamin (Paris, 2009),
p. 228.
8. See: E. A. Rezvan, V zerkale vremeni: dialog kul'tur v “russkom mire”. Katalog vystavki (In the Mirror of Time: a Dialogue
of Cultures in “Russian World”. The Catalogue of the Exhibition) (St. Petersburg, 2011), pp. 3—4.
9. See: idem, S. M. Dudin — fotograf, khudozhnik, ơtnograf (Materialy ơkspeditsii v Kazakhstan 1899 g.) (S. M. Dudin —
a Photographer, Artist and Ethnographer (Materials from the Expedition to Kazakhstan in 1899)) (in print).
10. Diaz, op. cit., p. 99.
11. Russian State Historical Archives, fund 733, inv. 145 (1907), file 123, fol. 31.
12. St. Petersburg Branch of the Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences, fund 142, inv. 1, file 34, fol. 1.
13. Ibid., fund 177, inv. 2, file 102, fols. 7—8.
14. Russian State Historical Archives, fund 733, inv. 145, file 124, fol. 3.
15. V. V. Radloff, OtchČt o komandirovke dlia obozreniia ơtnograficheskikh muzeev (Report of the Business Trip for the Purpose of Surveying Ethnographic Museums) (St. Petersburg, 1907), p. 743.
16. Diaz, op. cit., p. 148.
17. Ibid.
18. Ibid., p. 150.
19. Ibid., p. 149.
20. Ibid.
21. S. A. Sternberg, Lev Iakovlevich Sternberg i MuzeƱ antropologii i ơtnografii Akademii nauk (po lichnym vospominaniiam,
literturnym i arkhivnym dannym) (Lev Iakovlevich Shternberg and the Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography of the Academy
of Sciences (from personal recollections, literary and archive data)) (Leningrad, 1925), p. 36.
22. For greater details see: Rezvan, V zerkale vremeni, pp. 3—13.
23. St. Petersburg Branch of the Archives of the Russian Academy of Sciences, fund 142, inv. 1, file 33, fol. 7.
24. For greater details see: L. Ia. Sternberg, ƠtnograficheskiƱ muzeƱ Akademii nauk SSSR (The Ethnographic Museum of the
Academy of Sciences of the USSR) (Leningrad, 1925).
25. Grognet, op. cit., p. 366.
26. Ibid., p. 378.
Illustrations
Front cover:
Plate 1. S. Dudin. Girl's Dress. Kazakhstan, 1899. Watercolour over the photographic print. MAE
RAS, call No. 1199–34–P2 (source photo call No. 1199–34–P1). Courtesy of the Museum.
Inside the text:
Fig. 1. From the book: G. Licetus, De monstris. Ex.recensione Gerardi Blasil (Amsterdam, 1665).
Fig. 2. From the book: P. Baldaeus, Naauwkeurige Beschrybinge van Malabar en Choromandel
(Amsterdam, 1672).
Fig. 3. Maiden Iulia Pastrana, 23 years of age, and the most remarkable groom of hers, Roger Barkom, 53 years of age. 1862. Lithography, 43.5 × 35.0 cm. Manuscript Department of Institute
of Russian Literature (the Pushkin House) RAS, call No. Ɋ.V, 106, 6227. Courtesy of the Institute.
Fig. 4. An Indian. 1852. Lithography, 44.5 × 35.0 cm. Manuscript Department of Institute of Russian
Literature (the Pushkin House) RAS, call No. Ɋ.V, 106/4. Courtesy of the Institute.
Fig. 5. A Caravan of Bedouins. Postcard, 1912.
Fig. 6. World Cosmorama. 1858. Lithography, 44.5 × 35.7 cm. Manuscript Department of Institute of
Russian Literature (the Pushkin House) RAS, call No. Ɋ.V. 106/4, No. 391. Courtesy of the
Institute.
The text on the front page is as follows:
“This cosmorama displays any city
And various views of life,
Chaldean countries
58
Manuscripta Orientalia.
VOL. 18 NO. 1 JUNE 2012
And the city of Paris,
As soon as you enter, you will go deaf from noise!
American countries,
Where ladies galoshes are brought from”.
Fig. 7. “Women's rite BƯbƯ seshambe. Group of Women at the DastarkhƗn”, The Turkestan Album.
Settled population of Central Asia. MAE RAS, call No. ɂ-1718-252. Courtesy of the Museum.