The Jason Russell House

ARLINGTON HISTORICAL SOCIETY AND THE JASON RUSSELL HOUSE

The Arlington Historical Society was established in 1897 in response to a growing sense of rapid cultural change, and the attendant desire to preserve stories and materials of the local past. Like many towns in the New England area, Arlington (previously known as West Cambridge, and then Menotomy) had seen intense and bloody fighting during the Revolutionary War, and the stories related to those battles were integral to the town’s identity. In 1923 the Society purchased a building connected to that identity: the colonial era home of Jason Russell, who was killed there in a battle with British forces.

The Jason Russell House, with the George A. Smith Museum addition on the left.

Photo credit: Edgar B. Herwick III

Like many historic buildings in the area, the Jason Russell House was preserved due to its important role in the Revolutionary War. The central story told by tour guides is about the Battle of Menotomy that took place in and around Jason Russell’s house. Guides stop in front a large painting depicting the House surrounded by violent and bloody fighting. Guides explain how British soldiers retreating towards Boston surrounded and attacked the house. The painting provides rich visual information as visitors listen to the story of Jason Russell’s death by gunshot. The story continues throughout the tour as guides point out bullet holes in walls and stairs and tell of rebel forces shooting up from their refuge in the cellar.

Detail of Ruth L. Berry’s Bicentennial painting, “The Fight at the Jason Russell House”

Photo credit: Edgar B. Herwick III

Preservation is central to the Society’s stated objectives, which read:

1.     To promote and encourage the knowledge of the history of the Town of Arlington and the preservation of its antiquities;

2.     To aid in the dissemination of historical information in the Town and elsewhere.

3.     To preserve and operate the Jason Russell House, the George A. Smith Museum, and its collection of archives and artifacts;

4.     To engage in such other activities as may be permitted by the Corporate Charter of 1897 and the Bylaws of the Society.[1]

The Society is run as a non-profit organization with an 11-member board of directors and is unassociated with the town of Arlington. It has a membership of over 250. Aside from the part-time paid position of Museum Administrator, all staff work as volunteers. The Society’s financial resources include an endowment, funds from de-accessioned items sold at auction, fundraising efforts and donations.

COLLECTIONS AND THE GEORGE A. SMITH MUSEUM

The Society’s collection started with historical manuscripts, which are now among the 3,638 items in the archives. The archives also includes “archives of the Society, manuscripts, diaries, correspondence, deeds and other primary source records of town history and residents, maps, architectural plans, ephemera, audio and visual recordings.”[2] A library collection of 1,351 books is considered part of the archives. The Society has also collected objects and photographic materials. The majority of the 4,548 objects are household materials including textiles, furniture and kitchen tools. The object collection also includes guns and other military items from the Revolutionary War. The photographic collection consists of 4,368 prints, negatives and lantern slides.

Notable parts of the collection have occasionally been highlighted on the Society’s blog. The House has a hand-painted kitchen ceiling; the discovery of this previously hidden ceiling and the rarity of such decoration are described in a blog post by Museum Administrator Sara Lundberg.[3] A seven-part series of blog posts by a volunteer researcher discuss the provenance and relevance of quilts in the collection.[4] Other significant items held by the Society are likely unknown due to the lack of intellectual control over the collection; this is discussed further below.

After decades of holding collections in expensive off-site storage, the Society built the George A. Smith Museum in 1981. The Museum was built as an addition attached to the House. The main floor features exhibit space and the basement accommodates the materials held in storage. Aside from the items on exhibit in the House and on the main floor of the Museum, the bulk of the collection is now located in the museum’s climate controlled basement. A safe deposit box at an undisclosed location contains valuable jewelry.

INFORMATION SHARING AMONG STAFF

According to current volunteer tour guides, some of whom work at other historic houses, the Jason Russell House is very informal in its operations. One guide said he’s worked at several historic houses “and this is the most informal I’ve seen”. There are no official tour guide trainings, nor is training a part of the Society’s stated mission. No regular, formal email communications or professional association memberships are in place. Staff members email each other to share information, and “sometimes use Google docs”; they learn of best practices or trends in the field “through the grapevine” or from jobs at other houses. [5] Only Lundberg reports conference attendance, but such professional development is severely restricted by insufficient time and resources.

