名古屋大学博物館報告
Bull. Nagoya Univ. Museum
No. 18, 145–171, 2002

名古屋大学博物館・サテライトフォーラム開催記録「姉妹校博物館連携による知の創造と共有」

Records of Satellite Forum — The Nagoya University Museum“Search for a new concept in education and research through cooperation
with sister university museum”
会場：名古屋大学博物館３階講義室

開催日時：６月 29 日 g 、30 日 a

概要報告名古屋大学国際フォーラム 2002 の一環として、博物館でサテライトフォーラム「姉妹校博物館連携による知の創造と共有」が開催されました。
このフォ−ラムは、名古屋大学博物館と海外の学術交流協定締結校の大学博物館や主要な博物館との連携をさらに推進させ、長期的視野に立ったよりよいパートナーシップを構築することを目的に実施したものです。29 日の午前中には国際大学博物館協議会（UMAC）議長のピーター・スタンバリー
博士（オーストラリア、マッコーリー大学）による特別講演会が、午後からは第５回 NUMCo（博物館コンサート）を挟んでパネルディスカッションが行われました。
特別講演会では、大学博物館の国際的な連携の重要性と、国際的にも大学博物館における次世代教育等への期待の高まりについての紹介がありました。その中で、UMACについての最新情報は、今後の本学の博物館活動にとって非常に役立つものでした。特別講演の内容については、博物館スタッフによる日本語の通訳があったため、一般市民を交えた約50人の参加者にとって理解しやすいものとなりました。
午後１時半からの博物館コンサートでは、海外からのフォーラム参加者を含め約80人の聴衆を前にして、ヴァイオリンとチェロの演奏が行われました。引き続き行われたパネルディスカッションには、シドニー大学マックレー博物館のヴァネッサ・マック館長、韓国の木浦大学校博物館の催盛洛館長、ドイツのゼンケンベルグ博物館のヨアヒム・ショルツ主任研究員、元ロンドン自然史博物館展示・教育部長のジャイルズ・クラーク博士、名古屋市科学館の樋口敬二館長、および名古屋大学博物館長の足立 守
教授がパネラーとして、博物館連携のあり方や各博物館の抱える問題点、Muse therapy（ミューズ・セラピー）といった新しい考え方（図１）などについて話題提供をし、それに基づいて活発な意見交換が行われました。とくに大学博物館が有する「人」
・「標本」
・「情報」について、具体的にどのような国際的な連携が可能であるのか、あるいは国際的な博物館ネットワークによる知の共有が21世紀の大学教育にどのように活かせるのかなどについて、様々な角度から議論が行われました。木浦大学校博物館長からは、2000 年に新設された博物館の建物と展示品の紹介もあり、注目を集めました。

— 145 —

６月 30 日には、海外からの参加者と博物館スタッ
フの 11 名で名古屋市科学館と愛知県陶磁資料館の見学会を行い、展示方法などについて現地討論会を行いました。今回のサテライトフォーラムは、今後の博物館連携に向け、お互いの情報を共有し合う出発点
として有意義なものとなりました。

プログラム
1． 開会挨拶（足立2． 特別講演守名古屋大学博物館長）

国際大学博物館委員会議長（UMAC：Peter Stanbury）
3． 第５回 NUMCo（博物館コンサート）
4． 各大学博物館等における現状と連携について
4.1 足立守（名古屋大学

博物館長）

4.2 Vanessa Mack
（シドニー大学
4.3 崔

マックレー博物館館長）

盛洛（木浦大学校

博物館長）

4.4 Giles Clarke（元ロンドン自然史博物館

展示・教育部長）— 146 —

4.5 Joachim Scholz（ドイツ・ゼンケンベルク博物館
4.6 樋口敬二（名古屋市科学館

苔虫動物学部門主任研究員）

館長）

5． 総合討論
6． 終了

招聘者（報告者およびコメンテーター）・オーストラリア、マッコーリー大学・シドニー大学

国際大学博物館協議会（UMAC）議長

マックレー博物館館長

・韓国木浦大学校

博物館長

崔・ドイツ・ゼンケンベルク博物館

Ms Vanessa Mack

盛洛
苔虫動物学部門主任研究員

・ロンドン自然史博物館

展示・教育部長

・名古屋市科学館

樋口敬二

館長

Dr. Peter Stanbury

Dr Giles Clarke

添付資料−特別講演会資料−パネルディスカッション資料

フォーラム参加者— 147 —Dr Joachim Scholz

Scope of International Forum in the Nagoya University Museum
Search for a new concept in education and research throughcooperation with sister university museum[Background]
The Nagoya University Museum (NUM) was established in April 2000. The main
purpose of the NUM is (1) to promote access to specimens and their data for further
research and education in the university, (2) to develop new methodologies foranalysis and preservation of specimens, and (3) to promote public understanding
through displaying research results, on-going experiments and details of investigations. Particularly, public understanding and international cooperation are essential to the survival of the university in the 21st century.

[Theme of Forum]
This is the 1st international forum held in the Nagoya University Museum(NUM). In this forum, the following items will mainly be discussed in order todevelop new international partnerships between the sister university museum andkey foreign museums.
● Development of an information exchange system or network such as Internet
data-base exchange.
● Development of a methodology to use museum specimens and relevant infomation for education of the younger generation.
● Development of museum collaboration for education and research of nature andculture.
（報告者：吉田英一）— 148 —

特別講演会資料
Abstract of Special Lecture— 149 —

Building value into university museums and forging
international partnerships
Peter Stanbury
Chair, International Committee for University Museums and Collections (UMAC)
Museums, Collections & Heritage
Vice-Chancellor’s Office
Macquarie University
New South Wales, Australia
peter.stanbury@mq.edu.au

