documenting collections: cornerstones for more history of science in museums

Documenting Collections: Cornerstonesfor More History of Science in Museums

Marta C. Lourenço · Samuel Gessner

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Abstract Historians of science have recently become increasingly involved with col-

lections and scientific instruments. This creates opportunities for a more significant role of

history in museums of science, as well as more meaningful and contextualized exhibitions

and educational programmes. However, complementing the mainstream focus on universal

scientific principles with history requires structural and cultural changes in museums’

approaches and practices. In this paper we draw from recent collaborative work with

historians of science at the University of Lisbon to reflect on the challenges museums face

as they prepare for a more meaningful historical approach to science. We argue that

documentation is crucial both before objects enter the museum and as regular collections

practice. We propose a conceptual and methodological framework comprising two oper-

ational levels: documenting individual objects and documenting collections.

“[Historical scientific instruments] are not used for opening and questioning our understanding of the pastso that it illuminates the present. The present illuminates these objects, not the other way around”.

Jim Bennett (2005: 606)

1 Introduction

Historians have always been interested in museums and collections. In recent years

however, they have also been increasingly using objects as primary sources for research.

This is excellent news both for history and for museums. The study of historical objects

brings new perspectives to both local and global narratives in the history of science,

technology and medicine. Objects can provide important insights into the development of

M. C. Lourenco (&)National Museum of Natural History and Science/CIUHCT, University of Lisbon,Rua da Escola Politecnica, 56, 1250-102 Lisbon, Portugale-mail: [email protected]

S. GessnerFaculdade de Ciencias, CIUHCT, University of Lisbon, Edif. C4, Piso 3, Gabinete 15,Campo Grande, 1749-016 Lisbon, Portugal

123

Sci & EducDOI 10.1007/s11191-012-9568-z

experimental inquiry, theoretical speculation, research and teaching practices, technical

application and innovation, interactions between instrument-makers, laboratory staff and

scientists, as well as broader historical, social and political contexts. For museums,

increased use of collections for historical studies is beneficial not only to collections care,

research and conservation but also to enrich exhibitions, educational programmes and

publications.

However, mutual relations between historians and museums are recent and require

consolidation.1 Challenges faced by historians when they approach material sources have

been discussed elsewhere (e.g. Lubar and Kingery 1996; Lourenco 2002). For historians,

the biggest challenge is probably to increase their early training in material culture so that

retrieving data from artefacts becomes as familiar as retrieving data from written sources.

As Kingery (1996: 1) succinctly indicated, “learning from things requires rather more

attention than reading texts and the grammar of things is related to, but more complex and

difficult to decipher than, the grammar of words”. While a considerable body of literature

has already been published, reference materials are scarce and material culture studies has

only marginally penetrated graduate and post-graduate training of historians of science.

This will come with time—historians are naturally interested in, and curious about, all

evidence of the past.

Less attention has been paid to the challenges museums of science face as a result of

the “material turn” in the history of science (Taub 2011: 690). One needs to keep in

mind that museums of science come in many sizes and shapes. There is no such thing

as the museum of science. The definition provided by the International Council of

Museums (ICOM), the largest worldwide UNESCO-affiliated association of museums

and museum professionals, comprises museums of the history of science, science and

technology national museums, industrial and engineering museums, eco-museums,

medicine and health museums, astronomical observatories, planetaria and science cen-

tres. Their typology is complex, fragmented and intricate. Missions, purposes, scopes

and audiences vary considerably. Many do not have collections. Literature about the

purpose, mission and history of museums of science abound, but a good place to start is

e.g. Butler (1992), Schiele and Koster (1998) and Lindqvist (2000). In this paper, and

unless clearly stated, the term ‘museums of science’ is meant to apply to museums with

historical collections.

Museums and historians of science are out of pace. After decades of complaining that

historians were not using museums as frequently as they used libraries and archives (e.g.

Lindsay 1962; Greenaway 1984; Corn 1996), when historians of science were approaching

objects, museums of science were moving away from objects. The 1980s and 1990s was

the time of the science centres’ boom and the public understanding of science movement,

along with a vogue of politically motivated ideas such as ‘scientific culture’ as constitu-

tional to an informed citizenship. This period was all about ‘the science’ and little about its

history; it had a major impact on how museums of science perceived, displayed and used

objects and collections. As Bennett (2005: 606) convincingly argued, historical objects do

1 Although difficult to identify precisely, the turning point seems to have been the special volume of Osiris,edited by Albert Van Helden and Thomas L. Hankins in 1994. Since then, texts resulting from collections-based research have been increasingly frequent in mainstream history of science journals, e.g. FocusSections of volumes 96 (2005) and 102 (2011) of Isis and special volumes 38 (2007) and 40 (2009) ofStudies in History and Philosophy of Science, edited respectively by Adam Mosley and Liba Taub, amongothers.

M. C. Lourenco, S. Gessner

123

not fit in “clear and de-contextualized presentation of ‘the science’”. They are too

ambiguous and too marked by their previous biographies.

Probably museums of science have always been about ‘the science’. They were not

created to pursue the history of science (Bennett 2005). If we consider museums where

research is intrinsic to—if not a synonym of—the very act of curating (e.g. natural history,

archaeology museums), we realise that their routine practices involve the regular exchange

of objects, the paramount role of documentation associated with objects, the importance

given to collecting data related to object context (strata, geography, habitat, climate), the

role of scholarly publications, essays and theses, and the frequent and intense object

requests for research purposes from other museums and external researchers. These

practices were at best occasional in most museums of science, let alone routine. Tradi-

tionally, museums of science have had a science communication agenda, often combined

with a national or regional identity agenda. As we will explain, their collection practices

reflect and materialise this agenda.

What role, if any, can museums of science play in the history of science? How can they

prepare to deliver in a field that has never been a major concern? How can they reconcile

traditional collection practices with historians’ needs? The material turn in the history of

science provides an excellent opportunity to include more history in museums of science.

More history of science does not necessarily mean less ‘science’—on the contrary, it

should mean more and better ‘science’, and for visitors, a greater understanding.

In this paper we discuss the challenges museums of science face as they prepare to

play a more significant role in researching and interpreting history to the public. The

paper compiles reflections and practical experience resulting from a collaborative pro-

gramme, established in 2007 at the University of Lisbon between the National Museum

of Natural History and Science and the CIUHCT.2 The programme aimed at bringing

historians and curators together to debate the consequences of the ‘material turn’ in both

fields. It has had major implications on how the Museum perceives, selects and docu-

ments their objects. It has also resulted in significant reorganisation of its collections and

archives in order to increase their role as primary sources for history.

We summarise the rationale behind these changes, arguing that documenting scientific

instruments, particularly their pre-museum biographies (Alberti 2005), is the cornerstone

of a more historical approach in museums of science. Given that documentation in

museums of science has traditionally been given low-priority, this represents a major

institutional and cultural challenge. It comprises changes in collecting practices and pro-

active research into the history of collections. Using one case—the collection of scientific

instruments from the former Portuguese royal family—we contribute with a multiple tool

methodological approach for documenting collections. This ‘toolkit’, as we may call it, has

been tested and can be used by museums and also by historians as a first approach to

collections and objects.