Because of volunteer staff turnover and informal staff management, it is critical that information important to the Society’s Board be communicated to staff. The Jason Russell House Tour Guide Manual is one low-tech method of information sharing. Written by Tour Guide Chairperson Doris Birmingham, the manual is a detailed seven-page document that “walks” the volunteer guides through each room of the house in a narrative format.  Guides study the document and use its information as the basis of their tours. Thirteen items described in the manual, mostly furnishings, are highlighted in red and boldface. The story of the House is primarily told through the stories of these objects and the roles they played in the life of the Russell family and in the fatal battle. “Tall clock” in bold red signals to the guide that the story of the clock is significant: the extant clock is not the original, the Russell’s clock, in a similar style, is thought to have been looted by British soldiers. The manual also shares information with guides about conservation concerns; “secret cupboard” in bold red instructs guides to learn and tell the story of what was kept in the cupboard, but the paragraph also reminds guides to use gloves when opening and closing it, as “you can see the marks from too much handling”.[6]

The tours are formalized and rigid in structure, as is common in historic house museums. Although visitors are occasionally asked if they have questions, they are generally expected to follow the guide through the rooms and to listen passively.  As at most historic museums, the visitor numbers have steadily gone down at the Jason Russell House; it’s reasonable to expect this is related to changing expectations on behalf of visitors. In today’s cultural and learning experiences, users are accustomed to playing a participatory role and may be less interested in a passive learning experience. As Marty warns, “If museum professionals do not understand their visitors’ changing needs, they cannot predict where those needs will take them”, though he also admits that “from the perspective of the museum professional, the expectations of the modern museum visitor can seem rather outlandish”.[7]

Other documents are created, revised and shared among the Society’s Board in efforts to outline plans, prioritize projects and push initiative forward. A strategic plan written in 2015[8] notes the decrease in visitation discussed by Carson.[9] When asked about strategies to reach visitors who may want a more participatory experience, Lundberg responded “We want to make it more relevant” and said it is an issue important to address. It’s interesting to consider the potential for Carson’s “Plan B” in the context of New England’s American Revolution “superstory”.

A significant amount of research has been conducted for a disaster plan by board member Doreen Stevens, resulting in two documents that are essentially compilations of first-responder plans taken from other sources. The documents are titled “If You’re First” and “AHS Emergency Response”.[10]  Water entering the basement of the Smith Museum is considered to be a primary threat, which is reflected in both documents. “If You’re First” supply list includes boots, plastic sheeting, wax paper, and fans. “AHS Emergency Response” includes information about local moisture control service providers and includes a recommendation to “change to or investigate water-proof storage boxes where possible and more encapsulation of individual docs to retard water damage”. Lundberg considers the plan incomplete, as “it has to be to customized for the location” and is missing basic and vital components such as phone trees. Stevens acknowledges that the two documents, along with other reports produced and shared with the Board, are not sufficient; “an Emergency Response Plan must be constantly revised and, I believe, a stated responsibility of a power-holder in the organization’s inner circle (staff or Board).”[11]

INFORMATION SHARING WITH PUBLIC

The Society shares information with the public through guided tours which cost $5 per person, exhibits on display in the museum (free admittance), a yearly event series, and a newsletter. Although the tours consist of telling stories through objects, the objects themselves are unlabeled and do not offer visitors additional information beyond the tour guide’s monologue.  By contrast, exhibits on display in the George A. Smith Museum (described below) have large interpretive labels with extensive narrative information.

The events produced by the Society are varied and demonstrate a desire to make history interesting and relevant to visitors. They accomplish this by featuring local community groups in their programming and by drawing connections between cultural life in colonial times and today. The “Social Needlework” program traces patterns of social networking from quilting bees and sewing circles to today’s social media networks.

The Society also shares information with the public through its online presence, which includes a website, blog and Facebook page. Though its design is outdated, the website offers a comprehensive overview of the Society, the history of the House and Museum and the collections. The blog is part of the website; the posts are irregular and have no reader comments. Only the Facebook page shows evidence of consistent updates and active user participation.

ACCESSIBILITY AND CONDITIONS

Although the House and Museum are physically accessible via ramps, the collections are largely inaccessible due to the limited intellectual control held over the materials. As stated in the 2015 Strategic Plan, “The collection is currently underutilized as a resource to scholars.”[12]

The last inventory was in 1987, and Lundberg relates that until recently, physical access was “very casual”, with several unmonitored keys available to staff. Boxes containing the archives, objects and photographs are in the basement’s climate controlled environment, but not well organized or labeled. Lundberg admits to “not knowing where things are” and is aware of items that have gone missing.

Digitizing of accession records began in the early 2000s, with increased efforts over the last two years. Lundberg estimates that 95 to 99 percent of approximately 1,300 records are now available in digital form in Past Perfect. However, the records themselves were not originally complete and are often missing vital information such as location; as Lundberg says, “you just have to dig.”[13]

The condition of collection items has only been verified by periodic spot-checking. When Lundberg sees a record describing a potentially fragile item, she often goes looking for it in order to assess its condition. A silk wedding dress dating from the late 1600s was eventually found, boxed and well cared for. This spot-checking has demonstrated that at least portions of the collection are in “surprisingly good condition”. Lundberg considers the need for a full inventory to be the most critical institutional priority. But as Stevens commented about the disaster plan, an initiative’s success depends on whether it’s taken up by a “power-holder” in the organization. The goals stated in the strategic plan include “complete inventory and provide online access” and includes proposals that are specific about software and workflow. However, this goal is one among many other goals in the document that must compete for attention and resources. A prioritization is not clear in the plan; time will tell how the board leadership decides the organization should progress.

