The Principles of Museum AduiiJiistvation. 2i I 



assigned to the latter, and prehistoric archaeology to the former. This 

 is partly because historical museums, which are usually national in scope 

 and unsupported on documentary evidence, treat the prehistoric races as 

 extralimital; partly because prehistoric material is studied to best advan- 

 tage through the natural history methods in use among anthropologists 

 Imt not among historical students. 



CojiMKNT. — Ethnographic inuseunis were proposed half a century ago by the 

 French geographer, Joniard, and the idea was first carried into effect about 1840 in 

 the establishment of the Danish Rthnographical IMuscuni. In Germany, there are 

 anthropological museums in Berlin, Dresden, and IVIunich, and the Museum fiir 

 Volkerkunde in Leipzig; in Austria, the Court and the Oriental museums in Vienna; 

 in Holland, the Ethnographichal Museum in Leyden, and smaller ones in Amsterdam, 

 Rotterdam, and at The Hague; in France, the Trocadero; in Italy, the important 

 Prehistoric and Ethnographic uuiseums in Rome and Florence; in vSpain, the Philip- 

 pine Collections in the Museo de Ultramar in Madrid; and in Hawaii, the Bernice 

 Paualii Bishop Museum at Honolulu. 



In ICngland less attention has been given to the subject than elsewhere in Europe, 

 the Christy Collection in the British Museum, the Pitt-Rivers Collection at Oxford, 

 and the Blackmore Museum at Salisbury being the most important ones specially 

 devoted to ethnography. In the United States, the Peabody Museum of Archaeology 

 in Cambridge, the collections in the Peabody Academy of Sciences at Salem, and 

 the American Museum of Natural History in New York are arranged ethnographic- 

 ally, while the ethnological collections in the National Museum in Washington are 

 classified on a double system— one with regard to race, the other, like the Pitt-Rivers 

 Collection, intended to show the evolution or development of culture and civilization 

 without regard to race. This broader plan admits much material excluded by the 

 advocates of ethnographic museums, who devote their attention almost exclusively 

 to the primitive or non-European peoples. 



Closely related to the ethnographic nniseum are others devoted to some special 

 field, such as the Mus^e Guimet in Paris, which is intended to illustrate the history 

 of religious ceremonial among all races of men — a field also occupied hy one depart- 

 ment of the National Museum in Washington. Other good examples of this class 

 are some of those in Paris, such as the Mus(Je de Marine, which shows not only the 

 development of the merchant and naval marines of the country, but also, by trophies 

 and other historical souvenirs, the history of the naval battles of the nation, and the 

 Musde d'Artillerie, which has a rival in Madrid. 



Of nuisical nuiseums, perhaps the most important are Clapisson's Musce Instru- 

 mental, in Paris; that in Brussels, and that in the National Museum at Washington. 

 The collection of nuisical instruments at South Kensington has had its contents 

 selected chiefly with reference to their suggestiveness in decorative art. 



The Theatrical Museum at the Academic P'rangiais in Paris, the Museum of Jour- 

 nalism at Antwerp, the Museums of Pedagogy in Paris and St. Petersburg, are pro- 

 fessional rather than scientific or educational, as are also the Museum of Practical 

 Fish Culture at South Kensington, the Monetary Museum at the Paris Mint, the 

 Museums of Hygiene in London and Washington, and the United States Army 

 Medical IMuseum. 



The value of arclucological collections, both historic and prehistoric, has long been 

 understood. The museums of London, Paris, Berlin, Copenhagen, and Rome need 

 no comment. In the Peabody Museum in Cambridge, the American Museum in 

 New York, the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania, and the National IMuseum 

 in Washington, are immense collections of the remains of prehistoric man in 

 America. 