University museums have special qualities. One of the most recent and colourful definitions
that I have heard recently was ‘a supermarket for the mind’. This definition could apply to manymuseums, but it gives an idea of the enormous range of items found in university museums.
However, university museums have many characteristics that make them different from othermuseums. These differences arise from their history, the kind of institution to which they areattached, the people that look after them, the stated function of the museum within the university
and the range of people that the museum seeks to serve.
Over the last ten years or so in Australia there has been a distinct university museums movement. This movement has sought to ensure that the resources in these museums are properly
utilized for the benefit of the various communities that universities serve. The movement has
resulted in the formation of a national curators group, two national reviews, shared data basesystems, responsible policies, greater advocacy, increasing awareness of the importance of preventive conservation and a sense of pride of belonging to this special museums sector. This Australianexperience has been mirrored in many countries in Europe and in the United States.
Most successful university museums have a number of factors in common. These include:• a similarity between the university’s mission and strategies and those of the museum,• written policies which are reviewed from time to time,• clear title to the objects in the collection,• an understanding of preventive conservation,• assured security, much work to ensure continuing funding,• a network of contacts• commitment to a variety of communities,• surveys to understand what the audience wants• a strong volunteer or friends’ group.
In 2001 the International Committee of University Museums and Collections (UMAC) wasestablished. It is one of the Committees of the International Council of Museums. UMAC has six
main aims. It strives to:• Clarify the role, requirements and relationships of university museums and collections withthe university and its communities• Assist the preservation of academic and cultural heritage• Promote university museums and collections within governments and their agencies, institutesof learning, the broad museum sector, the professions, business and the population generally— 150 —

大学博物館 ―その価値と国際的パートナーシップの構築 ―Peter Stanbury
Chair, International Committee for University Museums and Collections (UMAC)
Museums, Collections & Heritage
Vice-Chancellor’s Office
Macquarie University
New South Wales, Australia

大学博物館にはいくつかの特色が見られる。最近の大学博物館の定義の中でも、とくに際だったものに「知性のためのスーパーマーケット」という言葉がある。この定義は、他の博物館にも言えることかもしれないが、この言葉は、大学博物館で見られるものがどれだけ幅広いかをよく表している。しかしながら、大学博物館には他の博物館とは異なる多くの特徴がある。その違いは、博物館が持つ歴史や、属している大学の種類、中で働く人々、大学内における役割、そしてその博物館がサービスの対象としている人々の範囲などに由来するものだろう。
オーストラリアではここ10年ほどの間に、大学博物館に関する大きな運動が起こった。この運動の目的は、大学博物館の資源が、大学のサービス対象である様々な人々のために正しく活用されるようにするというものであった。この運動の結果、国立の標本管理者組織が作られ、国による２つの調査書がまとめられた。また、共有データベースシステムが設立され、信頼性できる政策方針がとられるようになり、支持者も増加した。標本の破壊を保護するという、予防的保全活動の重要性も認められるようになり、大学博物館という特殊な博物館に携わる人々の自信にもつながった。このオーストラリアでの経験は、ヨーロッパやアメリカなど多くの国に影響を及ぼした。
今日成功している大学博物館には、いくつかの共通点がある。そのうちの数点を挙げると以下のようになる。
・大学の持つ使命や戦略と、その大学の博物館の持つ使命や戦略が近いこと
・明文化された方針があり、それが継続的に見直されること・資料収蔵の目的が明らかになっていること
・資料の損傷を予防する保存に理解があること・セキュリティーが確立しており、運営資金獲得のための努力を払っていること
・様々な分野へコンタクトできる連携のネットワークを持っていること
・様々な団体との交流があること
・入場者が何を望んでいるのかを知るための調査を行っていること
・強力なボランティアや友の会をもっていること
2001 年、国際大学博物館委員会（UMAC）が設立された。これは、国際博物館評議会に設置された委員会の一つにあたる。UMAC はおもに次の６つの目標を掲げている。
・大学博物館の大学や地域との関係、期待、役割を明らかにすること
・学術的遺産や文化的遺産の保全を助成すること
・政府や政府機関、あるいは学習施設や広範囲な博物館関連分野、および関連する職務や事業等において、大学博物館の地位を向上させること— 151 —

• Provide advice and guidelines for those collections which are emerging, isolated, deterioratingor otherwise in need
• Facilitate international and regional collaboration to stimulate networking, partnerships andresearch and to initiate exchanges of artifacts, exhibitions, standards, practices and otherinformation• Encourage staff in charge of university collections to participate in museological training,
mentorship and career development
UMAC is a forum for all those working in, or associated with, academic museums, galleries andcollections (including herbaria and botanical gardens). UMAC is concerned with the role of collections within higher education institutions and the communities they serve. It provides its memberswith a forum to identify partnership opportunities concerning the resources in the collections, toshare knowledge and experience, and to enhance access to the collections. The aim is to protect theheritage in the care of universities. UMAC communicates with its members through all available
means throughout the year in order to deliver its aims. UMAC, when required, advises ICOM andother professional bodies on matters within its jurisdiction.
UMAC will hold its second conference in Sydney and Canberra Australia from 30 September to
4 October, 2002. A special invitation is extended to all university museum staff in Japan, especiallyto those attending the conference in Nagoya.

Please see the web site:www.icom.org/umac
Dr Peter Stanbury Vice-Chancellor’s Office, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia
Peter.stanbury@ mq.edu.au— 152 —

・コレクションについて、形成途上のもの、孤立無援のもの、劣化しつつあるもの、その他必要に応じ、助言や指針を提供すること
・ネットワークや共同事業および研究活動を促し、資料、展示、実践やその他の情報交換を開始するための国際的または地域的な協力体制を促すこと
・大学におけるコレクションに携わるスタッフの、博物館学方面のトレーニングや相談、経歴の向上を奨励する。
UMAC は、学術関連の博物館、ギャラリー、標本収蔵施設（標本室や植物園を含む）に関わるすべての人々の交流の場と位置つけられる。UMACの関心は、高等教育機関およびそのサービスを受ける団体がもつ収蔵資料の役割にある。この組織は、そのメンバーが、博物館等の持つ資源に関する共同事業を行う機会を得たり、知識や経験を交換したり、収蔵施設へのアクセスを増やすことができるような交流の場を提供する。そしてUMACの目的は、大学の管理下にある文化遺産を守ることにある。UMAC
はこの目的を果たすため、年間を通じて、できる限りの方法でメンバーとの交流を図っている。UMACは必要であれば、その権限の範囲内で ICOM（国際博物館会議）やそのほかの機能団体へ助言もおこなっている。
UMAC の第２回会議はオーストラリアのシドニーとキャンベラにて、2002 年９月 30 日から 10 月４日まで開催される予定である。日本のすべての大学博物館スタッフ、とくに名古屋でのこのフォーラムに参加されたみなさんに、ぜひ来ていただきたいと願っている。
UMAC については、以下のウェブサイトを御覧頂きたい。

www.icom.org/umac
Dr Peter Stanbury Vice-Chancellor’s Office, Macquarie University, NSW 2109, Australia
Peter.stanbury@ mq.edu.au— 153 —