2 CIUHCT: Interuniversity Research Unit for the History of Science and Technology, University of Lisbon;both authors are research members. The National Museum of Natural History and Science was formelydesignated Museum of Science of the University of Lisbon. The bilateral partnership has not been developedin isolation from international networks. Partners that have contributed to the discussions include theMuseum of Astronomy (Rio de Janeiro), the Instituto de Historia de la Medicina y de la Ciencia ‘LópezPiñero’ (University of Valencia), the Jardin des Sciences (University of Strasbourg), the ScientificInstrument Commission and Universeum networks, the Reading Artefacts network (both the Ottawa andDartmouth branches), among others.

Cornerstones for More History of Science in Museums

123

2 Documenting Objects for the History of Science

In a museum, the term ‘documentation’ does not refer exclusively to archives or manu-

scripts—it is more process than content. There is an extensive literature about museum

documentation, often quite technical.3 For the purposes of this paper, let us consider that

museum documentation is concerned with the development and use of information about

objects in museum collections. Ultimately, museum documentation provides the ‘big

picture’ about objects’ lives before and in the museum. Collecting data about objects’ pre-

museum lives involves historical research and collecting data about objects’ lives within

the museum involves good collection management.4 For a variety of reasons, museums of

science have been most concerned with the latter, although it is the former that is of interest

to historians and thus our focus here.

A museum does not need to conduct in-depth research into the pre-museum biography

of every single object. This is usually impossible and beside the point. However, the

museum is responsible for actively procuring every possible source (material, documental,

bibliographic, oral, tangible and intangible) associated with objects’ pre-museum biogra-

phies. The museum is also responsible for the preservation of these sources and their

relations with objects, as well as making them available for future use. Compiling data

about objects’ past lives can be done in any given moment, but it is particularly crucial at

the moment of collecting, before the objects enter the museum. Doing it well requires an

understanding of the lives objects live.

The typical life of scientific instruments involves three stages. Stage I can be designated

‘regular use’. In a university, a research laboratory, a hospital or a school, instruments are

acquired or developed and used for a given purpose (teaching, research, innovation,

demonstration, entertainment, or a combination of purposes). Stage II begins when a given

instrument is considered obsolete and replaced by one that performs better, is more

accurate and precise. At Stage II, designated ‘the limbo’, several things may happen to an

instrument: for example, it can be further developed though design improvement or

technical innovation and go back to Stage I, with the same purpose; it can also return to

Stage I with a different purpose—e.g. downgraded from research to teaching; it can be

used as parts for other instruments; it can also be put aside in the laboratory or cabinet and

linger somewhere half-forgotten between life and death. The latter are the first to be

considered ready to join Stage III, designated ‘elimination’. At Stage III, scientific

instruments are considered useless and are physically removed from their location to an

attic or a basement, for example. Their ultimate destination is the trash—or a museum

collection. Although simplified here, this process is dynamic and complex. Instruments can

co-exist physically in different stages. Permanence at each stage varies considerably from

instrument to instrument. Instruments can have very short Stage II periods or even go

directly from Stage I to III. As seen earlier, they can relapse from Stage II, and even III, to

Stage I. The museum normally intervenes during Stages II or III. For the purposes of our

discussion, it is important to underline that scientific instruments carry a significant part of

their biographical contexts (bits, parts, manuscripts, manuals, marks of use, and so on)

through Stages II and III. In other words, they are loaded with raw data about their past.

3 See e.g. CIDOC (1995), McKenna and Patsatzi (2005).4 This involves keeping track and record of everything that happens to an object after it enters the museum(exhibitions, restorations, photography, publications, etc.). It has been considerably facilitated throughmodern databases but almost every museum has, at any given moment, a backlog in keeping up theserecords.


123

It was during our encounters with disorganised and chaotic collections of scientific

instruments in university storage rooms and attics—packed with complete instruments but

also bits and parts stuffed in their original boxes with documents, operation manuals,

students’ notebooks, used punch cards, tools and general laboratory debris—that we came

to understand more profoundly why historians often say they prefer archives untouched by

archivists.

Let us assume a museum has been created from the materials in this imaginary attic and

we return years later for a visit. We cannot avoid a strange feeling that something went

terribly wrong. Instruments are clean and restored. They have been purged from pests.

They are stored in acid-free metal cabinets and shelving. Temperature and relative

humidity are monitored. Instruments have been arranged in neatly organised categories

(microscopes under Optics, electrotherapy devices under Electricity, quadrants under

Astronomy). They have been catalogued and the database is even accessible online—at

first sight, all according to the finest museum standards.

However, the gap between before and after is striking. The bits and parts are missing.

The punch cards cannot be found either, presumably because the computer had been lost or

was too large to preserve. Students’ notebooks and laboratory manuscripts were ignored or

separated from the associated equipment. Operation manuals entered the university library.

In the collections database, information regarding provenance and contexts is minimal and

associated documentation is scarce. In other words, instruments have been purged from all

evidence of past lives and users—pre-museum raw data is gone.5

These practices have been standard inmanymuseums of science. They have a structural and

historical reason: they express the ‘sanitised’ view of objects consistent with a ‘science’

communication agenda. The galvanometer is collected with limited concern for pre-museum

raw data because its ‘value’ is not in (its) history but in the representativeness of its function

(Bennett1998,2005). It is itspurified,almostvestal, encapsulatedscientificconcept thatmatters

and will later be displayed in a temporary exhibition about energy transformation for example.

Regardless of museum agendas or traditions, these museum practices should be chal-

lenged for three reasons: (1) first, because they do not follow current museum

documentation standards; (2) secondly, because they limit the possibilities of object

interpretation and display; and (3) finally, because they considerably limit the possibilities

of object use for research, namely in the history of science. The only history un-docu-

mented galvanometers can contribute to is the history of galvanometers. Undocumented

collections close windows; documented collections open windows.

Documenting pre-museum biographies of scientific instruments means collecting as

much comprehensive raw data as possible from all three stages (I, II and III). The adequate

moment to do this is before objects enter the museum, when they are loaded with contexts

and meanings. The museum does not have to immediately interpret these contexts and

meanings but it is responsible for preserving their material and immaterial evidence for

future use by researchers and by the museum itself.

3 Improving Collection Documentation in Museums of Science: The ‘Lisbon Toolkit’

Let us assume, however, that we are in a museum of science with scarce pre-museum

object data. The collecting moment is long gone and nothing can be done about it. This is

5 Including material evidence, e.g. marks of use. For issues related with the conservation and restoration ofscientific instruments, see e.g. Giatti and Miniati (1998), Brenni (2010).


123

the most frequent situation for a multiplicity of reasons. The limited perception of objects,

mentioned earlier, is one reason. However, there may be other, more pragmatic, reasons.

For example, scientific instruments may have been collected in haste due to a preservation

emergency. They may have been retrieved literally from the trash. Moreover, instruments

acquired at auctions or antique shops have normally minimal information—so do early

scientific instruments. In short, often pre-museum data are simply scarce or non-existent.

Given time and resources, museums may increase the documentation of their collections

and objects, in other words research their history.

