ICOMAM - Michigan Technological University

Armour and arms in American museums I 55 ! 'k, ; "!oo? 1800 18oo -- - · l-- :! ' Is ' H 7 0 00 Figure 1 Bashford Dean's evolutionary tree of staff weapons. (Dean 1915: 359). That Dean was trained a s a systematic biologist first, and came to a rm s a n d armour collecting through family wealth as a passion later (his Festschrift contributors noted that 'he started his work in this l ine for rest and cha nge, and before long became one of the leading auth orities on it'), s h ows q uite c l ea rly in his own scholarship. Dean was a scientist by traini ng. He cut his teeth on paleoicthyology, pu blishing his maste rwork in the field, Bibliography of Fishes (2100pp. in 3 vol., 191 6-23), just as he rose to the peak of the a rmour world. There is no evidence that Dean hi m self thought of a rm s a n d armour as a rt history and when one rea ds his catalogue entries, one can hear the scientist, not the a rt historian, ta l king. On Gothic armour: simple harnesses, elegantly fitted, their parts articulating with great precision, of meta l which shows a sl ightly yel lowish color, is curiously ha rd, resists action of acid, and possesses a texture which reminds one of a kind of Damascus

56 I ICOMAM 50: Papers on arms and military history 195 7-2007 l'llll·.i( IIELMET F6oo CRE.ST·- . ROWL tTIMl\RI!l ··-. ---··- VE.-.:TA!l. (BL';\"0111 ···-·-·····-·CHIN CUAIU IMEI'HOSSIEA.e1 - \.I'PPC*.T roR RAJSEO VENTAIL Figure 2 Bashford Dean's evolutionary tree of helmets. ( Dean 1915 : 360). 'G., Iff\ EOOO THE. PARTS OP A HELMET 000 AD. co . ICAL OR SORMAN CASOUE IOOO ··,fi SPANGENHELM A.D.600 M steel, wit h layers and fibres in its structure. In form, its distinguishing marks include plast ron typically divided into upper and lower ( placate ) elements, back-plate usua l ly formed of several pieces, a skirt-like hip guard, tassets formed of one plate or few plates, head defense a done-shaped bascinet or a bowl-sha ped salade, with a separate chin guard. On Maximillian a rmour: Its diagnostic features include globose plastron, mitten-shaped gauntlets, tassets of many la mes, sometimes continuous with the thigh-plates, armet with 'bellows' visor, and wide or 'bear-toed' sollerets . . . The metal of this period is more uniform in texture, slightly softer, and more silvery in tone. ( Dean 191 1 : xxii-xxiii )

Armour and arms in American museums 1 5 7 REC G"'N"f .Rbinocininacra Harn'otta Callorhynchus Ch.t"maera Sharks PLIOCENE MIOCENE EOCENE CRETACEOr/S Ckimaeropsis 7r/RASSIC Svuolorq;a . TRiASSIC . , '. ', PERMIAN CARBONIFEROr/S DEVONIAN One could imagine he is describing the 'diagnostic features' of a newly discovered fossil armoured fish as easily as the periods of armour. In fact, his very first publication on a rms and a rmour - other than descriptive catalogues of loan exhibitions and the Dino collection - was on 'T he Evolution of Arms and Armor' ( Dean 191 5). Pu blished in the American Museum journal ( soon to be renamed the journal of the American Museum of Natural History) , the a rticle saw t he p u b lication of the much-re p roduced and i mitated diagra m s of t he evol u tion of staff wea pon s (figu re 1 ) and of helmets (fig u re 2). Although straightforward enough, most scholars of arms and armour today do not rea lise that t hese tree diagra m s a re d rawn directly f ro m c ontem pora ry stu dies of Figure 3 Bashford Dean's evolutionary t ree of chima roid fishes. (Dean 1906: 150).