Building value into university museums and forging
international partnerships
Peter Stanbury
Chair, International Committee for University Museums and Collections (UMAC)
Museums, Collections & Heritage
Vice-Chancellor’s Office
Macquarie University
New South Wales, Australia
peter.stanbury@mq.edu.au

Introduction
Over the last ten years more papers have been published about university museums than in the
90 preceding years. This has been due to the actions of university staff in many countries, and theInternational Committee for University Museums and Collections (or UMAC), about which I willtalk later, is proud to have made its own contribution.
How Museums Evolved
In order to understand how university museums should or might operate today it is useful toglance at their evolution. The ancestors of what we call museums were established within centresof learning. As these were the ancestors of universities, the first museums could be called university museums. The earliest traces of such museums are recorded from archaeological excavationsin Mesopotamia. Aristotle had a collection of natural history specimens to assist his teaching.
In medieval times, collections became cabinets of curiosities open only to the owner and his
guests. Even today many private collections fall into this category. In such museums the objects
tended to be diverse and little research was done. Possession and display was the chief aim.
Gradually, say by the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, objects in collections became
valued for the information about the natural world that could be extracted from them. Collections
became scholarly. Related objects in a limited field were sought. They became used to extend understanding. They were used for research and for teaching. Documents related to the objects becamecompanions in the search of knowledge. The library and the collection became two aspects of thesame endeavor.
It is noteworthy that my university, Macquarie University in Sydney, is presently developing asearch engine for its collections that is compatible with the University’s library catalogue. When
the word eagle is entered one will be offered a choice of books on eagles or a range of objects —coins, paintings, skeletons or historical documents. The object contains information, often morethan is found in books, if you know how to read it.
University Museums — Changing Views
University collections were established as an integral part of research and teaching. The objects
became the primary source of information. The room housing the museum was situated next to thelecture theatre, the laboratory and the library. The teacher (or the professor) was automatically— 154 —

the keeper or director of the museum. Sometimes teaching units evolved from the nucleus of acollection. This model — which lasted some three hundred years — was scattered by the unprecedented and explosive growth of the universities in the 1960s and 70s, combined withsignificant changes in research and teaching. At many universities it was considered we had
sufficiently catalogued the world, and that taxonomy was old fashioned and that there was nolonger any need for collections. The intimate details of the cell, the nature of mechanisms and howliving organisms behave became the focii of study. Collections were often neglected, consigned tostorage, or worse still thrown out together with the related documentation.
The situation was made further difficult by financial constraints and changes in management
practice. University management was adopting all the best and all the worst of modern businesspractice. This often meant employing senior managers who did not always have a feeling for the
special atmosphere of liberal education and historical significance that was traditional within
universities. University museums often were reduced to a bare minimum of staff or left isolated. Inpart it was the fault of the university museum staff themselves. In many instances they had notused the good times to advocate their uses, and to make a strong network of contacts. Some typicalproblems are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 Some factors which affect the performance of a university museum
FAILURE

SUCCESSNo University relevanceConnection to University’s development

No relevance to unit

Relevance to teaching and research

No strategic plan

Relevance to university’s strategies

No title to objects

Clear title

DamageContinuing preventive conservation

Missing items

Security

Data missing

Policies & documentation

Poor staffing / funding

Long term funding

Little advocacy

Active networking & partnerships

What Do University Museums Do?
The job of university museums is to:reflect the aims of the institution
act as a centre of liberal education
open doorways and provide links
engage in research and teaching and assist others to do soreflect scholarly traditions, andshow how our world has been, and is being, shaped (i.e. to forecast as well as summarise
the past).
Collections of real objects are primary sources of information, both material and documentary.
University collections, like culture, landscape, nature and the environment, are literally priceless— 155 —

because they are irreplaceable. Real objects communicate something that photographic or digital
representations do not.
What Makes University Museums Different?
On one hand, university museums have unique access to the skills and knowledge of academics
and have had a head start in the electronic revolution. No other group of museum workers issurrounded by such a strong tradition of scholarship, research and publication. The staff ofuniversity museums thus has privileged access to knowledge.
On the other hand, no other museums are expected to serve such a variety of communities: fromgroups of pre-school children through all stages of education: to university of the third age andretired groups as well as distinguished international visiting scholars. No other group of museums
is so intimately connected to secondary, tertiary and post-graduate students. No other museums
are expected to maintain a cloistered scholarly following while at the same time mount contemporary exhibitions sufficiently attractive to bring people from the surrounding communities used
to the glamour of modern television onto the strange, unfamiliar territory of a fenced campus.
Some university museums are moving into the centre of town.
Universities have the opportunity to introduce both secondary and tertiary students tomuseums over extended periods of time. Their collections play an essential role in teaching specificfields of study. It is difficult to imagine medical or veterinary students not studying anatomicalcollections, or art students not visiting the university gallery.
University museums make a further contribution. Students, whatever their field of study,
should over the years they spend on the campus find the university museums and art works becoming familiar friends, loaded with meaning. When this happens understanding of the importantrole that collections play in our heritage is unconsciously deepened. Commitment to preservation
is fostered. It remains with students throughout life, influencing decisions made in work andleisure. In addition, the start of a career may be considerably assisted as the result of the practicalskills learned, and contacts made, by voluntary assistance in a university museum. This meansthat the public role of the university museum may become as important as the teaching andresearch roles. By contrast other museums have fewer targeted audiences.
Are University Museums Private Collections?
University museums often start as the result of the enthusiasm and activities of one individual,
or a small group. However, the originator does not own the collection. The university does. But
while it is true that the collection is the responsibility of the institution, the collection does noteven belong solely to that institution. Public funds have gone into its formation, and the collection
is part of the local, regional, national, sometimes even international heritage. University
collections have significance beyond the institution. However it should be noted that university
collections are also of particular significance to the institution’s own history.
How did University Curators in Australia Start Their Museum Movement?
What did Australian university curators do to convince university managers and others thatmany of their collections contain irreplaceable information of scientific, historic cultural andacademic heritage? The first thing to be done was to find out how many university collections there
were in Australia. A preliminary survey showed that there were perhaps 125, although universities
themselves clearly did not know what they held. In 1992, university curators in Australia were— 156 —

