Scientific description of the museum object methodical literature. E.G. Shchurina - Cataloging the museum collection. Museum catalog system. Preparation for publication of catalogs of museum collections. Museum collection cataloging

It is important for the museum to determine which of the classification schemes it needs, that is, to develop a classification system for itself. The general classification of museum objects divides them according to the types of sources, and then according to each of the essential features. It makes it possible not only to cover the entire collection of the museum, but also helps to identify what items it lacks. In museums of the historical profile of Russia, most often it is the general classification that forms the basis of the structure of funds. The systematization of objects, carried out on the basis of a general classification, due to the progressive principle of division, is especially important for determining objects. Its role in the study of the history of material and spiritual culture is essential.

In parallel with the general classification, classifications are used that group museum objects according to one related feature.

Chronological classification can be of two types - by the time of creation of objects and by the time of their existence. The latter is especially important for ethnographic and memorial museums. Items related to one millennium, century, half, quarter of a century, decade, year, month, day are grouped.

On a geographical basis, two classifications can also be made - according to the place of creation of objects and according to the place of their existence. Items are grouped by parts of the world, countries, administrative divisions of the country, settlements, centers of production or existence.

The classification of museum objects may aim to group them on the basis of ethnicity. It is especially important for ethnographic museums.

Classification according to social affiliation combines museum items that existed in a particular social environment. The material is grouped within the framework of socio-economic formations.

The thematic classification of museum items is carried out in historical museums on the basis of the classification of historical knowledge and is close to the structure of the exposition. The features of the historical development of a certain territory are taken into account. Since the same subject can serve as a source related to different topics, when systematizing objects on the basis of thematic classification, they can simultaneously fall into several headings. For example, a carved or painted spinning wheel may be of interest to a historian as a tool of peasant textile crafts, as a product of peasant woodworking crafts, as a work of folk arts and crafts.

The systematization of museum objects according to the thematic feature is very important for historical museums, but it is possible only if the object is accurately defined.

Classification according to the sectoral principle divides objects based on their relationship to the spheres of public life. In Russian museology, the most detailed classification of documentary sources of the Soviet period is developed according to this principle. When systematized according to the branch principle, the subject can also be assigned to several headings. The considered classifications help to identify aspects of the use of museum objects.

The problem of standardization of the structure of the description of museum objects, and first of all - the accounting part, is given the most serious attention by specialists from all over the world, since its solution is a necessary condition for creating a museum network that would allow museums to search for the necessary data and mutual data exchange. That is why specialists involved in the development of computer information systems for museums attach paramount importance to determining the minimum set of data necessary to create an “information core” for describing an object.

Back in the mid-1970s, Robert G. Chenhall (USA) and Peter Homulus (Canada) first submitted a draft standard for describing a museum object based on 16 information categories for discussion by CIDOC, a set of proposed categories "Propositions for the Future: Museum Data Standards" was published in Museum magazine 9. In Annex 4 you can get acquainted with a fragment of this document (translated from English).

Work to improve and deepen the original document was carried out both within the framework of CIDOC and organizations in individual countries (especially actively by the Association for Museum Documents of Great Britain MDA). In 1994 CIDOC prepared and published the document “MICMO. Minimum information categories for museum objects: proposed guidelines for an international standard” 10 ; this document should be seen as a guide to the description of a museum object rather than an official standard, and should, as such, serve to build consensus within the museum community.