---

[1] “Bylaws”, Arlington Historical Society, accessed April 16, 2016, http://www.arlingtonhistorical.org/about-us/bylaws/

[2] “Collections”, Arlington Historical Society, accessed April 16, 2016, http://www.arlingtonhistorical.org/learn/collections

[3] “A kitchen with a polka dot ceiling”, Arlington Historical Society, accessed April 18, 2016, http://www.arlingtonhistorical.org/2015/07/a-kitchen-with-a-polka-dot-ceiling/

[4] “Highlights of the AHS quilt collection, part 1”, Arlington Historical Society, accessed April 29, 2016, http://www.arlingtonhistorical.org/2015/highlights-of-the-ahs-quilt-collection-part-1

[5] On-site interview with tour guides, April 23, 2016.

[6] Jason Russell House Tour Guide Manual, consulted April 23, 2016.

[7] Marty, P. F. “Changing needs and expectations”, in Museum Informatics: people, information and technology in museums, ed. Marty, P. F. & Jones, K. B. (New York: Routledge). 181-185

[8] Lundberg, S., Parsons, G. Fredieu, R. & Jones, A., “Arlington Historical Society Strategic Plan”, accessed April 28, 2016, http://www.arlingtonhistorical.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/StrategicPlanForWeb.pdf

[9] Carson, C. “The End of History Museums: What’s Plan B?” The Public Historian 30, no. 4 (Fall 2008): 9-27

[10] Copies of these documents were shared with me by Doreen Stevens via email on April 27, 2016.

[11] Email communication with Doreen Stevens, received April 27, 2016.

[12] Lundberg, S., Parsons, G. Fredieu, R. & Jones, A., “Arlington Historical Society Strategic Plan”, accessed April 28, 2016, http://www.arlingtonhistorical.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/StrategicPlanForWeb.pdf

[13] Phone interview with Sara Lundberg, April 26, 2016

Old South Meeting House

The Old South Meeting House is a museum and National Historic Landmark on the Freedom Trail in downtown Boston, run by the non-profit Old South Association. Built in 1729, it served as a Puritan/Congregational meeting house (basically a church, although the Puritans didn’t call it a church because they didn’t consider the space itself to be sacred, thus it could be used for secular purposes like town meetings) until the 1870s and officially became a museum in 1877. Following in the tradition of public speeches and meetings held in the space since the 18th century, including speeches commemorating the Boston Massacre and the debates that led to the Boston Tea Party, the Meeting House also acts as a forum for free speech and civic discussion, particularly in the 1920s when the Old South Association voted to allow speakers and public discussion "without regard to the unpopularity of any cause." Today, the Meeting House mainly acts as a history museum and a venue for weddings, other private events, and educational lectures.

OSMH has six full time employees, none of which are officially any sort of information professional like a curator. Emily Curran, the Executive Director, has a degree in Museum Education and has also worked at the Boston Children’s museum as the Senior Developer, developing programming, exhibits, and leaning materials. The current Visitor Services Director, my boss, Ilse Allen, has some experience with collections including cataloging and processing, while she was in the museum studies program at Tufts, but her main experience is in visitor services. Thus, none of the current staff at OSMH fill any sort of role of curator or collections manager. Emily did help to develop the museum’s current exhibit (discussed below) but it seems to have essentially remained untouched for nearly 20 years.

Within the museum, as the visitors experience it, information comes from a single exhibit, titled Voices of Protest, which consists of seven exhibit cases along the back of the hall, which include images and objects related to the Meeting House’s history, along with paragraphs of text. Each exhibit case has at least one or two physical objects and/or documents in them besides facsimile images of documents and photographs, including an original copy of Phillis Wheatley’s 1773 book of poetry, an 18^th-century Chinese label from a chest of tea, a copy of the Port Act which closed Boston Harbor in 1774, the diary of Civil War-era minister George W. Blagden, a handwritten poem by Ralph Waldo Emerson, and original copies of books that were banned in Boston in the 1920s. There is no information available to the public about these items besides their labels in the exhibits and, as far as I know as an employee of the museum, if there is any internal information about the items staff rarely if ever consult it, or even talk about it. As I mentioned above, the exhibit cases have essentially been the same since the 1990s and I am not sure how much any of the staff have really thought about the information potential of the objects inside them, either by changing things in the exhibits or putting anything online.

Any other information about the building and its history mainly come from staff, including Museum Assistants, which I am. We are trained to answer questions about the history and architecture of the building. There are also educational programs from school groups and some items available in the shop, such as an architecture guide.