asked to a meeting to discuss the next move. It was decided to form a national association, called
The Council of Australian University Museums and Collections (CAUMAC). The main aims of theCouncil were to lessen the isolation of the curator and to collect information. As there wasseemingly little help to be had from the universities themselves, it was felt necessary to point out
to government that it was in danger of losing a part of the Distributed National Collection.
However, there was a difficulty approaching government. Universities came under the authority
of one Ministry; museums were under the authority of another. Spoken to separately they eachsaid that the other was responsible for university museums, and that in any case it was up to each
university, or each State to look after university museums. Well, it was known that the universities
were not particularly interested. The States, when approached said that was a matter for theuniversities — they themselves were fully committed with local historical society museums andtheir big State museums in the capital cities.
It seemed to be back to the beginning again. However, Vice-Chancellors of universities inAustralia have a committee that meet from time to time to discuss matters of mutual concern. This
committee was powerful enough to approach senior ministers directly, and, more importantly, to
expect a reasoned response. CAUMAC found a Vice-Chancellor (Professor Yerbury), who was acollector, and who therefore had some sympathy for the plight of university museums. She agreed
to try to have the Australian Vice-Chancellors’ Committee (AVCC) persuade the two government
ministries to speak to one another about university museums. As it happened it was the end of thefinancial year and there was a small amount left in the budget of one of the ministries. It agreed tofund a review of Australian university museums.
Within 18 months a 225-page report had been published listing 250 university museums andcollections and making 68 recommendations. Most of the 68 recommendations required a change of
attitude or the formulation of policy rather than the expenditure of money. There were recommendations on:— recognition of established university museums and collections;— governance;— management and forward planning;— accreditation;— staffing and volunteers;— funding;— accommodation and facilities;— use and access;— relationship to museum training programs;— collection management; and— cooperation.
The report, which was called Cinderella Collections, was well received. It drew attention to thefact that there were university collections and that senior administrators, as managers ofuniversities, were responsible for this part of the nation’s heritage. The curators were encouragedby the report and did take action on as many of the recommendations as they were able. After two
years action had been initiated on three-quarters of the recommendations and over half had been
substantially completed.

— 157 —

Reinforcing the Message
CAUMAC received acclaim for its part in initiating the review and managed to persuade thegovernment to fund a second review (Transforming Cinderella Collections, 1998), this time with agrant provided by the second of the two ministries. The second review continued to investigate themanagement of museums within universities and strategic planning; it also paid particularattention to the problems of conservation. The review attempted to draw attention to the physicalstorage of objects and to provide advice on preventive conservation. It funded 15 visits to university
museums by professional conservators to review the physical conditions and to write a detailed
conservation assessment report. Some physical conservation was also carried out on specificnationally important objects.
By this time it was known that there were 275 university museums and collections in Australia.
Transforming Cinderella Collections updated details about these and recorded 15 simple pieces of
information about each (name; curator; address; location; phone; fax; email; opening hours;
description; number of objects; date of establishment; number of staff; web address; national andinternational significance).
This information was put on a web site called the Australian University Museums Information
System (AUMIS). The real importance of the two reports was the networking and lessening of theisolation of the curators. University museums can not function properly in isolation.
From National to International
After having listed the university museums in Australia on the web; it seemed logical to add
other countries. Knowing the difficulties Australian universities had in nominating the museums
and collections they owned there was going to be many problems. Language was one, and how wascontact to be made to find out about the situation in other countries? There is nothing like action,
any action, to solve a problem: a start was made by asking friends and contacts (Philippines,
Spain), asking permission to summarise existing lists (Japan, the Netherlands and England), by
surfing the web (Canada), or simply waiting for museums to contact us (Denmark, Germany,
France, USA). You can see the results at www.icom.org/umac and clicking on the world map.
The Formation of an International University Museums Group
This experience of looking at the global situation raised another idea. If the Australian curators’
group, CAUMAC, had worked well, perhaps an international group of university museum curators
would prove worthwhile for all concerned. The idea was introduced to two international meetings
held in Melbourne in 1998. (the UNESCO Universities and Heritage Forum and a triennial meetingof the International Council of Museums (ICOM)).
ICOM had a number of International Committees for different areas of museology (for example
for public relations, natural history, and regional museums), but there was no committee foruniversity museums. At both meetings the idea was presented and well received. Comments andsignatures were gathered sufficient to ask ICOM formally for permission to form an International
Committee for University Museums and Collections.
This request raised considerable discussion. Some members of ICOM’s advisory committee werein favour, but others were against the idea. Some of those against argued that all the other ICOMInternational Committees dealt with one subject area, whereas university museums covered many
areas. Others against argued that there were already too many International Committees. The
discussions went on for over a year. It would have been easier to form a Committee outside ICOM.
— 158 —