The National Museum of Natural History and Science at the University of Lisbon has

several undocumented collections. It holds c. 15,000 scientific instruments, mostly from

the nineteenth and twentieth centuries (Lourenco 2010; Lourenco and Eiro 2011). Created

in 1985, the Museum inherited the historical spaces, archives, books and scientific

equipment from the Faculty of Sciences of the University of Lisbon. There was no sig-

nificant dispersal and objects were kept in Stages II and III for many decades. Moreover,

long Stage I periods were observed as a considerable number of late nineteenth century

instruments were still in use in the 1980s. The nineteenth century Laboratorio Chimico andthe Astronomical Observatory were also at Stage I when the Museum was created. The

Faculty attics were packed with old equipment, books and documents—apparently dis-

posed chaotically, but in fact arranged in stratigraphic layers of use and disposal. It was

therefore possible to identify and preserve significant data associated with object history.

Although a discussion is beyond the scope of this article, this consistency and ‘thickness’ is

relatively common in undispersed university collections (Lourenco 2005; Brenni 2012) and

that is probably why some university museums and university departments with collections

are at the forefront of the ‘material turn’ in the history of science.6

In the 1990s, the Museum received a group of c. 40 scientific instruments with minimal

associated documentation. The provenance was a secondary school in Lisbon and,

according to oral sources, the instruments were formerly owned by the Portuguese royal

family.7 Given the importance of the instruments, the lack of security and poor conser-

vation conditions, the Museum accepted them on permanent loan. They have been kept on

stand-by to be documented.

Recently, financial and institutional conditions were met and research into the history of

the ‘royal collection’ was initiated. Meanwhile, more scientific instruments of ‘royal’

provenance were identified in Portuguese and Brazilian palaces and museums. Research is

still ongoing, involving c. 20 researchers from Portugal and Brazil. Its outcomes are not

relevant here,8 but its methodology is. The research has been evolving on two simultaneous

fronts—the collection level and the object level—and for each front a specific method has

been developed, based on material culture literature.

The research question is of relatively simple enunciation. Our universe of study is

composed of 120 scientific instruments with confirmed ‘royal’ provenance currently dis-

persed through 12 palaces and museums in Portugal and Brazil. The oldest are a 1573

6 For example, the Museum of the History of Science (University of Oxford), the collections of scientificinstruments at Harvard University and Dartmouth College, the Whipple Museum (University of Cam-bridge), the collection of scientific and medical instruments at the University of Valencia, the MedicalMuseion (University of Copenhagen), among others.7 According to one of the older teachers of the school. It should be noted that Portugal has no ‘royal’ familysince 1910, when the country became a republic.8 For more about the research project, designated ‘On the Instruments’ Trail: Exploring Royal Cabinets ofPhysics’, see Lourenco (2012). For preliminary outcomes see e.g. Gessner (2010), Lourenco and Felismino(2013), Tirapicos and Pereira (2012).


123

Leuven-made quadrant and a 1575 copper celestial globe by Christopher Schissler. The

most recent is an 1893 Edison phonograph. There are also telescopes, octants, vacuum

pumps, geometry games, globes, armillary spheres, microscopes, balances, slide rules and

didactic planetary devices, among many other objects.9 Given the 320-year time span, it is

unlikely that they all belonged to the same cabinet. Preliminary research suggested that the

instruments have been assembled for five distinct cabinets of physics, possibly organised

for the education of different generations of princes.

The project’s aim is to research the history of these instruments—how and why they

were acquired, used and dispersed—using them as main primary sources and therefore as

our main windows into the past. Outcomes from their material and documental study is

guiding exploratory research into the five cabinets, which are now lost. Results from the

study of instruments and cabinets will also bring new perspectives to the history of science

in Portugal and Brazil, addressing issues such as knowledge transfer and circulation,

scientific patronage, mutual relations between science, power and trade, and the devel-

opment of science and science education.

The role of material culture in the study of history is complex (e.g. Lubar and Kingery

1993; Kingery 1996; Caple 2006; dos Santos 2006; Granato et al. 2007). Approaches vary

from the impact of materiality and material objects in science (e.g. Daston 2004) to the role

of instruments in the development of research, teaching and scientific institutions (e.g. Bud

and Cozzens 1992), philosophical and epistemological aspects of scientific instruments (e.

g. Hacking 1983; Baird 2004) and re-enacting of historical experiments using historical

instruments or replicas (e.g. Sibum 1995; Heering 1994, 2007; Chang 2011; Hottecke

2000; Eggen et al. 2012).10 Disciplines that routinely use objects as sources for research (e.

g. archaeology, anthropology, ethnography, history of art and architecture, among others)

have developed material culture methodologies, such as artefact observation and analysis

(e.g. Kopytoff 1986; Stocking 1985; Buchli 2002; Hicks and Beaudry 2010). However,

reference literature on the material culture of science is still scarce.

In the study of the ‘royal’ cabinets, we have used Fleming (1974), Hacking (1983),

Lubar and Kingery (1993), Kingery (1996), Alberti (2005) and Soderqvist and Bencard

(2010) as main references for methodological development. A number of instrument

studies also had influence on methods (e.g. Nasser 2008; Taylor 2009; Bennett 2011;

Simon et al. 2009). Soderlund (2010) was used for the interpretation of relevant scientific

iconography, for example depictions of scientific instruments in paintings and sculptures in

royal palaces. Reflections made at successive Reading Artefacts Summer Institutes

(Canada Museum of Science and Technology) were also important (Wittje 2010; Anderson

et al. 2011). Pomian (1990), Pearce (1992) and the case-studies developed by Elvas et al.

(2009), Oliveira (2011) and Granato and Oliveira (2012) were used for the collection level

of the study.

9 Purely ornamental ‘instruments’ were considered out of scope.10 Although here we are interested in scientific instruments in their relation with historical research andtherefore exhibitions and public interpretation are outside the scope, it should be noted that re-enactinghistorical experiments with historical instruments or replicas has been used before by museums (e.g. Heeringand Muller 2002). Provided conservation requirements are met, it has considerable potential as it bringshistorical scientific instruments ‘to life’, facilitating understanding of their function and providing oppor-tunities for more meaningful educational programmes. It has also potential for science education and forscience teachers’ training (e.g. Heering 2000; Riess 2000; Hottecke et al. 2010). For a more visual intro-duction to the topic, see the videos produced by Paolo Brenni for the Fondazione Scienza e Tecnica inFlorence at http://www.fstfirenze.it/filmati/filmati.html. Accessed 15 November 2012.


123

http://www.fstfirenze.it/filmati/filmati.html

4 Approach to the Collection Level

The collections of this research have nomaterial existence. The surviving ‘royal’ instruments

are too dispersed, too broad chronologically and too diverse to be internally consistent as a

group and qualify as a ‘collection’. The five ‘lost’ cabinets are our collections, but today they

exist only on paper and their study poses several challenges. First, we are not dealing with

clearly defined entities. Cabinets are mentioned in the literature and manuscripts but their

boundaries in time and space are vague. They were created in different moments and in

different palaces. Their purpose and duration remain unknown. Gradually, as data from the

material study of the instruments and from the archival sources are compiled, the cabinets

themselves will in principle ‘materialise’ and acquire clearer boundaries.