58 I ICOMAM 50: Papers on arms and military history 1957-2007 developmental and evol utionary bio logy, or as it's known in the field, cladistics. J ust as we wou l d see the evo l u tionary tree of dinosa u rs or m a m m a ls in any nat u ra l h istory museum, so too did Dean see both organic life and arms and a rmou r i n the same way ( cf figure 3), and i n the a rticle, he noted, with emphasis in the origina l, 'It is es pecia l l y sign ificant. . . that the changes [in armour or wea pons] a lways ta ke place in the order of time, j ust as we find evol utional changes occurring in animals. T hus we a re no more a pt to meet the highly modified burgonets of the seventeenth century among casques of the sixteent h century than we a re l i kely to fi nd fossi l mammals i n the o l d red sandstone.' ( 191 5: 362) B u t Dean was not a n iconoclast in American museums at the time. T he scientific spirit for museum development rose i n t h e 1 8 80s i n the U S, a n d by the turn of t h e century was the s ta n d a rd understa nding of how collections s hould be displayed, interpreted, and especially understood by the publ ic. Although an 1 891 editorial in Science would admit that a t the time there were museums for entertainment, museums for instruction, and museums for research, the ' h igher grade' museums were the latter and in pa rticular those must specifically employ 'scientific collaborators sufficiently paid to relieve them fro m a nxiety fo r their comfo rtable s ubs iste nce.' (Winchell 1 891 ; see a lso Bedini 1965) Dean would no doubt have agreed as much for the American M useum o f Natura l H isto ry on the west s i de of Centra l P a rk, as fo r the M etro po l i ta n M useum of Art o n its east side. It shou ld co m e as no s u rprise, then, the papers p resen ted to D e a n in h is memo rial volume a re p ri marily not a rt historica l, but rather what we might well call a rcha eological i n the b road sense. T h ey a re not o n excavations ( a l tho ugh one m ight we l l i m a gi n e t h a t wou ld h ave been amenable to the members), but the a uthors a re interested i n historical evidence of certa in types of a rms a nd a rmour ('Arms and Armor of the Hebrews' by F G Blakeslee or T he American Military Pike of ' 7 6 ' by R W Bingham), the evolutionary development ('Notes on the Development of the Baltic F l intlock' by T T Hoopes as well as his a rticle on triggers, mentioned below) and/or ra nge of particular kinds of weapons and defences ('T he Barbute' by G A Douglass or 'Malay Krisses' by S V Granscay). O n ly one, 'A Nuremberg Casque' by Carl Otto von Keinbusch, a pproaches the studies from an art histo rical approach, more i nterested i n the etch ing and provenance of the a rmou r (ie the a rtist who made it) than the function. T h is scientific/archaeo logical a p proach dom i n ated the first h a l f of the 20 th centu ry, b u t by m id centu ry, t h e a rt h isto rica l a p p ro a c h was ascenda nt. D i rk B rei d i ng iden tifies a turning poi nt in this approach to 1 937, when the V i ennese curato r Bruno T homas exclai med, 'Waffenkunde als Kunstgeschichte - das ist es, was wir wollen', [Breiding admits that the field is still struggling today agai nst 'mo re established' (read: legitimate) 'bra nches of historical and a rt historical researc h .'

Armour and arms in American museums 1 59 (Breiding 2005 : 3)] This turn to art histo ry, however, seems to have ta ken a great deal of time to percolate into America n museums. Partia lly, this may be beca use just a s the European scholars were calling for a turn to a rt history, nu merous American m u seu m s had j u st set up their own displ ays a long the Dean-in spired 'scie ntific' lines. The Higgins Armory, for example, had just opened in 1929 with an ex plicitly technological focus, displaying hel ms next to fenders and swords next to pro pel lers to show how the design a esthetic wa s above a l l fu nctional (Higgins 1961 : 9-1 0). Arms and a rmour had a l so fo und a ho m e i n m u s e u m s l i ke the Roc h ester (NY ) Museum of Arts and Sciences, whose ma ndate was to serve the 'City of Rochester as an i n stitution of a pp l ied a rts, n a tura l science, h i story and industrial science' ( M ayer 1 93 5 : 27). By t h e o u tbrea k of Wo rld War II, then, arms and a rmour in Am erica (and, incidental ly, i n Canada a s we l l) was genera l ly seen a s an a ppl i ed i n d u st ri a l a rt which exe m p l ified the 'eth nogra p hy of m a n' and his development through the ages. Such a view mainta i ned some currency well after the wa r, when it co u l d be heard s a i d that a su it of a rmo u r was attra ctive 'because it i s correct structu ra l ly, just as a streamlined bridge i s attra ctive' (Gra ncsay 1964: 8). These m u seu m s were al so , however, sup po sed to be both edifying spiritu a l ly but a l so fu nctionally in terms of offering good exa mples of design to craftsmen of the day (Cantor 1974). Eve n though the rest of the country had just set them selves u p in the older fashion, the M etro polita n led the way towards a rms a nd armour a s a rt history a s it moved away from its origi nal South Kensi ngton-inspired goa l of industria l a rt. I n their 1938 pamphlet for visitors, the Museum begin s appea l ing to the art - rather than the ski l l - of the a rmour: 'Pain ters collaborated with armorers . . . . Often the a rmorer himself was a sculptor', and described the characteristics of the weapons a s ' richly sculpted [in] ivory,' o r t h e ' m agn i ficent etched a n d gi lded h a rness,' a n d 'relief. . . scenes from the life of David chiseled . . . i n steel.' Functional or tech nica lly i m porta nt a rmou rs ra pidly d i sappeared behind the admittedly gorgeou s para de a rmours of Negroli or the fab u lously etched pri ncely a ssemblages (Granscay 193 8 : 1 ). Thus, after the Wa r, American m u seu m s of arms a nd a rmou r found themselves at a crossroads. W ith m a ny m un icipal m u seums deeply i nvested in the ' m a rch of p rogress' sto ry, and most with at l east a modest se lection of a rm s and a rmou r (which, it has to be said, seem s to a lways have been a favourite type of object for many visitors4), the field seemed to be moving out from under them. I n some ways, this was merely a reflection of a larger trend of the a scendancy of a rt histo ry as a discipline and the shift of 'con noisseurship' into more academic a nalytical modes of discussion. W hat became increasingly worth discussing was the canon of a rt history - and what local museum could ever hope to own an elaborately etched garniture or even a signature piece by a recognised master a rmourer - and the conversation