While not much about the collection (such as it is) is intellectually accessible to the public at OSMH, the museum itself is physically accessible. The building was the largest in Boston in the 1700s and is still very open and easily maneuverable and the actual museum space is a single floor—the main hall— so there are no physical barriers to anyone coming in the main doors and going into the museum. Restrooms and the museum shop are in the basement, which is accessible by elevator.

Since the exhibit space is basic glass cases there are no apparent specific environmental controls for the documents and objects inside. The entire building has heat and air conditioning, the lights within the cases are dim and not directly on the objects, and visitors are asked not to take flash photography of anything in the building.

Besides the items in the exhibit, the only other publicly-accessible information related to OSMH in physical collections is the collection of records from OSMH (or the Old South Church)when it was a Puritan/Congregational church in the 17^th to 19^th centuries, which are housed at the Congregational Library & Archives. Thus, OSMH does not have physical control over or responsibility for these papers. The Congregational Library does have a publicly accessible finding aid for the collection but many of the collections are restricted physically because of their age and condition, but microfilm copies are available. A large problem with this collection is that there is no connection made between the Old South Church papers and the Meeting House as it exists today. The finding aid links to the current Old South Church, located in Copley Square, where the congregation of OSMH moved in the 1870s, but there is no mention of OSMH. Neither is there a mention of the Congregational Library collection on OSMH’s website. I only happen to know about this collection because of a small slip of paper on a bulletin board at the admissions desk in the museum that lets us know that inquiries about the church’s records can be directed to the Congregational Library.

Two things that OSMH does well that we have discussed in class are social media/an engaging web presence and collaboration, which I will discuss below.

Social Media & Web Presence

OSMH has an attractive, information-filled website that includes everything from schedules of upcoming events and info on planning school group visits and weddings and other functions, to a detailed history of the building and its various uses from the 17^th century to the present. Not surprisingly there is very little about the collections that the museum does have on the website. The only real reference to the exhibit and any of the objects is on the Visit page [http://www.osmh.org/visit-us] which mentions a few of the objects as something to see at the museum. There are also a few photographs of the interior of the building, some of which include the exhibit cases but there are no accompanying captions or labels to explain what you are seeing. Thus, any collections information that may be available to users is only really available in the museum itself, or perhaps through direct contact with museum staff.

The Meeting House has a much better social media presence—on Facebook, Twitter, and Youtube. The icons for these sites are relatively large and visible in the upper right hand corner of every page on the site. They have around 3000 likes/followers on Facebook and Twitter, although these 3000 engage with OSMH differently on each platform. Perhaps unlike many museums, OSMH doesn’t exclusively use social media as a way to advertise its events—although it certainly posts about events often. Event announcements and reminders are interspersed with informational posts about historical anniversaries and sometimes just a nice photograph of flowers outside of the building. From the images below, it is easy to see that there is a good deal of engagement with users on social media—at least on Facebook—with hundreds of likes and dozens of shares, although event-related posts have many fewer likes. There is much less engagement on Twitter where the same photograph of the flowers has only nine likes and five retweets. Obviously, then, OSMH’s main audience online is on Facebook, even though they seem to post more on Twitter, especially short blurbs about events. This does follow what we have discussed about the different purposes or uses of each site, but perhaps OSMH could do better at tailoring the amount of work done with each platform to the size and engagement of the audience.

One fun way that the Meeting House tailored its use of Twitter to engage the public and also educate them about the building’s history was tweeting “On this Day” updates on April 18 about the Midnight Ride of William Dawes who, like Paul Revere, was sent out to warn the surrounding towns about the arrival of the British army in 1775. There is a particular significance to Dawes’s ride at OSMH because he and his family were members of the congregation.

Collaboration

            Outside of normal operation hours, OSMH hosts many events, mainly educational lectures, and nearly all of them involve some sort of collaboration with other Boston-based organizations. Just in April and May of this year, types of collaborations include a lecture on photographs of Frederick Douglass simply funded by the Lowell Institute, a concert series presented by the New England Conservatory, a lecture about the history of Boston’s Market District funded by the Lowell Institute and co-sponsored by Historic New England, and Celebrate Boston, a quiz night co-sponsored by the Downtown Boston Business Improvement District with food provided by the Omni Parker House hotel and other local restaurants. From personal experience I know that some of the events are well attended while some are not, but OSMH continues to hold similar events, so they must be working well enough and generating enough money—although occasionally some events are free, such as the concert series.