Secondly, the establishment of credible relations between the surviving instruments and

the ‘lost’ cabinets is a highly complex task. In practice, it means allocating 120 instruments

covering a 320-years time span to at least five different cabinets. This is equivalent to

reconstructing as thoroughly as possible five sunken ships using as sources the mess of

debris remaining floating at the surface of the ocean with no direct access to the wrecks

below. Moreover, some instruments are likely to have belonged to more than one cabinet.

Some may have had lives outside the cabinets (e.g. individual gifts to monarchs, acquired

as antiques, spoliations, etc.). In general, a clear and univocal relation between one

instrument and one document—for example a given vacuum pump and a given invoice or

an inventory—is difficult, if not impossible, to obtain in most cases.

For these reasons we kept the methodology as simple and practical as possible. Sources

continuously oscillated between material (instruments) and archival (documents and ico-

nography). Research on the history of the cabinets progressed on three simultaneous fronts.

First, we assigned the surviving instruments to each of the five royal cabinets, based on

date. For example, if a cabinet was created in the 1780s, instruments manufactured around

that date were assigned to it. This was a working hypothesis, plausible within certain

limits,11 and aimed at providing a preliminary relation between the two levels (cabinets and

instruments). Instruments could always be added or removed as research progressed, which

in fact happened.

Secondly, we identified our research questions about the cabinets—the basic ‘where,

why, what and how’—that were later translated into five parameters: (1) physical details of

the cabinet (e.g. location, number of rooms, furniture, inside a library, etc.); (2) purpose

and aim (e.g. teaching, study, entertainment, etc.); (3) cabinet use and development

(instruments entering and leaving, major acquisitions, gifts, inheritances, etc.); (4)

instruments involved; and v) people and institutions involved (princes, tutors, schools,

etc.). Although at least in theory they can be characterised at any given moment depending

on the availability of sources, these parameters vary through time for each cabinet.

Third, external events likely to have had impact on the cabinets were also considered—

for example the 1755 Lisbon earthquake that practically destroyed the Palace of Ribeira,

where one of the cabinets was located, or the transfer of the royal family from Lisbon to

Rio in 1807 due to Napoleon’s invasion of Portugal. Typically, these events have a short

11 In principle, scientific instruments are acquired to be used (Stage I), so it is unlikely that a seventeenthcentury instrument would be acquired in the nineteenth century, unless it was considered an antique.Moreover, as mentioned earlier, scientific instruments may have long periods of use (longer Stages I and II)due to a multiplicity of reasons (institutional policies, lack of resources, downgrade from research toteaching use, cannibalisation, etc.). Although plausible, assignment of instruments to collections basedmerely on date has exceptions and therefore requires thorough examination of both material and documentalsources.


123

duration and can be pinpointed—they were designated ‘critical points’. Being dynamic

entities subject to multiple external factors, all collections have critical points. Their

identification is paramount to our understanding of the history of a collection.12 Moreover,

critical points provide time frames to guide archival research, which is crucial when

collections have long periods of existence.

In practice, variable parameters and critical points (Table 1) are being compiled in five

large tables—one per cabinet—and simultaneously projected into a diachronic diagram

designated ‘cabinet genealogy’ (Fig. 1).

In short, our three-step history of collections’ programme includes: (1) identification of

the collection today; (2) establishment of parameters that can characterize the collection at

any given moment in the past; (3) identification of critical points. Variable parameters and

critical points are mutually dependent and do not need to be exhaustive. Their combination

has proven simple to use and valuable to explore and organise data from multiple material,

documental, iconographic and bibliographic sources. They also facilitate the integration of

data collected at object level for subsequent calibration and historical interpretation. As

any other categorisation system, they simplify data analysis but they also require constant

evaluation and critical interpretation. Further applications to other types of collections will

enable methodological improvements.

Table 1 Parameters and critical points applied to the study of the cabinets

Variable parameters Critical points

Physical detailsPurposeUse and DevelopmentInstrumentsPeople and Institutions

CreationSingular events (relocations due to institutional, political andsocial change; death of owners; wars, revolutions; naturaldisasters such as fires, earthquakes, etc.)

Dismantlement

Fig. 1 Diagram from the early stages of the research, representing the genealogy of the five royal cabinetsstill combined, with critical points (dots). As research progressed, this diagram was converted into fiveindependent genealogies, one for each cabinet

12 In the case of the royal cabinets of physics, critical points were easily identified as they coincided, to aconsiderable extent, with major political and social change in Portugal. If a university cabinet of physics isbeing studied, critical points may be more difficult to identify and, apart from broader social and politicalchange, institutional history needs to be closely examined (creation of a discipline, a new professor, newscientific policies, transfers to new laboratories, etc.). In our research, factors such as scientific developmentand technological innovation were not considered ‘critical points’ as their impact can be directly charac-terised through one of the ‘variable parameters’ (Use and Development).


123

5 Approach to the Object Level

One of the authors (Gessner) developed a model for the study of artefacts that has been

successfully applied to the royal scientific instruments, particularly the early ones from the

sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. The approach is based on the well-known ‘Winterthur

model’ proposed by Fleming (1974). It combines material, bibliographic, written and

iconographic sources and organises data according to two dimensions—time (chronolog-

ical dichotomy) and similarity (classification dichotomy). It can be used as an exploration

tool for documenting historical scientific instruments in museums, as well as a point of

departure for material culture studies in the history of science. In this section, we explain

the core of the method and we briefly demonstrate its application to one of the royal

instruments, Oughtred’s ‘circles of proportion’.

Fleming’s (1974) aim was to propose a model to guide artefact study in museums. One of

its virtues consists in making this task purposeful and conscious by introducing clear dis-

tinctions between the properties of artefacts and our ways of looking at them. Fleming

designated the latter ‘operations’ and distinguished between: (1) examination of the artefact

(from naked eye observation to micro-analysis); (2) comparison of the artefact with similar

ones (judgement based on connoisseurship); (3) cultural analysis (establishing links between

the artefact and its original culture); and (4) interpretation (establishing links between the

artefact and present-day audiences’ cultures).AlthoughFleming’s proposal is 40 years old, its

widespread use across multiple disciplines and the many discussions and adaptations it has

suffered (e.g. Granato et al. 2007; Anderson et al. 2011) are a clear measure of its success.

The model proposed by Gessner, like Fleming’s, aims at disentangling questions about

objects that are complex and require distinct methods to be answered. It also seeks to

address the relations with scientific theories implicit or explicit in scientific instruments. It

Fig. 2 The model and its dichotomies: singular/generic and synchronic/diachronic. Applied simultaneously,the dichotomies organise the universe of questions into four quadrants that facilitate instrument study. Fromtop left, clockwise: Quadrants I, II, III, IV


123

is based on the premise that two distinctions need to be made during the study: first, a

distinction between the individual instrument (e.g. a given galvanometer) and the class of

instruments that share the same designation (the class of galvanometers), in other words a

distinction between their singular and their (arche)typical aspects; and second, a distinction

between synchronic aspects (resulting from direct inspection of extant instruments) and

diachronic aspects (relating to history). Gessner calls the former classifying dichotomy andthe latter temporal dichotomy. They divide the universe of questions into four quadrants

(Fig. 2). All questions formulated during object study are mutually dependent and equally

important to our understanding, but they are different in nature, thus depending on different

types of sources and requiring different methods to be answered.