Based on MICMO, standards (more precisely, instructions, guidelines and recommendations) have been developed in various countries, including:

“Manuel des normes. Documentation des collections africaines” - instructions, which presented the norms for describing the African collections of museums in Mali, Kenya, Madagascar, Zaire, Namibia, Tunisia;

“CIDOC Guidelines for Museum Object Information: the Information Groups and Categories” is a guide to the description of museum objects, to which, for example, the Dublin Core International Metadata Standard refers;

CIDOC Conceptual Reference Model: http://cidoc.ics.forth.gr/

The new CIDOC CRM-Core standard was adopted by the international CIDOC committee in May 2005. It establishes general categories for describing a museum object and the relationship between them;

“CDWA. Categories for description of Works of Art” – categories for describing works of art adopted by the Getty Foundation Institute;

“Objets religieux. Methode d’analyse et vocabulaire” is a French-Canadian information system for describing church items, including English-French (including the Canadian version) thesauri dictionaries,

"Methode d'interventaire informatique des objets: beax-arts et arts decoratifs" - guidelines for the informational description of objects of fine and decorative arts, prepared by the French Museums Authority. At present, almost all museums in the country work on the basis of these recommendations.

Unambiguous interpretation of the ILP vocabulary when describing museum collections cannot be achieved even within the framework of one language (not to mention multilingualism), therefore the problem of terminological and classificatory unity is one of the most complex and controversial, and specialists all over the world are working on its solution. The difficulties that arise when trying to create a unified terminology in the development of the lexical composition of the ILP are explained by the ambiguity of understanding by different specialists of the terms used in museum practice.

As an example illustrating the terminological difficulties in describing a museum object, let us give descriptions of two cups (they are very similar in appearance), which were compiled by specialists from the State Hermitage Museum and the Moscow Kremlin Museums. Let's compare the images of objects and the terms used to describe similar elements (see table):

How can one not recall the unforgettable Humpty Dumpty from Lewis Carroll's fairy tale "Through the Looking-Glass", who stated: “When I take a word, it means what I want, but no more and no less,” Humpty said contemptuously.! And how to disagree with Martin Gardner, the author of the commentary on L. Carroll's fairy tales: "If we want to be properly understood, Error: Reference source not found

then we have a moral duty to avoid the practice of Humpty, who gave his own meanings to commonly used words.

In order to overcome terminological and classification difficulties abroad, projects of terminological dictionaries and thesaurus dictionaries are being developed. Examples of such dictionaries:

Getty Foundation Dictionaries(used including in Russian museums):

• The Art and Architecture Thesaurus (AAT) - thesaurus for art and architecture,

  The Union List of Artist Names (ULAN) - a dictionary of artist names,

  The Getty Thesaurus of Geographic Names (TGN) - a thesaurus of geographical names;

iconographic analysis dictionaries:

• ICONCLASS,

  "Thesaurus iconographique", compiled by F. Garnier 11 .

These thesaurus dictionaries began to be used in museum systems of foreign countries, including systems created within the framework of international projects of the EU countries. For example, the CODART-SYSTEM computer-based study of Eastern Christian art uses the "Iconoclatura" thesaurus. This thesaurus was based on the iconographic system ICONCLASS, developed by the Dutch scientist G. van de Waal and later supplemented and published by his student L.D. Cupri.

Since 1993, an information retrieval system for describing and presenting images in the field of painting "NARCISSE (Net Art Research Computer Image Systems in Europe)" has been operating in France. Later, this system began to be used for other types of fine and applied arts. In this system, the standard for describing a museum object was applied using multilingual (15 languages) thesaurus dictionaries. The positive results obtained in this project made it possible to move on to solving more complex problems that are being solved within the framework of the EROS project. 12 , where the Russian-language version of the thesaurus is also used; The State Historical Museum takes an active part in the work on these projects.

In Russia, work has also been and is being carried out aimed at streamlining the system of describing museum collections, classification and terminology.

Back in 1987, the "Unified passport for movable monuments of the history of culture (museum items)" was developed and approved by the Ministry of Culture of the USSR, the description of which contains 47 features (the form of this document is presented in Appendix 5). Unfortunately, due to a number of reasons, both objective and subjective, this document has not been widely disseminated in Russian museums.

The classification presented in the Instructions for the Accounting and Storage of Museum Values ​​13 , which the country's museums are required to follow, does not meet the needs of museum specialists who expect a computer system to efficiently search for the objects and collections they need. One of the reasons for this is the established tradition of emphasis in assessing the value of a museum object: in terms of its aesthetic value - in art museums and in terms of scientific and educational value - in other museums.