Perhaps the most well-known of OSMH’s collaborations is the annual Boston Tea Party reenactment, done in conjunction with the Boston Tea Party Ships and Museums along with multiple volunteer historical reenactors. It is by far the most popular event at OSMH, with packed seats at the Meeting House, where the debates that led to the Tea Party are reenacted, and more people joining as the audience leaves the building and goes down to the Tea Party Ships and watches as reenactors dump tea into the harbor. It is a logical collaboration as well since OSMH and the BTP Ships and Museum cover the same history (and much more in OSMH’s case), that of the historical Tea Party itself. Although it is a one night event once a year it requires a good deal of planning, to sell tickets and coordinate the reenactors involved. The collaboration also is a bit less tangible because, unlike other events at OSMH where both organizations are working on the exact same activities, the Tea Party Reenactment involves two technically separate activities at each of the museums. Even so, it is a good example of a successful cooperative event that draws big crowds and generates a lot of publicity.

In the end, while the Old South Meeting House is technically a history museum, it has a more distinct history, purpose, and function that make it a less-traditional museum space. There really are no formal collections of items or information about any items available to the public, either in-person and on the Web, beyond simple exhibit labels. Instead, OSMH upholds its Mission to preserve the building as a space for free speech and civic discussion by hosting educational events where members of the public can learn about the history of the building, Boston, and the United States. It also fulfills its Mission by maintaining a strong web presence, on its own website and on social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter, as well as with numerous collaborations, mainly for educational events. As a site on the Freedom Trail it maintains a piece of Boston's history, even if it does not have any significant collections.

Resources:
Old South Meeting House website: http://www.osmh.org/
OSMH 20th century history: http://www.osmh.org/history/dissent-and-free-speech
Old South Church records finding aid: http://www.congregationallibrary.org/finding-aids/BostonMAOldSouth0028
OSMH Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/OSMHBoston
OSMH Twitter: https://twitter.com/OSMHBoston
Boston Tea Party Reenactment: http://www.osmh.org/history/boston-tea-party/boston-tea-party-annual-reenactment

The Vilna Shul: Boston's Center for Jewish Culture

I chose to study how the Vilna Shul: Boston’s Center for Jewish Culture uses information because I was interested in the shul’s (Yiddish for synagogue) connection to the Jewish immigrant narrative in Boston. The Vilna Shul, built in 1919 by Lithuanian immigrants living in Boston, has today been revitalized as a historic site and cultural center. When I visited the Vilna Shul in Beacon Hill, despite the age of the building and its artifacts, I did not feel like I was visiting an archaic historic site, unconnected to my twenty-first century life. Instead, I felt like I could see the building through the eyes of its congregants, and experience the sanctuary like a member of their community. I imagined what it was like to sit in the pews in the early twentieth-century, watching the doors of the ark (the cabinet that holds Torah scrolls) being opened. I felt connected to the synagogue’s history, although I was experiencing the shul in the present. My connection to the shul, and my feelings of almost transcending time, is what Franklin D. Vagnone and Deborah E. Ryan refer to as a “poetic experience” in their book Anarchist’s Guide to Historic House Museums (Vagnone and Ryan, p. 35). Vagnone and Ryan (2016) use a quote by Randy Roberts to illuminate the idea of a poetic experience:

There are moments within the museum visit experience that seem to go beyond the cognitive, affective, and physical realms, reaching into a place that involves transcendence, awe, and spirituality. These experiences are often described in terms of being touched by an object…in such a powerful way that the viewer is held in time and place unable to turn away, or experiences a flow state, losing track of time. (p. 35)

To help museums achieve this passionate response from visitors, Vagnone and Ryan (2016) explore the idea of “poetic preservation,” which “[draws] connections between the real-life, quirky, and emotional experiences from the House’s past and the same sorts of feelings in the visitors’ own homes” (p. 35). While Vagnone and Ryan are writing about historic house museums, their theories extend to historic, preserved synagogues like the Vilna Shul. Although the Vilna Shul does not incorporate many standard museum procedures into institutional workflows, the shul is available as a case study of a historic site with services that embody a sense of poetic preservation. This paper will incorporate an analysis of how information is used, displayed, and preserved in the Vilna Shul, as well as an exploration of how the Vilna Shul utilizes poetic preservation.

Just as community was the impetus for the birth of the Vilna Shul, building community is now a large part of the historic synagogue’s current mission. An informational pamphlet, Self Guided Tour & Property History (2016), provided by Vilna Shul explains the history of the synagogue. A group of Jewish immigrants from Vilnius, Lithuania, the Anshei Vilner (people of Vilnius) began their congregation in 1893, in the midst of a period of substantial Jewish immigration from Eastern Europe to the United States. At first, the congregation gathered to pray in the homes of its members. In 1906, the congregation purchased its first synagogue building, originally the Twelfth Baptist Church, and adapted the building to become a shul. In 1916 the city of Boston took this building by eminent domain, and in 1919 the congregation members began building its second synagogue at 18 Phillips Street. The congregation held services in this synagogue until 1985 (The Vilna Shul, 2016). The Vilna Shul was re-opened to serve as a modern cultural center for the Boston Jewish community, as well as a landmark for anyone interested in the history of Boston. The Vilna Shul mission (which is not on the Vilna Shul website) states:

We are dedicated to preserving history by restoring our building and embracing the collective memories of the past, while simultaneously establishing ourselves as a significant community and cultural resource in Boston. By fostering awareness and inspiring historical, cultural, and spiritual connections, we will build community, perpetuate an enduring Jewish identity, and create a vibrant future. (R. Spilecki, personal communication, April 19, 2016).