The four quadrants combined provide a research programme consisting of four parallel

and interdependent tasks: (1) the material individual instrument under study; (2) its

biography; (3) the group of surviving similar instruments and their scientific function;

(4) local and global narratives in the history of science where such instruments played a

role. Questions, methods and sources are summarised in Table 2.

This model has been used to document the ‘royal’ instruments and, more broadly, to

document instruments from the Museum collection. A brief application follows, merely to

illustrate typical questions, answers and sources in each of the four quadrants. A small

brass ‘royal’ instrument, initially designated in the Museum catalogue as ‘circular astro-

labe’, was chosen (Fig. 3).

5.1 The Material Singular Instrument (Quadrant I)

The instrument was thoroughly examined as prescribed in the first quadrant. The instru-

ment’s designation was confusing as it is not similar to the typical astrolabe. It consists of a

thin polished brass plate, circular with the exception of an ornamental element for sus-

pension. Both faces have rotating parts: one consists of a pair of indices joined by a

friction-tight hinge (with fiducial lines passing through the centre and marked with letters

M, H, S, T, T, E, N, T, T, S) and the other an alidade (marked with an altitude scale),

equipped with sighting vanes. The diameter of the plate is 205 mm and its thickness c.

1.8 mm. Material analysis by X-ray fluorescence yielded a copper zinc alloy and traces of

gold at the tips of the indices. The various circular scales on both faces are graduated,

numbered and labelled in English. On one face there are eleven nonlinear scales with the

exception of the fifth, ninth and tenth scales, which are equally divided. These are num-

bered as follows: (1) [S: Sine] 6–90; (2) [T: Tangent] 6–45; (3) [T:] 45 to 84; (4) [N:]

1–[10] (artificial numbers, logarithms); (5) [E: Equal parts] 1–10; (6) [T:] 84–89; (7) [T:]

1–6; (8) [S:] 1–6; (9) [H: Hour] 1–12, 1–12; (10) [M: Month] Ianuarie, Februarie, March,

Aprill, May, Iune, Iuly, August, September, October, Nouember, December; and (11)

abbreviations of twelve stars around the circle (Table 3).

The reverse of the instrument comprises a stereometric projection of the heavenly

circles on the horizon plane for the latitude of 54°30´ North, surrounded by a degree scale

of four times 90º on the limb, which will not be described in detail here.

5.2 The Group of Surviving Similar Instruments and Their Scientific Function

(Quadrant II)

Comparison with similar extant instruments belongs to the second quadrant and requires

considerable connoisseurship. A total of six similar brass instruments were found and


123

examined (Oxford, Cambridge, Edinburgh (2), Harvard, Lisbon).13 All differ in minor

aspects. They are usually designated ‘Circular Slide Rule and Horizontal Instrument’

(Oxford) or ‘Circular slide rule with Oughtred-type sundial’ (Harvard). All six instruments

display similar engraving styles. The ones from Cambridge, Oxford and Edinburgh are

signed Elias Allen (ca. 1588–1653), London. The attribution of the Lisbon instrument to

Table 2 Organisation of questions, methods and sources according to the model

Questions Methods Sources

Temporaldichotomy

Synchronicview

Questions about thecurrent materialconstitution andcondition of theinstruments

Questions about ourpresent-dayexperience of them

Examination by all senses(visual, tactilemanipulation: i.e. re-enacting the historicalexperiments, olfactory,CT-scan etc.).Disassembling,measuring (size, weight,focal length etc.).Comparing. Micro-observation, e.g. withmagnifying lens.Material analysis, e.g.X-ray fluorescence

The singular instrumentand associated existinginstruments. Present-day state of the artliterature about physicalreality, biologicalphenomena,mathematical properties

Diachronicview

Questions about theinstruments’ past,from their pre-historyto yesterday

Historiographicalmethods, particularlyreconstitution of paststages (I, II and III).Historical experiments

Historical sourcesThe instruments, archivalmaterial and literaturedocumenting theinstruments pre- andpost-museum lives.Historical accounts ofthe object, descriptions,explanations,interpretations given bypast actors

Classifyingdichotomy

Singularaspects

Questions aboutaspects that arespecific to andsingular in the oneinstrument underscrutiny

Connoisseurship.Microstoria. Localhistory of science

The one instrument understudy and all documentslinked to its trajectoryand provenance

Genericaspects

Questions aboutaspects the giveninstrument shareswith equivalent orsimilar instruments(e.g. contemporaryones of the sametype, or otherinstruments by thesame maker)

Theoretical explanationsof scientific, historical,cultural phenomena.Re-enacting thehistorical experimentswith replicainstruments. Statisticalmethods. History ofscience: evaluation ofthe cognitive andcultural role of this typeof scientific instruments

The universe of allassociated instruments(same type, samemaker, same geographicorigin, same timeperiod), extant in worldcollections. Alldocuments related tothis type of instrument(treatises, manuals,trade catalogues etc.)

13 At the Museum of the History of Science of the University of Oxford, the National Museums of Scotland,Harvard’s Collection of Historical Scientific Instruments and the National Museum of Natural History andScience, University of Lisbon, respectively.


123

Allen by G. L’E. Turner was probably based on Allen’s style of engraving. Turner also

dated the instrument’s manufacture in the 1630s.14

Each of the six objects combines a logarithmic instrument with a nocturnal and, on the

reverse, a horizontal dial. They share most of the scales. They represent an early form of

logarithmic slide rule that bends the logarithmic scales of numbers, sine and tangent into

circular shape. This allows for stretching the scales to a greater length without over-sizing

the instrument. The nocturnal and the horizontal dial served time telling by day or night,

and the solution of numerous questions related to dialling. The circles of proportion could

Fig. 3 The item Inv. No. UL501, National Museum of Natural History and Science, University of Lisbon(photo J. N. Lamas, NMNHS Archives)

Table 3 Transcriptions of the star labels on the innermost circular scale of the instrument

Inscription Corresponding date on month scale Star/constellation name

spi ♍ 13th September Spica Virginis

La[n]x B 14th August Lanx borealisa

cap oph 9th July Caput Ophiuchi

vultur 6th (or 7th) June Aquila

os peg 10th May Os Pegasi

ext ala 31st March/lst April Extremitas alae [Pegasi]

Luc ♈ 1st March Lucentior Arietis

ocu ♉ 21st January Oculus Tauris

seg or 2nd January Humerus dexterb Orionis

can mi 9th December Canis Minor

cor ♌ 5th November Cor Leonis

ca[u]a ♌ 10th October Cauda Leonis

a On the instrument “n” instead of “u”b Deduced from English star name in Oughtred (1632:108)

14 Scientific Instrument Society visit to the Museum, Lisbon, 1999.


123

serve simultaneously as table of decimal logarithms, logarithms of sine and logarithms of

tangent, as a computing instrument for multiplication, division, root extraction and powers,

when both indices on the friction tight hinge come into play.

5.3 Biography (Quadrant IV)

Quadrants III and IV are directly related to history. Quadrant IV comprises pre-museum

and post-museum biographical data about the instrument UL501.

The instrument has a shiny brass surface. It was cleaned and restored after it was

incorporated in the Museum in 1992. The conservation diagnosis is documented, as are the

material (copper-zinc alloy) and techniques used in the restoration. This recent bio-

graphical event contributes to our knowledge of the instrument today.