But it seemed to me that it was important that ICOM understand that university museums,
especially the small, relatively unknown ones, were just as much part of the museum profession as
the larger city, state and national museums. If a committee was formed outside ICOM, it waspossible ICOM would soon forget about university museums, just as university management inAustralia had in the 1980s. It was important that ICOM, as the premier world body of museums,
publicly recognise university museums, and it was equally important that university museums felt
part of the world community of museums.
Help came from unexpected quarters. The editor of Museum International, a journal publishedby UNESCO four times a year in five languages, offered to publish a series of articles in two
successive issues (206 and 207) about university museums. This series of articles helped sway thecase with ICOM. University museums were granted permission to join ICOM as an international
committee in July 2000.
Soon after, two international conferences helped the formation of the new committee. In
September 2000, the university museums in Scotland (a group called UMiS) were holding a conference in Glasgow ironically entitled The Death of Museums? Another international conference foruniversity museums followed the next week organised by Scandinavian countries and the OECD.
It was held in Paris under the title Managing University Museums. (The papers are available inbook or electronic form from the bookshop on the OECD website: http://www.oecd.org/).
These conferences were a great opportunity to spread the word about the new committee and toelect interim office bearers. Their job was to ensure that the new committee, which was called
UMAC (International Committee for University Museums and Collections), held its first
conference in Barcelona in July 2001, which was when the Committee was formally established. In
September 2001, Spain decided to form its own national university museum group.
UMAC’s Work
The aims and objectives of UMAC can be read in the abstract to this paper or on the web atwww.icom.org/umac.
UMAC’s first conference had the theme Intensifying Support For, and Increasing Audiences in,
University Museums and Collections. UMAC members from over a dozen countries presented overtwo dozen papers and workshops to an audience of 60 persons. The presentations can be read on
the web or purchased as a special issue of the journal Museologia (for details of either, please see
the UMAC website www.icom.org/umac).
At its first meeting UMAC set up five working groups:— Directories;— Ethics and Disposal;— Staffing;— Future conferences; and— Recognition for University Collections within Tertiary Institutions & Governments.
These working groups are due to report at UMAC’s second conference. This is in Sydney andCanberra from 29 September — 4 October 2002. Its theme is Exposing and Exploiting the Distinct
Character of University Museums and Collections. Details are available on the UMAC website orbrochures.
In 2003 ICOM will publish for UMAC a monograph on university museums.
— 159 —

Conclusions
Working together allows strengths and opportunities to be maximised and weaknesses andthreats to be counteracted. Curators working alone in 2002 are as eccentric and anachronistic asan author using an old fashioned manual typewriter.
Working together as a team is stimulating and is the main reason for the existence of committees of management, networking groups and professional associations. Teamwork should exist
in individual museums and universities, in local districts and regions, in individual countries andinternationally. Talking with and listening to your colleagues is never a waste of time. Museum
associations improve the morale and efficiency of staff. Associations raise the local, national andinternational standing, and assist an institution’s contribution to future generations.
UMAC warmly invites you to become a partner with one or more university museums inAustralia or elsewhere, and to attend the international conference in September.
Some Respectful Words of Advice for University Museums• Discover, attract and work with your communities – do not run the museum for your own
pleasure and aims
• Present exciting exhibitions – use your communities to help initiate and mount them
• Serve the university• Harness electronic technology – use it in advertising and catalogues• Apply for grants – even when you do not get them it makes others aware of your existence,
which leads to the final point• Be noticed – or to put it another way, position yourself where God will see you— 160 —

パネルディスカッション資料
Abstract of Lectures— 161 —

Cooperation between university museums andways to achieve thisVanessa Mack
Macleay Museum, University of Sydney, Australia

The most successful example of on going international and national cooperation between institutions similar to museums is that between libraries, at national, state, or university level. The
main reason for this has been economic: no library can afford to catalogue from the beginning, andso the cataloguing is shared and copied. From this grew other cooperative ventures, like limited
sharing of resources (journal subscriptions) and general cooperative agreements, like Interlibraryloans. There is now much development of cooperative on-line ventures to provide scanned copies ofrare or unusual resources. For example: http://setis.library.us2yd.edu.au/botany
Historically, because every museum is different, with a different sort of collection, and different
examples of specimens, there has not been the same economic reason for museums to get together.
We cannot really share or copy cataloguing. Additionally, in natural history, the conventions fornaming and categorising objects are established by international scientific agreement, and themuseums follow the same conventions. There is also a degree of rivalry in current research projects
which may mean that a museum does not wish to share certain information on its collection, like
where a specimen was collected for example, until the work is published.
However, museums have built up networks for loans; and the lending of scientific specimens forresearch is well established, and there are many informal examples of cooperation and the development of joint ventures. More recently, many museums have begun to make their collection databases available on the web. Sometimes, as in Australia, this is done cooperatively, and sometimesof course, by an individual museum which is prepared to share its data at a distance. I will describe
both AUMOL (Australian University Museums on Line) and the much larger AMOL (AustralianMuseums on Line). Both of these projects obtained central, government funding, and theircontinuation depends on this sort of outside funding, because of the staff effort and money required
to keep the project going. This is often beyond the budgets of participating museums.
A further example is the government funded Canadian Heritage Information Network, orCHIN, begun in the 1970s. Since these examples are often hard to achieve, another way is todevelop associations, both formal (like UMAC) and informal. I will discuss the association that has
been most useful to me, and continues to grow: the Australian Registrars Committee, and theAmerican Registrars Committee. I will try to suggest reasons why these have been successful,where other groups are less successful.
Since associations often depend on the efforts of a few people to keep them going, and often
those people retire, or wish to step back, it is important to develop ways that the associations cancontinue, and have a life of their own. — depend less on the individual, and more on the group. I
will mention CAUMAC, the Council of Australian University Museums and Collections whichreally began well, but has dropped away until it barely exists now. However, we have been meeting
to think of ways to bring it back to life, and I will discuss some of these. One of these ideas is thedevelopment of email lists, and on-line contacts. We must develop ways in which we can be of use to
one another, so that there is a real benefit in sharing and cooperating — not just because it feels
good to do so.
— 162 —