To achieve its mission, the Vilna Shul puts equal emphasis on being a historic site and a community center. The shul functions as a historic site, preserving the synagogue and the original objects used by congregants. In ways it also functions as a history museum by presenting exhibits about the history of the synagogue and the Jewish immigrant narrative in Boston. To achieve its mission of being a cultural center, staff members put a lot of time into creating programming for community members. The staff members at the Vilna Shul include: Executive Director Barnet Kessel, Director of Development Rosa Kramer Franck, Director of Communications and Community Outreach Lynne Krasker Shultz, and Administrator Rachel Spilecki. A Board of Directors and an Advisory Committee also support the Vilna Shul, and the synagogue is affiliated with the organizations Museums of Boston and Partners in Preservation. With its function as both a historical site and a cultural center, the Vilna Shul at times foregoes traditional museum standards to focus on creating community experiences and acting as a cultural resource.

The Vilna Shul displays historic artifacts associated with the synagogue and its former congregation. While the Vilna Shul does not officially consider these objects a collection, the objects, like the collections in house museums, provide evidence of the Vilner Congregation, and the time and culture within which they used the synagogue building. Rachel Spilecki, Adminisrator at the Vilna Shul, notes that the most important artifact is the synagogue building (R. Spilecki, personal communication, April 15, 2016). By preserving the building, the labor and craftsmanship of the Anshei Vilner are preserved, including their painted murals. The shul is currently restoring the murals that the congregants painted on the sanctuary walls. The murals had been painted over, but are now being restored after being discovered during a paint investigation. Painting murals on sanctuary walls was a pre-World War II Eastern European tradition, but many painted synagogues were destroyed during the war, and there are now few examples of the tradition of synagogue murals (Berkovich, 2010). The conservation of the murals in the Vilna Shul gives visitors the opportunity to learn about the traditions of Eastern European Jews, as well as the traditions of the Vilner Congregation after immigrating to America. The congregation’s Jewish and American cultural affiliations are reflected in the murals, such as one mural that shows ancient Jerusalem and another painted in the Colonial Revival style. The synagogue building and the murals are significant holdings for the Vilna Shul, and the other objects in the collection also hold value as evidence of the congregation’s culture and experiences.

The other objects in the Vilna Shul are religious and utilitarian objects preserved from the original congregation, including the congregation’s ark (a holy cabinet for storing Torah scrolls), pickle barrels that were used as Torah stands, and the synagogue’s original pews, which were also the original pews of the Twelfth Baptist Church. The objects in the sanctuary of the synagogue hold significant information value because they illustrate the traditions the Anshei Vilner brought with them from Lithuania, as well as evidence of the community’s assimilation to America. For instance, the Self Guided Tour & Property History (2016) explains that in front of the ark the congregants placed a yartzite rail, where people stood to recite yartzite prayers on the anniversary of a loved ones’ death. While in American synagogues, the yartzite prayers are typically said while seated, standing at a yartzite rail is a Lithuanian tradition (The Vilna Shul, 2016). The shul’s ark is decorated in a Baroque style that was popular in New England at the time; it is curiously decorated with scallop shells and oak trees, despite the fact that scallops are not kosher foods and cannot be eaten by Jewish people, and oak tree are symbols associated with paganism (The Vilna Shul, 2016). Rachel Spilecki explained that the congregants specifically chose these decorations for their ark because these designs were popular in New England, and the congregation wanted to demonstrate their pride for their new home (personal communication, March 18, 2016). The pews in the synagogue represent the history of different cultures in Boston, specifically the Eastern European Jewish immigrant community and the African American community of the Twelfth Baptist Church. The objects in the Vilna Shul are culturally significant for multiple Boston communities, as well as visitors to Boston with or without connections to these communities. 