Nevertheless, Russian specialists are actively conducting theoretical research and practical developments aimed at improving the structure of the description of a museum object, classification and terminology. Successful projects in this area include the creation of a multilingual dictionary on museology DICTIONARIUM MUSEOLOGICUM 14 , reference books “The system of scientific description of a museum object. Classification. Methodology. Terminology” 15 and “Attribution of a Museum Monument” 16 prepared by specialists from the Russian Museum of Ethnography, as well as the above-mentioned international project EROS 17 .

In connection with the development of the INTERNET, there has been a tendency to unite leading experts in interdisciplinary working groups to develop nationwide approaches to solving the problem of wide access to cultural heritage. One of the most successful projects of this kind is the collective project “Standards for the description of cultural heritage objects”, which ended with the creation of the document “Unified Standard for Cultural Heritage Objects” 18

Assessing the real situation, we can state that we can hardly expect serious progress in this area in the near future: the inconsistency of requirements, insufficient theoretical study of museum terminology create serious difficulties in solving this problem. It is necessary to continue the analysis of domestic and foreign experience within the framework of specialized working groups, and when creating an information system in a particular museum, to look for compromise solutions. At the same time, it is necessary to take into account both the advisory documents of international and national organizations, and the traditions that exist in specific museums. Apparently, it will take many years before museum professionals come to a consensus on these issues.

1Note that most cultural institutions prefer to use Parus.

2The developer of the AIS-Museum is the Main Information and Computing Center of the Ministry of Culture of the Russian Federation ( http://www.givc.ru/info/work/2.html),

The developer of KAMIS is Altsoft JSC ( www.kamis.ru).

Developer - Cognitive company ( http://www.cognitive.ru/products/nika_museum1.htm).

3In addition to texts, the database may contain electronic images, animations, video and audio fragments, but in this chapter we will focus on the technology of working with text data (it was with text processing that the work on the use of computers in museums began).

4Mikhailov A.I., Cherny A.I., Gilyarevsky R.S. Fundamentals of informatics. –M.: Nauka, 1968

5Nikolaeva N.P., Sedysheva O.A. On the possibility of meaningful indexing of documents with keywords // Subject search in traditional and non-traditional IPS: Sat. scientific tr. / RNB. SPb., 1998. Issue 12. pp. 60-73.

6Strictly speaking, the ILP of museum systems combines the features of languages ​​of object-attribute and descriptor types

7About dictionaries and thesauri, see Mikhailov A.I., Cherny A.I., Gilyarevsky R.S. Fundamentals of informatics. –M.: Nauka, 1968

8The work was carried out in 1981-82. on the material of the Department of the East of the State Hermitage under the guidance of the head of the department V.G. Lukonin.

9 Propositions for the Future: Museum Data Standards – “Museum”, 30 (3/4), 1978, 205 – 212

10 MICMO. Minimum information categories for museum objects: proposed guidelines for an international standard. ICOM-CIDOC, 1994

11Garnier's Thesaurus was translated into Russian by E.S. Kuzmina.

12 Geneviève Etkan, Christian Lanier, Elena Kuzmina. Russian experience in the European system EROS, the need to use common standards and formats.// Cultural diversity in a single information space. Abstracts of reports. Ninth annual conference ADIT-2005. - Kazan, 2005. S. 40-44.

13Instruction for the accounting and storage of museum valuables located in the state museums of the USSR. // M.: Ministry of Culture of the USSR, 1984.

14 Dictionarium museologicum // ICOM. Budapest, 1986.–C.774

15 System of scientific description of a museum object. Classification. Methodology. Terminology. Directory. // St. Petersburg, Ed. "Art-lux", 2003.

16Attribution of the museum monument. Handbook // St. Petersburg, Ed. "Lan", 1999.