大学博物館の協力体制とその実現の方法
Vanessa Mack
Macleay Museum, University of Sydney, Australia

博物館に似た組織同士の国際・国内協力体制が最も成功していると思われる例は、国、州あるいは、大学レベ
ルの図書館におけるものである。その主な理由は経済的なものによる。当初、どの図書館でもカタログを有する
ような余裕はなく、そこで、図書館同士でカタログを共有したり、コピーしたりしていたものである。これが後に、図書館間での情報の限定使用（例えば雑誌の予約購読）や本の貸し借りのような、一般的な共同利用といった協力体制を生み出すことにつながった。今では、珍しい本や一般的でない情報のスキャン映像を提供する共同オンライン事業として発達している（例：http://setis.library.usyd.edu.au/botany）。
博物館では歴史的に、それぞれの博物館には違った種類のコレクションや標本があり、それぞれが違った博物館として成り立っているが故に、共同事業を進めるための経済的な根拠は少なかった。また、そのような博物館
同士では、カタログを共有したりコピーしたりするということはできない。加えて、自然史の分野では、命名や目録作りに国際的に科学者同士の合意で確立された約束があり、博物館もその約束に従うものになっている。また、標本の産地などのコレクションに関する情報について、研究が終わるまでは他館と共有したくないというよ
うな、最新の研究プロジェクトにからんだライバル意識のようなものもある。
しかしながら、博物館は、標本の貸し借りに関するネットワークを築いてきた。科学標本を研究のために貸し出すシステムは確立しており、非公式な協力の例や、共同事業を発展させた例も多い。ごく最近、多くの博物館
はコレクションをホームページ上で公開し始めている。オーストラリアでは、これを博物館同士で協力して行う場合もあれば、もちろん、一つの博物館がそれを作り、離れていてもデータを共有できるようにするという場合もある。これについては、AUMOL（オーストラリア大学博物館群オンライン）と、AMOL（オーストラリア博
物館群オンライン）の例が挙げられる。どちらのプロジェクトも、中央、すなわち政府の助成金でできたものであり、その存続は外部の助成金を取ってこられるかどうかにかかっている。なぜなら、現在進めているプロジェ
クトを推進していくには、スタッフや資金が必要だからである。しかし、これが参加している博物館の予算枠を越えさせてしまうこともある。
もう一つの例は、1970 年代に始まった CHIN（カナダ文化遺産情報ネットワーク）で、これも政府の助成金で成り立っている。このような例は最後まで事業を成し遂げることが難しいので、公式（例えば UMAC のような）
あるいは非公式の連合を発展させていくというもう１つの方法が採られることもある。ここでは、私がもっとも有効だと思う、そして継続的に発展を続けている、オーストラリア登録官委員会およびアメリカ登録官委員会を取り上げてみたい。これらの委員会がなぜ他のものより成功しているのか、その理由についても考えてみたいと思っている。
連合というのはしばしば、加わっている人たちが引退したり、手を引いたりすることがあるものの、複数の人の努力に依存しており、それが連合が存続でき、独自の道を歩める手段を発達させるために重要である。つまり、個人に頼るところを減らし、グループに頼るようのするのである。私はここでCAUMAC（オーストラリア大学博物館および標本庫評議会）について述べようと思う。この評議会は、はじめは非常にうまくいったのだが、後に活動が弱まり、今ではかろうじて存続しているにすぎない。しかし、私たちはこれを再び活性化させる手段を見つけようと、話し合いを始めている。これについても話したいと思う。そのアイデアの一つが、メイリングリス
トやオンラインによる結びつきを発達させることである。私たちは、ただ何となくそのほうが良さそうだ、という理由ではなく、共有と協力が本当の利益を生むために、お互いの役に立つような手段を発達させていかなければならない。
— 163 —

The role of Mokpo National University Museum
Choi Sung Rak
Director of Mokpo National University Museum

The Mokpo National University Museum was established in 1982, the year when. I became afaculty member of the university. During the last 20 years, the museum has conducted many
researches such as field surveys and excavations. The museum has collected many specimens including excavated artefacts, folk crafts, and so on. The museum has published over 90 books
including reports on excavations and field surveys.
New museum building (5,500m2) was finished at 2000. Now there are gallery (exhibition room),laboratory, conservation room, video-making room, library, storage, main hall, office, and so on.
The museum have a permanent exhibition show (the subject is “the life and death in the
Yeongsan river vasin”), annual planned exhibition, invitation lectures (several times a year), playing movies (once a week), and special exhibitions offered by others (in this case, the museum rent
the gallery).
All the activities of my museum are supplied to the internet homepage with moving pictures(http://mnum.mokpo.ac.kr). In Korea, 90 universities have museums. But they differ in quality
and function depending on the concern of the universities. Most of the university museums areinteresting in the collecting of specimens and their exhibitions, while some of them play more
important roles in the university. They act as the center of regional studies, and also the center ofcultural activities.
In addition to this, the university museum has to seek international activities. My museum will
also have a great interest in the international exchange program.

— 164 —

木浦大学校博物館の役割
Choi Sung Rak
Director of Mokpo National University Museum

木浦国立大学博物館は、私が本大学の学部に赴任した1982年に創設された。それから20年の間、博物館は野外調査や発掘などにおいて、多くの研究を行っており、博物館には、発掘された資料や民族資料などを含む多くの資料が収蔵されている。また博物館では、これまでに90册以上の本を出版しており、そこには発掘やフィールド調査の報告書も含まれている。
新しい博物館の建物（5500平方メートル）は、2000年に完成した。現在この建物内には、展示会場、研究室、資料管理室、ビデオ編集ルーム、図書室、収蔵庫、メインホール、事務室などがある。
博物館では、常設展（ Yeongsan 河周辺盆地における生命と死 ）や、年次の企画展、招待講演（年間数回）、映画の上映（週１回）、そして館外企画による特別展（この場合、博物館は展示場を貸し出す）を開催している。
これらのすべての博物館活動は、博物館のホームページ（http://mnum.mokpo.ac.kr）に動画とともに公開されている。韓国では、90 の大学が博物館を有している。しかし、それらは大学ごとの機能や質に応じて、それぞれ異なっている。いくつかの大学博物館は大学でのより重要な役割を果たしているものの、ほとんどの大学博物館は、資料を収集することやそれらの展示に興味を有してるだけである。大学で重要な役割を果たしている博物館は、地域研究の拠点として、また文化的活動の拠点としても活動している。
これに加え、大学博物館は国際的な活動も追求すべきである。木浦国立大学博物館も、国際的な情報交換プログラムに大きな関心を抱いている。

— 165 —

A 21st Century role for a University Museum
Giles Clarke
Museum and Heritage Consultant,
Scientific Associate
The Natural History Museum, London, UK