Little biographical information exists from before its entrance in the Museum. After the

revolution that abolished monarchy in Portugal in 1910, a complete inventory of the royal

palaces wasmade and by then this instrument was at the Palace of Ajuda, Lisbon, inside a box

with other brass instruments.15 Later, the Palacewas transformed into amuseum, but there are

no records indicating that the instrument had ever been displayed. In 1957, the Palace curator,

Manuel Zagallo, transferred the instrument to a secondary school in Lisbon.16 It stayed in the

school until 1992. The life of the instrument in the school is undocumented.

Its early biography is even more obscure and requires further research. Currently, we

assume that it was produced at Elias Allen’s workshop in London, “over against St.

Clement’s Church in the Strand” (Higton 2006). As the instrument’s horizontal dial was

designed for a latitude of 54°30´N and latitude tables from Elias Allen astronomical

compendia indicate that this corresponded to Newcastle-upon-Tyne, in Northern England,

one may assume that its first owner was from there. Circumstances of the instrument’s

incorporation in the royal cabinets are unknown at this point.

5.4 Local and Global Narratives in the History of Science (Quadrant III)

This type of instrument was developed in the early days of logarithms in the seventeenth

century.17 The first printed publication about the instrument appeared in London in 1631

by Richard Delamain.18 He coined its designation ‘mathematical ring’ or ‘grammelogia’.

Today, its invention is attributed to the mathematician William Oughtred (1575–1660). In

1632, in rather controversial circumstances, Oughtred’s student William Forster (fl. 1632)published a translation of Oughtred’s notes about the same type of instrument and accused

Delamain of plagiarism.19 Forster’s publication baptizes the instrument as ‘circles of

15 Arrolamento Judicial do PaÓo da Ajuda (1912), vol. 10, L’’’ Capella, f. 3506rº, No. 50, item 2, NationalPalace of Ajuda Historical Archives.16 Together with other scientific instruments from the Palace. “Ofıcios e pedidos, 1956–1957”, Folder 69,National Palace of Ajuda Historical Archives.17 See e.g. Cajori (1909, 1916); Bryden (1976, 1978); Turner (1981); Higton (1996).18 Gramelogia or the mathematical ring. Shewing (any reasonable capacity that hath not Arithmeticke) howto resolve and worke all ordinary operations of Arithmeticke. And those which are most difficult with greatefacilitie: the extraction of roots, the valuation of leases, &c. the measuring of plaines and solids. With theresolution of plaine and sphericall triangles. And that onely by an ocular inspection, and a circular motion.London, John Haviland [1631].19 The Circles of Proportion and the Horizontall Instrument both Invented, and the Uses of Both Written inLatine by that learned mathematician Mr W[illiam] O[ughtred] but translated into English, and set forth forthe publique benefit by William Forster, louer and practizer of the mathematicall sciences, London, Aug


123

proportion’, subsequently considered the legitimate designation. It included an engraving

by Elias Allen showing both sides of the instrument with all scales, labels and also the star

and constellation names (Table 2). Extant instruments, including the one in Lisbon,

resemble closely that engraving. The controversy Oughtred/Delamain was partly about the

role of instruments in teaching mathematics. Oughtred defended that theory should be

taught before the student is introduced to the instrument insinuating that Delamain’s

readers or students were merely becoming doers of tricks (Hill 1998).

Early descriptions, discussions about operation principles, invention and manufacture

contexts are part of the diachronic analysis. Information, obviously, is not limited to the

Lisbon instrument; it is of generic nature concerning the whole class of lost and extant

instruments.

The Lisbon instrument is part of this broader history but it also encapsulates local

history. It would be particularly important to understand the circumstances of its arrival in

Lisbon, presumably from Newcastle upon Tyne. Seventeenth century manuscripts by

Ignacio Stafford (1599–1642), an English Jesuit and talented mathematics teacher, active

in Lisbon at the College of Santo Antao, indicate that he was familiar with the ‘circles of

proportion’, having owned such an instrument before 1638.20 This is currently being

examined. Clarifying the open questions of all four quadrants of the model will contribute

to our understanding of the history of logarithms and mathematics, particularly in Lisbon

and Portuguese former colonies.

In short, the model proposed by Gessner provides a practical exploratory map to guide

gathering and interpreting of data combining multiple sources. It is not an end in itself but

rather a tool in constant reformulation. At any given moment, it shows the interdepen-

dency of multiple questions about objects and also the main research gaps. In the context

of the royal instruments’ project, it has been useful in instrument research and their

allocation to the five royal cabinets through data gathered from the collection level

described above. In the Museum, it has been consistently used to establish relations in the

collections database with associated documentation and bibliography. In broader terms, it

can be a convenient museum tool to document objects’ biographies in its multiple local

and global dimensions.

6 Conclusion

Lessons learnt from recent discussions at the University of Lisbon about the role of

scientific instruments in the history of science are plentiful. First, museum professionals

and historians should work together. It is not enough for museums to passively open their

storages and make their collections and archives accessible to historians. The best results

come from active and engaging partnerships.

Secondly, we also learned that reference literature and methodological tools for this

collaborative work were scarce. The current history of science canon and the museum

canon are too limited per se for planning a history of science research programme using

Footnote 19 continued[ust] Mathewes, printed for Elias Allen, maker of these and all other Mathematical Instruments and are to besold at his shop ouer against St Clements church without Temple-barr, 1632.20 De la Arithmetica practica geometrica logarithmica, in: Varias obras mathematicas compuestas por el.P. Ignacio Stafford, mestre de mathematica en el Colegio de S. Anton de la Compañia de Iesus, y no acavadaspor cauza de la muerte del dicho Padre, Lisbon, 1638. National Library of Portugal, Lisbon, Ms. Res PBA240.


123

collections as primary sources. Basically, three levels of issues have required innovative

methodological approaches. First, at instrument level, there were issues related to the

diversity of materials, aesthetic and functional features, evidence of manufacture and

craftsmanship, provenance, changing ownership, symbolic significance and actual usage.

Second, at cabinet level, there were issues related to collection scope, purpose and

boundaries, incorporation and dispersal, physical location and the definition of collection

itself. Finally, there was the issue of validating and integrating data from multiple archival,

material, iconographic and bibliographical sources. These issues had to be addressed

before any broader historical narrative could even be considered.

A ‘toolkit’ comprising multiple tools to be applied simultaneously at collection and

individual object levels was developed for this purpose. At collection level, the toolkit

comprises the identification of parameters that characterise a collection at a given point

(purpose, use and development, people and institutions, objects, physical location) and the

association of critical points in the collection biography, including creation and disman-

tling. At object level, an exploratory model was developed to organise and analyse data

according to the dimensions of time (chronological dichotomy) and similarity (classifi-

cation dichotomy). The toolkit can be used as a conceptual framework in collections-based

history of science and in museum documentation. It has been successfully used both ways

in Lisbon, with minor adaptations.

A third lesson is that a lot remains to be done and discussed before the history of science

can play a more relevant role in museums of science. More reference literature is needed.

Concepts such as the material culture of science, collections-based history of science,

instrument-oriented research and instrument studies, among others, require clarification.