17Geneviève Etkan, Christian Lanier, Elena Kuzmina. Russian experience in the European EROS system, the need to use joint standards and formats. // Cultural diversity in a single information space. Abstracts of reports. Ninth annual conference ADIT-2005. - Kazan, 2005. S. 40-44.

18 Culture: The politics of modernization. Issue 2 // Comp. E.S. Kuzmina, A.V. Lebedev, L.Ya. Zero. Moscow-Pskov. 2001.

To narrow the search results, you can refine the query by specifying the fields to search on. The list of fields is presented above. For example:

You can search across multiple fields at the same time:

logical operators

The default operator is AND.
Operator AND means that the document must match all the elements in the group:

research development

Operator OR means that the document must match one of the values ​​in the group:

study OR development

Operator NOT excludes documents containing this element:

study NOT development

Search type

When writing a query, you can specify the way in which the phrase will be searched. Four methods are supported: search based on morphology, without morphology, search for a prefix, search for a phrase.
By default, the search is based on morphology.
To search without morphology, it is enough to put the "dollar" sign before the words in the phrase:

$ study $ development

To search for a prefix, you need to put an asterisk after the query:

study *

To search for a phrase, you need to enclose the query in double quotes:

" research and development "

Search by synonyms

To include synonyms of a word in the search results, put a hash mark " # " before a word or before an expression in brackets.
When applied to one word, up to three synonyms will be found for it.
When applied to a parenthesized expression, a synonym will be added to each word if one was found.
Not compatible with no-morphology, prefix, or phrase searches.

# study

grouping

Parentheses are used to group search phrases. This allows you to control the boolean logic of the request.
For example, you need to make a request: find documents whose author is Ivanov or Petrov, and the title contains the words research or development:

Approximate word search

For an approximate search, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a word in a phrase. For example:

bromine ~

The search will find words such as "bromine", "rum", "prom", etc.
You can optionally specify the maximum number of possible edits: 0, 1, or 2. For example:

bromine ~1

The default is 2 edits.

Proximity criterion

To search by proximity, you need to put a tilde " ~ " at the end of a phrase. For example, to find documents with the words research and development within 2 words, use the following query:

" research development "~2

Expression relevance

To change the relevance of individual expressions in the search, use the sign " ^ " at the end of an expression, and then indicate the level of relevance of this expression in relation to the others.
The higher the level, the more relevant the given expression.
For example, in this expression, the word "research" is four times more relevant than the word "development":

study ^4 development

By default, the level is 1. Valid values ​​are a positive real number.

Search within an interval

To specify the interval in which the value of some field should be, you should specify the boundary values ​​in brackets, separated by the operator TO.
A lexicographic sort will be performed.

Such a query will return results with the author starting from Ivanov and ending with Petrov, but Ivanov and Petrov will not be included in the result.
To include a value in an interval, use square brackets. Use curly braces to escape a value.

This article reveals the problem of scientific description of museum items in the Novosibirsk State Museum of Local Lore, identifies the main stages of accounting and scientific description of museum items in historical dynamics and scientific reflection.