60 I ICOMAM 50: Papers on arms and military history 1957-2007 was dom inated mo re and more by New Yo rk (and to a l esser degree Boston, P h i ladelphia, Washington, and Chicago). Fina lly, in the second half of the 20th centu ry, an additional pall seems to have come over a rms and armour in America. Although the country suppo rts the world's largest defence industry and military system, and it a lso enshrines the 'right to bear a rms' in i ts fo unding docu ment and constantly in legal matters at the state and federa l leve l , there seems to be an inc reasing hes itation to spea k of a rms and a rmou r for what it is: military equipment. Museums of ai rcraft and tanks are readily a ccepted in the country and draw h uge crowds ever yea r. Museums or displays of the gun seem to be accepted as it has become an iconic (if contested) image of the American experience. But there is a pa use when arms and a rmou r is found in an a rt m useum, as if to question whether it deserves to stand alongside the Matisses and Reno i rs and even the Rothkos. Part of this reticence may be due to q u estioning whether a p p l i ed or industri a l a rt s ho u ld be in an a rt museum - a l though a fine piece of Chippendale fu rniture or (functional) sterling silve r tea service ra rely draws the same fire - but much of it seems to be an unspoken and q u ite peculiar anti m i l itarism in the m useu m. Perhaps part of this is a tension between a rt museums, where fine exa m ples of h u man craft are displayed, and the history m useu m, where records of past a c h ieve ments a re shown. (The industri a l m u s e u m at one t i m e cla imed a rms and a rmou r,s but it i s no longer considered relevant for those, now hands-on 'science centres'). For the American history museum, a rms and a rmou r is a rt and therefo re o u t of p l a c e as it was neve r p a rt of o u r h isto ry; fo r the a rt m useum, it is h istorical and therefore potentially out of place there. In the introduction to the Art of Chivalry, while positioning a rms and armour as one more category of tool that 'distinguishes man from animals,' it was nevertheless felt necessary to say that 'it is sad but true, that the sword is literally o lder than the plowshare.' They explain their a pology: 'In the aftermath of the war in V ietnam and under repercussions from recent pol itical assassinations, contem pora ry opinion is understandably in strong disfavor of anything connected with weapons and violence. It must be pointed out, however, that a s ubstantial pa rt of a l l a rms - a rmor- was protective, that is designed to save lives. The weapon as such is neither good nor evil but a document and indispensable part of the history of mankind' (Funcken 1983: 9). But this is not a recent p henomenon. D u ring the Depression one catalogue begged, 'It is hoped that the visitor will not loo k u pon these fi rea rms merely as wea pons of destruction, but rather as objects which require consu mmate skill on the part of the a rtists who made t hem' (Grancsay 1933: xi). And even more recently, cu rators continue to in a sense justify their exhibitions as art by noting that the sorts of a rmours that make it into modern collections a re exactly the sort used for parade and show, not those designed to actually be used for- gasp - military actions. 6