Often, the terms are used as synonyms. This is normal in emerging fields of study and may

consolidate as more research is published. More training is also needed, both in terms of

material culture for historians and history and historiography for museum professionals.

Finally, although the discussion is outside the scope of this article, we have also learned

that the methodological approach described here could have broader implications for

science education, museology and exhibition development.

The history of science is not intrinsic to museums of science. As Bennett (2005: 606)

succinctly writes, “history of science has no divine right to rule just because the objects in

the museum are old”. Historical collections in museums of science can contribute to

historical studies but this requires that documentation and research be given a more central

role in the museum. The timing is right as the material turn in the history of science

provides extraordinary opportunities for active collaborations between historians and

museums. However, placing research and documentation at the heart of museums of

science is a major challenge for three main reasons. First, it challenges what museums of

science are and what they do, at least since the creation of the Conservatoire des Arts etMétiers in Paris in 1794. Secondly, for the past decades research has generally had a

decreasing role in the museum sector. Finally, it will require specialised staff and

resources. At a time when survival is the main issue for many museums across Europe, this

challenge even risks being perceived as frivolous.

At the same time, many museums of science are recognising the potential wide-range

and long-term impact of more history. Gradually, but with immediate results thanks to

modern databases and documentation systems, collections become ‘thicker’ and better

documented and new windows for history can be opened in exhibitions and educational

programmes. At a time when many museums are going through an identity crisis, focusing

on difference is crucial. The intricate stories and the historical and local contingency of

scientific practice behind their collections are precisely what make each museum different.


123

Knowing their collections makes museums stronger, especially in times of crisis.21

Knowing their collections makes the difference between museums with beautiful objects

and museums with beautiful objects with historical depth and significance.

Acknowledgments In Lisbon, we were inspired by Jim Bennett’s texts about history and museums ofscience, particularly a paper he gave at the Gulbenkian Foundation, January 2006. Research described in thisarticle is being conducted thanks to a grant from the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology(PTDC/HIS-HCT/098970/2008). We are also grateful to the following institutions for access to collectionsand archives: in Portugal, the Palaces of Ajuda (Lisbon), Sintra, Mafra, Queluz, Pena and Vila Vicosa, aswell as the University of Coimbra (Astronomical Observatory and the Science Museum), the GeographicalSociety and the Academy of Sciences of Lisbon; in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, the National Historic Museum,the National Museum, the Museum of Astronomy, the Museum of the Polytechnic School and the CollegePedro II.

References

Alberti, S. J. M. M. (2005). Objects and the museum. Isis, 96, 559–571.Anderson, K., Frappier, M., Neswald, E., & Trim, H. (2011). Reading instruments: Objects, texts and

museums. Science & Education. doi:10.1007/s11191-011-9391-y.Baird, D. (2004). Thing knowledge. A philosophy of scientific instruments. Berkeley: University of Cali-

fornia Press.Bennett, J. (1998). Can science museums take history seriously? In S. Macdonald (Ed.), The politics of

display. Museums, science, culture (pp. 173–182). London: Routledge.Bennett, J. (2005). Museums and the history of science. Practitioner’s postscript. Isis, 96, 602–608.Bennett, J. (2011). Early modern mathematical instruments. Isis, 102, 697–705.Brenni, P. (2010). Consideracoes sobre o restauro de instrumentos cientıficos. Museologia pt, 4, 198–206.Brenni, P. (2012). The cumbersome heritage: Is there a future for university collections? A few informal

suggestions. In S. Talas & M. C. Lourenco (Eds.), Arranging and rearranging: Planning universityheritage for the future (pp. 15–21). Padua: University of Padua Press.

Bryden, D. J. (1976). Scotland’s earliest surviving calculating device: Richard Davenport’s circles ofproportion of c. 1650. Scottish Historical Review, 55–1(159), 54–60.

Bryden, D. J. (1978). ‘A patchery and confusion of disjointed stuffe’: Richard Delamain’s Grammelogia of1631/3. Transactions of the Cambridge Bibliographical Society, 6, 158–166.

Buchli, V. (Ed.). (2002). The material culture reader. Oxford: Berg.Bud, R., & Cozzens, S. E. (Eds.). (1992). Invisible connections. Instruments, institutions and science.

Bellingham: The International Society for Optical Engineering.Butler, S. (1992). Science and technology museums. Leicester and London: Leicester University Press.Cajori, F. (1909). History of the logarithmic slide rule and allied instruments. New York: Engineering news

Pub. Co.Cajori, F. (1916). William Oughtred, a great seventeenth-century teacher of mathematics. Chicago and

London: Open Court publishing.Caple, C. (2006). Objects: Reluctant witnesses to the past. London: Routledge.Chang, H. (2011). How historical experiments can improve scientific knowledge and science education: The

cases of boiling water and electrochemistry. Science & Education, 20, 317–341.CIDOC. (1995). International guidelines for museum object information: The CIDOC information cate-

gories. Paris: International Council of Museums, International Committee for Documentation(CIDOC).

Corn, J. J. (1996). Object lessons/object myths? What historians of technology learn from things. In W. D.Kingery (Ed.), Learning from things. Method and theory of material culture studies (pp. 35–54).Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Daston, L. (Ed.). (2004). Things that talk. Object lessons from art and science. NY: Zone Books.dos Santos, M. S. (2006). A escrita do passado em museus históricos. Rio de Janeiro: Garamond.

21 While research for this paper was being conducted, the Museum of Science went through an institutionalcrisis that threatened its very existence. Knowledge about its scientific collections and heritage played animportant role in overcoming this crisis, as did partnerships and networks.


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11191-011-9391-y

Eggen, P.-O., Kvittingen, L., Lykknes, A., & Wittje, R. (2012). Reconstructing iconic experiments inelectrochemistry: Experiences from a history of science course. Science & Education, 21, 179–189.

Elvas, M. C., Peres, I. M., & Gessner, S. (2009). The Laboratorio Chimico of the Museum of Science,University of Lisbon: Reflections on documenting a collection. In M. C. Lourenco & A. Carneiro(Eds.), Spaces and collections in the history of science. The Laboratorio Chimico ouverture (pp. 185–194). Lisbon: Museum of Science of the University of Lisbon.

Fleming, E. M. (1974). Artifact study: A proposed model. Winterthur Portfolio, 9, 153–173.Gessner, S. (2010). The Vopelius-Schissler connection: Transmission of knowledge for the design of

celestial globes in the 16th century. SIS Bulletin, 104, 32–42.Giatti, A., & Miniati, M. (Eds.). (1998). Il restauro degli strumenti scientifici. Firenze: Alinea.Granato, M., & Oliveira, M. A. C. (2012). The historical instruments from Valongo Observatory, Federal

University of Rio de Janeiro. UMACJ, 5, 53–64.Granato, M., Penha dos Santos, C., Lacerda Furtado, J., & Gomes, L. P. (2007). Objetos de Ciencia e

Tecnologia como fontes documentais para a Historia das Ciencias: Resultados parciais. Unpublishedpaper delivered at the VIII ENANCIB (Encontro Nacional de Pesquisa em Ciencia da Informacao),Salvador, Bahia, Brazil, 28–October 31, 2007.