The scientific description of museum objects at the Novosibirsk StateRegional museum.pdf description of museum items is the most controversial and multivariate. In many museums, the issue of the volume and criteria for studying and describing a museum object is still acute. The answers to the questions posed at different times were solved in different ways. During the formation of Soviet museology, especially in the 1930s, they were determined by state agitation and propaganda guidelines. In the 1980s-1990s, the study of a specific museum object was made directly dependent on its expositional potential. In modern museum practice, the interaction of traditional museum materials with the latest information and multimedia technologies is of great importance, and its “viability” in the museum space depends on how detailed and complete each museum object is studied and described. For many decades, the study and the scientific description of museum objects was aimed at providing complete, scientifically based information on the monuments stored in the museum, revealing their potential as historical sources, and revealing their museum significance. Only the study and description of museum objects creates a truly scientific basis for the use of monuments of material and spiritual culture in research and exposition work. It is the museum study, in contrast to the specialized and scientific disciplines, that aims to master the entirety of the information contained in the source. At the same time, it must be taken into account that the final study of the subject, after which there is nothing left to add, is not only unrealistic, but also impossible. The course of life and the development of science affect the possibilities of studying any object, human perception - it is historical. Therefore, completeness of knowledge The result of a comprehensive and complete study and description of a museum subject is the compilation and filling of a scientific passport for it. The information entered in the passport sums up the scientific attribution of the monument and reflects not only the information contained in the field and accounting and storage documentation, but also obtained in the process of scientific research. The depth of information in the fields to be filled in is determined by the degree of scientific processing of the monument at the time the passport was drawn up. The data of the monument can be supplemented, and, if necessary, changed in the course of further scientific study of the monument and its use for museum purposes. It was founded in 1920 by the biology teacher V.A. Anzimirov. The history of the development of the Novosibirsk State Museum of Local Lore was not smooth, and 4 periods are distinguished in it: 1. 1920−1930 gg.2. 1930s3. 1941−1945 (the period of the Great Patriotic War) .4. 1945 - today. It should be noted that the last period of the development of the museum is important in the context of organizing and strengthening the role of research work with museum objects. This is due to the fact that until the 1950s there was no scientific museum work with the collections in the modern sense of the term. There was an active accumulation and acquisition of museum funds, the creation of expositions. Let us consider the activities of the Novosibirsk Museum of Local Lore in the field of scientific description of museum objects, based on the structure of the main scientific document related to the museum object - a scientific passport. Passportization of museum funds began in the 1950s. One of the first samples of a scientific passport stored in the Novosibirsk Museum of Local Lore, dating from 1950, is associated with the indicated time. This passport contains the following main fields: 1) “Name TT1 1 item or collection First, the main drawback of this passport is the absence of the fields "History of existence, legend" and "Source of income". These parameters are of great historical importance for the restoration of a holistic information field surrounding any museum object. It is the history of the existence of an object in many cases that gives the seemingly ordinary material object the status of a museum object that is directly related to history, to the past. Secondly , in this passport the field "Dating, inscriptions, signatures, stamps" is too extensive. Each of the listed parameters is important separately. They mark an object in a certain historical continuum or correlate it with a certain person (signatures, hallmarks). For this reason, it is important to consider these aspects separately, delimiting these areas. option, then such information should be reflected in the main document in order to avoid misunderstandings and false information about it. Subsequent copies of scientific passports of the Novosibirsk State Museum of Local Lore date back to the late 1970s. . In comparison with the previous period, the main positive change is the introduction of the field “History of receipt and life” into the structure of the passport. The fields “Dating”, “Inscriptions and Signatures” and “Stamps” have undergone an important change. In samples of the 1970s. they are demarcated. The fields "Material" and "Technique of manufacture" in the samples of the 1970s. merged. From the point of view of a scientific description and definition of a museum object, this is not entirely true. Of course, the technique of making an object is related to the material, but this relationship is relative: there are many ways to process the same material. In addition, each indicator is specific, so its boundaries should be clearly defined. As well as in earlier samples, in the passports of the 1970s. there is no field indicating the authenticity of the subject. The next group of scientific passports refers to the 1980s. . It should be noted that this group is the most numerous. This is due to the all-Russian trends in the development of museology of this period, because it was precisely from the 1970s - the first half of the 1980s. historians associate the so-called Russian (Soviet) “museum boom”, when interest in the museum as a research center increased. Analyzing the passports of this period, we can conclude that their structure has changed significantly: the passport has become more voluminous, full . This was reflected in the addition of a certain number of fields while maintaining almost all that existed in the early samples. It should be noted that there are several fields that reflect the history of the receipt of the object in the museum: “Place of collection”, “Time of collection”, “Donor”, ​​“Collector”, “Date of receipt in the museum”. The presence of this information makes it possible to fill in the gap in the history of the functioning and existence of the object in the context of the non-museum space, to take into account what was not in the first samples of scientific passports. Also, a field was added to the passport, reflecting the dynamics of the movement of the object within the museum - "Exhibiting" and its further place in scientific circulation - "Publication of the exhibit". These fields are very important. They allow you to trace the "life" of the item, which does not end after the item is registered. The possibilities and information potential of the museum source allow it to exist in time and beyond. Another significant positive change is associated with the photographic fixation of the object. If in earlier samples of scientific passports a place for a photograph of an object was given very conditional and small, now this indicator is given not only a significant special place for a picture, but also several fields that reveal in detail the details of photography: “Author” (shooting), “Shooting location”, “ Photograph data. An important point that was missing in previous copies was the introduction of the "Authenticity" field, the necessity and importance of which was mentioned above. Based on the above comparative analysis, we can conclude that the passports of the 1980s are the most complete, detailed, which allows you to reveal the museum object to the extent that corresponds to the concept of "a complete scientific description of the museum object." It was in the 1980s that the shortcomings that were characteristic of an earlier period were taken into account and corrected. Scientific passports of the period of the 1990s - early 2000s. in general, they almost completely repeat the pattern of the 1980s. The only difference is the rejection of the fields that reveal the details of photography. A description of the current state of scientific description in general and the system of scientific certification in the Novosibirsk State Museum of Local Lore in particular is impossible without indicating that all accounting and fund and research work with museum items are carried out through the AIS "KAMIS" (Integrated Automated Information System). It was put into use in 2009. Accordingly, scientific passports and registration cards are created using this system in accordance with the "Instructions for Accounting, Storage and Use of Museum Items and Museum Collections located in the State Budgetary Institution of Culture of the Novosibirsk Region" Novosibirsk State museum of local lore". According to the approved and compiled model, the scientific passport in the "KAMIS" system does not differ much in its structure from the passports of the 1980s - early 2000s. It contains the following fields: 1) "Name of the subject"; 2) "People (state)"; 3) "Quantity"; 4) "Authenticity"; 5) "Dating"; 6) "Material"; 7) "Technique"; 8) "Author"; 9) "Dimensions"; 10) "Time and place of collection"; 11) "Giver"; 12) "Collector"; 13) "Date of admission to the museum"; 14) "Safety"; 15) "Restoration, conservation"; 16) "Cost"; 17) "Museum significance"; 18) "Previous history"; 19) "Sources"; 20) "Bibliography"; 21) "Description"; 22) "Commentary". This passport, like the sample of the 1980s, is complete and detailed. It can be said that it sums up all the scientific work that has been done by domestic museology in the field of scientific description of museum objects since the 1950s. An important advantage and addition, which became possible thanks to the KAMIS system, is the presence of the "Comment" field. This field has a lot of potential. It can reveal or explain the general functioning and purpose of the item, tell a brief story about the author or manufacturer, focus on an important historical event that is related to this item. The format of earlier samples of scientific passports did not provide for this. From all of the above, we can conclude the following. The scientific description of museum items is one of the fundamental areas of research activities of the Novosibirsk State Museum of Local Lore. Scientific activity in it on the description and study of museum objects began in the 1950s. The first samples of the main scientific document of the museum subject - the scientific passport - are associated with this period of time. The structure of the passport as a whole can be considered satisfactory, but incomplete, requiring processing, improvements and additions. Reworking the original version led to the creation of samples dating from the 1970s. Significant errors were taken into account in them, new important fields were introduced, but in general the format of the passport still needed to be improved. The most complete and developed should be considered the sample of the scientific passport of the 1980s, which became the basis of modern scientific passports. Scientific passports , created in the museum with the help of AIS "KAMIS", fully correspond to the tasks and directions of the modern scientific description of museum objects. Of particular note is the fact that state standards were taken as the basis for the scientific passports of the Novosibirsk State Museum of Local Lore in accordance with the museum legislation in force at one time or another, in particular, in accordance with the Instruction for Accounting Museum Collections (1947) and the Instruction for Accounting and Storage of Museum Treasures in state