Accessibility to the objects in the Vilna Shul is dependent on historical context. Discussing the display of utilitarian objects like bowls in preserved death camps from the Holocaust, Elaine Heumann Gurian (1999) notes that cultural value “depends not upon the object itself, but on an associated story that may render [an object] unique or important” (p. 171). The Vilna Shul provides the historical context necessary to make the synagogue artifacts accessible and important to visitors by providing guests with the informational pamphlet Self Guided Tour & Property History. This pamphlet has sections on the history of the shul, the property history of 18 Phillips Street, and the significance of objects in the sanctuary like the ark, murals, and yartzite rail. The synagogue also creates access to information by presenting exhibits on its first floor. The current exhibit, “Reconnect Tapestry,” provides the viewer with information about the nineteenth- and twentieth-century Eastern European Jewish immigrant community in Boston, a community that inhabited different neighborhoods within Boston before moving to the suburbs. This exhibit provides even more context for the Vilna Shul and its artifacts, as the visitor can learn about the community of Jewish immigrants within which the Vilna Shul and its congregants existed. The Vilna Shul’s website provides more contextual information about the synagogue, with web pages on the history of the shul and its congregation. Visitors to the Vilna Shul will “[bring] with them their background, experiences, cognition, culture, education, aptitudes, feelings, and moods” (Latham, 2012, p. 64), but contextual information is essential to the experience of visiting the synagogue and viewing its objects. While some visitors may have experiences and knowledge that allow them to understand the religious objects or Eastern European traditions presented in the synagogue, Rachel Spilecki explained that many of the visitors to the Vilna Shul are not Jewish, and many of them are not American (personal communication, March 18, 2016). The Vilna Shul provides essential contextual information that makes the objects accessible to all visitors. In the future, the Vilna Shul could utilize its web presence to bolster this context, using web pages to expand on details like the history of Jewish Eastern European immigrants in Boston, the history of the Beacon Hill area, and explanations of Jewish traditions and objects that could not be included in the small pamphlet currently being given to visitors.  

The museum could improve on its efforts to care for its collections by introducing cataloging into its workflow and creating a preservation plan for objects. The shul does not currently catalog its objects. Rachel Spilecki notes that there have been efforts to incorporate museum practices such as cataloging into the workflow at the Vilna Shul, but these efforts have been limited by not having the staff or volunteers with time to take on more projects (personal communication, April 15, 2016). Ultimately, a catalog with digital surrogates of the synagogue’s objects would be useful for the Vilna Shul staff members, as well as researchers. Cataloging is also a means of preservation: Corinne Jörgensen, Paul F. Marty, and Kathy Braun (2012) write that “[w]ithout a proper catalog detailing the institution’s holdings and their condition, unique items capable of increasing our knowledge risk being left to decay or are simply overlooked and forgotten” (p. 468). While historical preservation is part of the Vilna Shul’s mission, the synagogue does not currently have a preservation plan (R. Spilecki, personal communication, April 15, 2016). The Vilna Shul previously housed documents and records related to the synagogue’s history, but when the shul was first re-opening as a cultural center, well-meaning, un-trained volunteers destroyed many of the Vilna Shul’s records without recognizing their informational value. American Jewish Historical Society is currently processing the Vilna Shul’s remaining archives: AJHS will ensure that the records are preserved correctly and accessible to users, fulfilling the Vilna Shul’s mission to preserve the synagogue’s history (R. Spilecki, personal communication, April 15, 2016). The synagogue building also does not currently have any environmental controls. To combat environmental concerns, Rachel Spilecki (who is not the expert on these efforts, but is knowledgeable about synagogue history and operations) writes that the Vilna Shul has taken the following steps: placing modern fabric in the pickle barrel Torah stands, to protect the original velvet; keeping objects away from flaking walls; and keeping some objects in archive grade boxes in Rachel’s office, which is a more stable environment (personal communication, April 27, 2016). Fragile objects such as textiles and old books are currently kept in off-site storage, as a means of preservation (R. Spilecki, personal communication, April 15, 2016). The Vilna Shul formerly had a staff member with training in Museum Studies and Archaeology, but as this staff member had to prioritize her duties as Program Manager, she was limited in the preservation actions she could take in the building. Rachel Spilecki notes that because the Vilna Shul puts effort into functioning as a cultural center, it has been difficult to integrate practices like preservation planning (personal communication, April 27, 2016). Most of the collection is currently in good condition, but a preservation plan and investment in environmental controls would help Vilna Shul staff members ensure that the objects continue to stay in good condition for longevity. Although the Vilna Shul is aware of the preservation management needed for objects, staff members are currently balancing several priorities to achieve its mission. It may take time for the shul to develop the workflows, obtain the donations and volunteers, or hire the staff members to ultimately reach a place where it can completely carry out all the branches of its mission.