There are two fundamentally different approaches that an exhibition can take with regard to its
relationship with its visitors.
In the first approach, the curator decides what to display as an expression of his own imagination and intentions. When visitors see the exhibition, they may find that they are in tune with thecurator and that it is a stimulating experience for them. Or they may find that it is puzzling,
confusing or dull. The exhibition in this case selects its own audience. Most art exhibitions are likethis and many university museums fall into this category, particularly if their prime function is topresent a teaching collection that is associated with a university course.
In the second approach, the curator decides, right from the outset, to communicate a particularidea or principle to a particular audience. This is a deliberate process of communication which,when done well, can be a real tool for effective education. This type of exhibition is most commonly
science-based.
The crucial difference is the attitude to the visitors. In the first model visitors do not come into
the equation until the exhibition is open. In the second, they are central to the planning right fromthe start. It seems to me that in setting up and running a successful university museum, which has
the task of performing a worthwhile function on behalf of science education and on behalf of theuniversity, this second model is the one to follow. It gives a better return on the resources — bothtime and money — spent on it. What task is it that the Nagoya University Museum might tackle
that would place it at the centre of university life and make sure that it is seen by everybody to be
performing a useful function and thereby justifying its upkeep?
It seems to me that the most useful thing that the museum could do in its public functions is toact as a shop window for the university’s science and thereby to deliberately aim to attract newstudents to the university. At the moment, at least in the UK, there has been a worrying drop in thenumbers of young people applying to read scientific subjects at university. One of the problems isthat potential students are not fully aware of what a scientific life is like. A set of exhibitions thatare specifically designed to reveal what scientists do would be first class opportunity to demonstrate the vitality and significance of science in the modern world, and in particular, the science at
the Nagoya University.
This would mean deliberately targeting teenagers and their teachers. Exhibits would bedesigned specifically to appeal to young people and present the most exciting and comprehensible
work of the university. There would need to be a regular turnover of exhibits to make sure theyremain fresh, relevant and up to date. As well as the exhibits, there could be a regular programmeof presentations and lectures by top researchers with the aim of demonstrating that science is ahuman activity carried out by normal, stimulating and creative people.
If designed and carried out properly, this would help to make sure that young people see howinteresting and worthwhile a scientific career might be, and encourage them to apply for a place atthe university.
— 166 —

21 世紀における大学博物館の役割
Giles Clarke
Museum and Heritage Consultant,
Scientific Associate
The Natural History Museum, London, UK

展示が来館者に対して取りうるアプローチには、両者の間の関係から見て根本的に異なる二つの方法がある。
ひとつは、学芸員が自分自身の想像力と意図の表現として何を展示するのかを自ら決める方法である。展示を見るとき、来館者は学芸員と同調していることを感じ、それが刺激的な体験であることを発見するかもしれない。あるいは反対に、来館者は理解できず困惑し、退屈なだけかもしれない。この方法の場合、展示が来館者を選択する。ほとんどの美術展示はこのようなものであり、多くの大学博物館
も、とくに博物館の主な目的がその大学の授業と関連した教材のコレクションを提示するのみであれ
ぱ、このカテゴリーに相当する。
もうひとつのアブローチは、学芸員が展示を計画するときから、特定の来館者に対して特定のアイデ
アや基本方針を伝えて実施する方法である。これはコミュニケーションを円滑化させる方法であり、成功すれぱ、効率的な教育として有効な手法となる。このタイプの展示は、科学に関する展示に極めて普通である。
双方の重要な違いは、来館者に対する姿勢にある。最初のアプローチでは、来館者はその展示が開始されるまで参加することはない。二つ目のアプローチでは、来館者は展示を計画する時から中心的な存在である。科学教育や大学の価値を示す役割のある大学博物館を、上手く設立して運営するためには、
二番目のアプローチが相応しいと私は考える。その方が同じ時間と経費を費やすならば、よりよい結果を得るだろう。名古屋大学博物館が取り組むべき課題は、大学の営みの中心に位置し、全ての人に有効に機能を果たしていると認められ、そのことによって存続が支持されることではないだろうか。
大学博物館が市民社会においてもっとも機能的と思われることは、大学における研究のショーウィ
ンドウのような役割を果たし、そしてそれによって新たな学生を引き付けることだと思う。現在、少なくともイギリスにおいては、心配なことに大学で科学的課題を専攻しようとする若者が少なくなっている。学生になるべき人々が、科学的営みとはいかなるものなのかということを十分に考えていないことが問題である。科学者が何を行っているのかを提示するための展示は、現代における科学の重要性、とくに名古屋大学における研究の活力と重要性を表明する上でのもっとも重要な機会といえる。
これは、十代の若者とその教師を意識して対象とすることを意味する。展示はとくに若い世代が興昧を持つようにデザインし、そして大学のもっとも興味深くわかりやすい研究成果を紹介する。そのためには、常に新鮮、適切かつ最新の状態を維持するために、展示の定期的な更新が必要である。展示と並行して、科学とは普通の、刺激的で想像力豊かな人々によって行われている人間らしい活動であることを示すために、優秀な研究者による講演会などを定期的に行うべきであろう。もしこのようなことが適切に行われれば、若い世代が、科学研究が楽しく意義深いかを認識し、大学に行ってみようという気にさせる弾みとなるだろう。

— 167 —

The Senckenberg Society;
History and perspectives on cooperation
Joachim Scholz
Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum Senckenberg, Sektion Marine Evertebraten III,
Senckenberganlage 25, D-60325 Frankfurt
Germany