Greenaway, F. (1984). Research: Science collections. In J. M. A. Thompson (Ed.), The manual of cura-torship (pp. 142–146). London: Butterworths/The Museums Association.

Hacking, I. (1983). Representing and intervening: Introductory topics in the philosophy of natural science.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Heering, P. (1994). The replication of the torsion balance experiment: The inverse square law and itsrefutation by early 19th century German physicists. In C. Blondel & M. Dorries (Eds.), RestagingCoulomb: Usages, controverses et réplications autour de la balance de torsion (pp. 47–66). Firenze:Leo S. Olschki.

Heering, P. (2000). Getting shocks: Teaching secondary school physics through history. Science & Edu-cation, 9, 363–373.

Heering, P. (2007). Public experiments and their analysis with the replication method. Science & Education,16, 637–645.

Heering, P., & Muller, F. (2002). Cultures of experimental practice: An approach in a museum. Science &Education, 11, 203–214.

Hicks, D., & Beaudry, M. C. (2010). The oxford handbook of material culture studies. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Higton, H. K. (1996). Elias Allen and the role of instruments in shaping the mathematical culture ofseventeenth-century England. Unpublished PhD thesis. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.

Higton, H. K. (2006). The legacy of Elias Allen. In L. Taub & F. Willmoth (Eds.), The Whipple Museum ofthe history of science. Instruments and interpretations (pp. 195–210). Cambridge: University Press.

Hill, K. (1998). ‘Juglers or Schollers?’: Negotiating the role of a mathematical practitioner. British Journalfor the History of Science, 31, 253–274.

Hottecke, D. (2000). How and what can we learn from replicating historical experiments? A case study.Science & Education, 9, 343–362.

Hottecke, D., Henke, A., & Riess, F. (2010). Implementing history and philosophy in science teaching—Strategies, methods, results and experiences from the European project HIPST. Science & Education.doi:10.1007/s11191-010-9330-3.

Kingery, W. D. (Ed.). (1996). Learning from things. Method and theory of material culture studies.Washington DC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

Kopytoff, I. (1986). The cultural biography of things. In A. Appadurai (Ed.), The social life of things:Commodities in cultural perspective (pp. 64–91). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lindqvist, S. (Ed.). (2000). Museums of modern science. Canton, MA: Science History Publications.Lindsay, G. C. (1962). Museums and research in history and technology. Curator, 5, 236–244.Lourenco, M. C. (2002) Working with words or with objects? The contribution of university museums.

Unpublished paper at “Do collections matter to instrument studies?”, British Society for the History ofScience/Scientific Instrument Commission of the IUHPS/DHS, 29–30 June 2002, Museum of theHistory of Science, Oxford.

Lourenco, M. C. (2005). Between two worlds: The distinct nature and contemporary significance of uni-versity museums and collections in Europe. PhD thesis, Conservatoire National des Arts et Metiers,http://webpages.fc.ul.pt/~mclourenco/. Accessed May 7, 2012.

Lourenco, M. C. (2010). Museu de Ciencia da Universidade de Lisboa: Patrimonio, colecoes e pesquisa. InM. Granato & M. C. Lourenco (Eds.), Coleções científicas de instituições luso-brasileiras: Patrimônioa ser descoberto (pp. 257–276). Rio de Janeiro: MAST/MCT.


123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11191-010-9330-3

http://webpages.fc.ul.pt/~mclourenco/

Lourenco, M. C. (2012). Royal cabinets of physics in Portugal and Brazil: An exploratory study. OpusculaMusealia, 19, 71–88.

Lourenco, M. C., & Eiro, A. M. (2011). O Museu de Ciencia. In M. C. Lourenco & M. J. Neto (Eds.),O Património da Universidade de Lisboa: Ciência e Arte (pp. 37–56). Lisboa: Universidade de Lisboa/Tinta da China.

Lourenco, M. C., & Felismino, D. (2013). Between teaching and collecting: The lost cabinet of physics ofPrinces Jose and Joao of Portugal (1777–1794). In J. Bennett & S. Talas (Eds.), Making science public(provisional title). Leiden: Brill.

Lubar, S., & Kingery, W. D. (Eds.). (1993). History from things. Essays on material culture. WashingtonDC: Smithsonian Institution Press.

McKenna, G., & Patsatzi, E. (2005). Spectrum: The UK museum documentation standard. Cambridge:MDA.

Nasser, L. (2008). Strange monkey tricks: Controlled reading and its machines in 1930s and 40s America.Rittenhouse, 22(1), 2–24.

Oliveira, M. A. C. (2011). A trajetória da formação da coleção de objetos de C&T do Observatório doValongo. Unpublished master thesis in Museology and Heritage, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro(Unirio).

Pearce, S. M. (1992). Museums, objects, and collections: A cultural study. Leicester: Leicester UniversityPress.

Pomian, K. (1990). Collectors and curiosities: Paris and Venice, 1500–1800. Cambridge: Polity.Riess, F. (2000). History of physics in science teacher training in Oldenburg. Science & Education, 9,

399–402.Schiele, B., & Koster, E. H. (Eds.). (1998). La révolution de la muséologie des sciences. Lyon: Presses

Universitaires de Lyon.Sibum, O. H. (1995). Reworking the mechanical value of heat: Instruments of precision and gestures of

accuracy in early Victorian England. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 26(1), 73–106.Simon, J., Bertomeu-Sanchez, J. R., & Belmar, A. G. (2009). Nineteenth century scientific instruments in

Spanish secondary schools. In M. C. Lourenco & A. Carneiro (Eds.), Spaces and collections in thehistory of science. The Laboratorio Chimico ouverture (pp. 167–184). Lisbon: Museum of Science ofthe University of Lisbon.

Soderlund, I. E. (2010). Taking possession of astronomy. Frontispieces and illustrated title pages in 17thcentury books on astronomy. Stockholm: Center for History of Science, Royal Swedish Academy ofSciences.

Soderqvist, T., & Bencard, A. (2010). Do things talk? In S. Lehmann-Brauns, C. Sichau & H. Trischler(Eds.), The exhibition as product and generator of scholarship (pp. 93-102). [MPIWG Preprint,n. 399].

Stocking, G. W., Jr. (Ed.) (1985). Objects and others. Essays on museums and material culture. History ofanthropology, 3 (special issue). University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.

Taub, L. (2011). Reengaging with instruments. Isis, 102, 689–696.Taylor, K. (2009). Mogg’s celestial sphere (1813): The construction of polite astronomy. Studies in History

and Philosophy of Science, 40(4), 360–371.Tirapicos, L., & Pereira, G. (2012). A rare telescope objective lens by Antonio Degola. SIS Bulletin, 112, 40.Turner, A. J. (1981). William Oughtred, Richard Delamain and the horizontal instrument in seventeenth

century England. Annali dell’Istituto e Museo di Storia della Scienza, 6(2), 99–125.Wittje, R. (2010). Reading Artifacts: Historische Sammlungen und innovative Konzepte in der Lehre. In C.

Weber & K. Mauersberger (Eds.), Universitätsmuseen und -sammlungen im Hochschulalltag: Aufgaben—Konzepte—Perspektiven (pp. 79–86). Berlin: Hermann von Helmholtz-Zentrum fur Kulturtechnik.


123

documenting collections: cornerstones for more history of science in museums

Documents