The Vilna Shul is an example of a center exercising the concept of poetic preservation. As poetic preservation is based on a connection between museum visitors and history, the Vilna Shul achieves this by putting as much emphasis on community engagement as on preserving and displaying objects. Just as the Anshei Vilner came together as a congregation in the late nineteenth-century, modern Jews and Bostonians can today come together as a community in the same space. To cultivate an active Jewish community in Boston, Vilna Shul hosts religious events such as Havurah on the Hill Young Adult Kabbalat Shabbat. A havurah is a group of Jews, and at Havurah on the Hill, young adults come together monthly to meet, eat, celebrate the weekly holiday of Shabbat with a religious service, and listen to a guest speaker from the community. Vagnone and Ryan (2016) write about the visitors to historic sites: “Visitors are looking for entertaining experiences, interactive learning, and opportunities for active participation with other people” (p. 12). Community events like Havurah on the Hill bring community members to the Vilna Shul, but allow people to actively participate in the synagogue by celebrating culture and religious traditions. Vagnone and Ryan (2016) also note that “a great many House Museums place visitor and community concerns at the bottom of the barrel” (p. 19). Those who revitalized the Vilna Shul knew the historical importance of the synagogue, but also recognized the needs of the community by using the shul as a place for community events and religious celebrations, including Shabbat, weddings, and bar and bat mitzvahs. The synagogue’s preservation is more certain because there is now a place for the Vilna Shul in the community, and people frequently attend the synagogue’s events. The Vilna Shul embodies the concept of poetic preservation by creating a use of the synagogue in the community, and holding events to welcome community members into this historic site.

The use of the sanctuary and its objects for religious events improves the experience for visitors touring the synagogue. Vagnone and Ryan (2016) determine that “visitors crave a more realistically presented habitation space and some illustration of the variety of occupation that occurred in it over time” (p. 137). As the sanctuary and some of the objects within it are used for religious services, the synagogue does illustrate how the congregants would have used it in the nineteenth and twentieth century. When I visited the Vilna Shul, in the sanctuary I saw a yad (a pointer used to read the Torah) on the bimah (central, raised podium), as well as objects that were possibly being prepared for the Havdalah service, the service marking the end of the Shabbat holiday. While visitors without the context of Jewish traditions might not have recognized these objects, the “visual complexity” of seeing religious or utilitarian objects inside of the sanctuary gives visitors the sense of how the sanctuary was used by the original congregants (Vagnone & Ryan, 2016, p. 137). While fragile or holy objects, like textiles or Torah scrolls, could not be left out in the open for visitors to see for preservation reasons, objects left out by Vilna Shul staff members contribute to an authentic environment for visitors: the synagogue feels used, because it is being used. The experience of viewing religious objects that are actually used in the sanctuary sustains the poetic preservation of the synagogue by creating an authentic experience for visitors. 

For its future, the Vilna Shul has the opportunity to make the synagogue more accessible, and broaden its audience in the Boston community. While many of the events at the Vilna Shul are focused around the Jewish community, people not affiliated with this community can attend events like discussions and film screenings. On April 10^th, 2016, the Vilna Shul hosted a panel on the 1936 Munich Olympics, and on May 10^th, 2016, the shul will host a screening of the film Etched in Glass: the Legacy of Steve Ross, as well as a discussion session with the film’s director. This film is a about the life of Stephan B. Ross, a Holocaust survivor who founded the New England Holocaust Memorial near Faneuil Hall. The Vilna Shul’s use of social media is also a way to broaden its audience: the synagogue is active on Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. The synagogue could better utilize best practices in social media to engage Bostonians, such as posting not just about events at the Vilna Shul but also about events and news from the broader community. In order to achieve its mission of building community and its institutional priority of community engagement, the synagogue could improve the physical accessibility of the building. The sanctuary is currently only accessible by stairs that lead from the entrance of the synagogue to the sanctuary on the second floor, and there is currently no wheelchair ramp leading up to the building. Rachel Spilecki reports that there are currently plans to make the building more physically accessible, including the addition of a wheelchair ramp to a new front entrance and potentially elevators in the building. The Vilna Shul seems to be continually improving and expanding its events and public services. By acting as a cultural resource for the Boston Jewish community, visitors to Boston, and Boston locals, the Vilna Shul will achieve its mission of community building as well as the poetic preservation of the synagogue as a historic site.

Thank you to Rachel Spilecki for answering all of my questions about the Vilna Shul!

Berkovich, Sarah (Director, Producer, Editor). (2010, June 10). Le’dor vador: The restoration of the Vilna Shul. Retrieved from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRhIKIMmCMk

Heumann Gurian, E. (1999). What is the object of this exercise? A meandering exploration of the many meanings of objects in museums. Daedalus, 128(3), 163-183. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20027571

Jörgensen, C., Marty, P. F., & Braun, K. (2012). Connecting to collections in Florida: Current conditions and critical needs in libraries, archives, and museums. The Library Quarterly, 82(4), 453-476. Retrieved from: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/667437

Latham, K. F. (2012). Museum object as document. Journal of Documentation, 68(1), 45-71. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/00220411211200329

Vagnone, F.D., & Ryan, D.E. (2016). Anarchist’s guide to historic house museums. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, Inc.

The Vilna Shul: Boston’s Center for Jewish Culture. (2016). Self guided tour & property history. Boston: The Vilna Shul.