The Senckenberg Nature Research Society (SNG) was founded in 1817, on the grounds of asuggestion by Johann Wolfgang Goethe. The society is focussing on the description, understanding,and preservation of the diversity of life. Today, the Senckenberg society has about 4.000 members,
and is responsible for the Research Institute and the Natural History Museum. There are over 200
staff members, among them about 80 scientists in permanent and research project positions. The
total budget amounts to about 15.000.000 Euros.
With around 6.000 square meters, the museum building in Frankfurt is one of the biggest natural history museums in Germany. There are nearly 260.000 visitors every year. The results ofrecent and historical research activities in biology, palaeontology and geology are placed innumerous galleries, and special exhibits.
The various research institute buildings occupy altogether about 10.000 square meters. They
are distributed in the cities of Frankfurt, Wilhelmshaven and Weimar, and field stations such as
the one located at the United Nations world heritage site of Messel. The Messel site is supervisedby the Senckenberg, and has become famous for its diversity of Eocene vertebrate fossils.
In addition to the research buildings, there are about 3.000 square meters in the basement of
the museum in Frankfurt, for housing collections. The collections consist of about 20 million
objects. 100,000 of them have so far been databased in SeSam, the newly introduced Senckenberg
Collection Management system.
About 44% of the budget of the society is currently spend for research. The Senckenberg
Research Institute conducts research in the fields of marine biodiversity, freshwater biodiversity,
terrestrial biodiversity and biodiversity of fossil environments. Marine biology becomes increasingly important, and there are ongoing programs in the North Sea, the Mediterranean region,
the Arabic seas, on hydrothermal vents of the deep sea, and in the East Asian seas. Since morethan 100 years, research on marine organisms in Japan is one of the traditional priorities. Sincemany years, there is an fruitful collaboration with Japanese zoologists in the study of Crustaceans.
More recently, cooperation on moss animals (bryozoans) and certain aspects of science history havealso been established.
Looking back to many years of happy Japanese-German contacts and friendship, the department of aquatic research of the Senckenberg Institute is looking forward to a collaboration for
example on the marine diversity in Eastern Asia and the Western Pacific.

— 168 —

ゼンケンベルグ協会；その歴史と連携の展望
Joachim Scholz
Forschungsinstitut und Naturmuseum Senckenberg, Sektion Marine Evertebraten III,
Senckenberganlage 25, D-60325 Frankfurt
Germany

ゼンケンベルグ自然科学協会（SNG）は、Johann Wolfgang Goethe（ゲーテ） の提案を元に 1817 年に設立された。この協会は、生命の多様性を記載し、理解し、そして保全することに焦点を置いている。
今日では、約4000名のメンバーを有し、研究所および自然史博物館を管理・運営している。そこには、200名以上のスタッフが在籍しており、その内、常勤と研究プロジェクトに参加している科学者は計約80 名である。年間総予算は、約 1500 万ユーロ（約 16 億円）である。
フランクフルトにある博物館の建物の総面積は、約6000平方メートルあり、ドイツでももっとも大きな自然史博物館の１つである。年間の来館者は、約26万人である。これらは、生物学、古生物学や地質学におけるこれまでの長期におよぶ調査活動の成果が数多くの展示や特別展に活かされていることによる。
種々の研究所の建物は、合計約10000平方メートルにおよぶ。それらはフランクフルト、ウィルヘル
ムスハーベンやワイマールの各都市、あるいはメッセルの国連世界遺産に指定された場所などにある
野外実習場に分散している。このメッセルの場所は、世界的にも始新世の多様化した脊椎動物化石で有名となった場所であり、本協会が指導・監督している。
研究棟に加えて、フランクフルトの博物館の建物には、地下に、約3000平方メートルの資料の収蔵スペースを有している。収蔵資料は、約2000万点におよぶ。そのうちの10万点が、新たに導入された
ゼンケンベルグ収蔵管理システムである SeSam で、これまでにデータベース化されている。
現在、協会予算全体の約 44％が研究に費やされている。ゼンケンベルグ研究所は、海洋生物、淡水
生物、陸上生物および化石生物の分野における多様性研究を展開している。海洋生物の分野はますます重要性を増しており、北海や地中海地域、アラビア海、深海の熱水孔そして東アジアの海域における研究プログラムを進行中である。約100年以上もの間、日本における海洋生物の研究は伝統的に重視されてきたものの１つである。永年にわたって、日本の動物学者との甲殻類に関する実り多い共同研究が行われている。最近では、コケムシ類およびいくつかの科学史的テーマに関する共同研究がスタートしている。
このような永年に亘る日本とドイツの友好的な連携に基づいて、ゼンケンベルグ研究所の水生動物研究部門は、東アジアと西大平洋の海洋生物多様性に関する研究などにおける協力が今後進むことを期待するものである。

— 169 —

Cooperation between the Nagoya City Science Museum and the
Nagoya University Museum
Keiji Higuchi
Director, Nagoya City Science Museum

Science Museums can be classified as traditional science museums and science and technology
centers. The formers are object-oriented and hand-off, but the latters are experience-oriented andhand-on. The Nagoya City Science Museum (NCSM) is one of the latters.
Positioning of a science and technology center in local community can be considered as shown in
Fig. 1. The Youngster’s Science Festival is one of examples of cooperation of NCSM with schools
and industries for public understanding of science and technology.
“Special Exhibition of Prof. Noyori’s Novel Prize in Chemistry 2001” can be said as good example
of cooperation between NCSM and the Nagoya University Museum (NUM). This exhibition wasmade in NUM during the period from Nov. 23 to Dec. 27, 2001, and made in NCSM during theperiod from Jan. 25 to Mar. 3, 2002. In the exhibition in NCSM, more experience-oriented exhibitions for younger generation were added to the exhibition in NUM, since visitors of NCSM aremuch wider generation than those of NUM. Another example of cooperation will be an educational
project in astronomy and geoscience by the use of planetarium in NCSM, to join NCSM and NUM
with high schools in Nagoya City and Aichi prefecture.

Mass Media
Decision
Maker

Local Comm.
Industries

S.T. Center
Tech. Comm.
Sci. Comm.

SchoolUniv.
Fig. 1— 170 —

Public名古屋市科学館（NCSM）と名古屋大学博物館
（NUM）
との協力
樋口

敬二

名古屋市科学館館長

科学系博物館は、Traditional science museum と Science and technology center（S.T.Center）に大別できるが、名古屋市科学館は後者に属し、experience-oriented で hand-on の展示を行っている。
S.T.Center の地域コミュニティにおける位置づけは、Fig. 1 に示す通りである。
NCSM と NUM との協力の好例は、特別展「野依良治

ノーベル賞への道」であり、2002 年 2 月〜

3 月、NCSM で行った特別展では、2001 年 11 月〜 12 月、NUM で行った展示に、体験型の展示を追加
し、年少者にも親しみを抱かせるよう、努力した。
また、NCSMのプラネタリウムを活用して、NCSM と NUMとの協力による「高校生のための宇宙・
地球セミナー」を計画している。

Mass Media
Decision
Maker

Local Comm.
Industries

S.T. Center
Tech. Comm.
Sci. Comm.

SchoolUniv.
Fig. 1— 171 —

Public