Armour and arms in American museums I 61 The somewhat ashamed reaction to the warl i ke character of arms a nd a rmour is not just a function of the post-Vietn a m era, for Stephen Grancsay invoked Leonardo a nd Celli ni, Rembrandt a nd DUrer to laud bladesmiths ( 1933: ix-x), a nd later used this same wary justification that most of the ornate a rmours were not only used, but designed for parades a nd celebrations, never intended for wa r at a l l ( 19 64 : 8). I ndeed, if Bashford Dean was the voice of Am eric a n arms a nd a rmou r up to the 1920s, from the 1930s in to the 1 9 6 0 s, Gra ncsay fil led that ro l e, a nd it wou ld a p pear that he felt a tension between the old Dean- i n s p i red fu nctio n a l a nd scientific mode of a nalysis, a nd the T homa s-inspired (if Breidling is right) mode of a rt hi storical a na lysis. As the closing a rgument to the i ntroduction to the 1 9 64 Allentown (PA) Art Museum exhibition, Stephen Grancsay began to speak with the sl ightly defen sive tone that would characterise the position of a rms a nd armour in a rt museums from there on out: 'The designers a nd a rtists who made the objects in this exh ibition had the capabilities that a re so much in demand today. T hey were creative designers, engineers a nd craftsmen of great ski l l who met successfully the current challenges. It i s primarily their merit a s artistic meta lwork that gives arms a nd armor a place in a museum of a rt' (Grancsay 1964 : 11 ). I can do no more than actively acknowledge this hesitancy towa rds arms a nd a rmour in America , a nd to emphasize that it has played a strong role in the display a nd interpretation of arms a nd a rmour here for the last few decades at least. Display strategies W ith that said, a brief survey of some of the smaller and medium-sized American museu m s that ho ld or h ave s hown a rm s a nd a rmou r a nd the situatio n s of their acquisitions a nd exhibitions will round out this investigation. I concentrate on the smaller museums a s they offer a glimpse of either the more contentious aspects of a rms a nd armour collecti ng or give a ind ication at how the more typical museum curator and visitor alike perceives arms and armour in their collections. After all, the major collections such as Chicago, P h i ladelphia, Clevela nd, and of course New York - which had over 1 4 ,0 0 0 objects in the arms a nd a rmour department by the in ea rly 1980s (Funcken 1983 : 7) - no longer need to justify their collecting or the mounting of ex hibitions. The mediu m-sized museums, however, find themselves in an interesting position of having to justify every exhibition they mount in terms of space, budget, a nd atte ndance, as well m a ke an i n tellectual a rgument as to the p ro priety a nd necessity of the to pic to their m i ssion. In what fo l lows, then, no attempt is made to ex p l icitly trace the pe rso n a l a nd i n stitution a l co n n ectio n s between these mu seu m s or between them a nd t h e major co l lectio n s . Rather, through a series of vignettes, I hope to give a sense of the la ndscape of arms a nd a rmour collecting in America since World Wa r II.

62 I ICOMAM 50: Papers on arms and milita ry history 1957-2007 W h e n t h e C i ty Art M u se u m i n St. Lo u i s p u b l i shed its fi rst catalogue afte r World War II, the art h i storical a pproach had thoroughly taken hold. The c u rator, T homas Hoopes, noted in h i s catalogue of the collect ion, which doubled as a slim h i story of a rms and a rmour a s we ll, that in a City M u seum of Art, the col l ection had by defi n ition to be a rt i stic: 'The City Art M u s e u m is, a s the name i m p l i es, restricted to objects of a rt, to object s which, independently of their usefu l ness, a re m o re or less beautifu l by the i n tent ion of their m a kers.' Gone a re the 'fu nct i o n a l bea uty' a rgu m e nts of the in te rwa r yea rs. Now, he had a l m ost to a pologise fo r the older criteria: 'There a re numerous items in the cast ra nge of a rmor a nd a rms which do not fi l l this requirement, and a re purely ut ilitarian. The Muse u m p o ss e s ses s p eci m e n s of some of these. A s t h ey a re n ot c o n s i d e red object s of a rt t h ey a re not on ex hibit ion, but have been a ssembled in a special study collect ion where they can be seen on application to the Curator' (Hoopes 1 954: v). T h roughout t h e rest of t h e guide, Hoopes ex p l a i n s the fu nc t i o n a l evolution o f armour a n d arms, basing his orga nization a nd logic on ut i l ity, a l l the wh ile a ppea l i ng to the beauty of the ornament upon the object s. Afte r explaining the mecha nism of a cra nequin, even going so far to incl ude nu merical estimates of the force a p plied a n d rendered to spa n the cros sbow, Hoopes begins the very n ext p a ragra p h (whic h a l so conc l u d e s the section), ' Retu r n i n g to t h e a rtist ic a s pects of the c rossbow . . . we ob se rve that the whol e of t h e wood e n stock i s inlaid with pl ates o f wh ite staghorn engraved with scenes i l lu strating t h e legend of W i lliam Tel l -certainly an a ppropriate decoration!' In effect, Hoo

European or Asian museums of arms and armour. America had no real experience with European arms and armour as it was only settled by Europeans near the end of the functional use of armour, and became a self-governing and therefore militarily aware country a century or more after armour's full demise. Additionally,