Museums as a Means to (Re)Make Regional Identities: The Oltenia Museum (Romania) as Case Study
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript examines the historical narrative embedded in the History Section of the Oltenia Museum in Craiova, Romania and analyzes it in terms of three major dimensions: strategic, identity, and functional identities. As such, the paper contributes to the literature that emphasizes the role of museums as cultural institutions in constructing collective identities through curating the past. There are several issues that need to be addressed before considering this manuscript for publication, that are outlined below:
I. First and foremost, the theoretical framework of the paper (“Theoretical background”) is rather weak and could be significantly improved by a better engagement with the scholarship. This section discusses the topics of identity, regional identity, and collective memory, with relevant references to the literature. However, there are two missing topics that should be discussed properly, as detailed below:
1. The paper does not approach regional identity in relation to “national identity.” I see this as a major weakness of the current manuscript, that could be easily addressed by placing regional identities as part of broader national identities. There are loads of books and articles written on national identity, but the authors could selectively draw on the most important ones (Ernest Gellner, Eric J. Hobsbawm, Anthony D. Smith) in developing this connection between national and regional identities.
2. The authors talk about “master narrative.” Continuing the ideas made previously (see 1), I suggest the authors to discuss first the master narrative of Romanian history, and then explore the narrative told by the Oltenia Museum in relation to the national one. For this purpose, the authors could draw on works such as Lucian Boia’s Istorie și mit în conștiința românească (Bucharest: Humanitas, 1997) and Mihai S. Rusu’s Memoria naţională românească: facerea şi prefacerile discursive ale trecutului national (Iași: Institutul European, 2015).
II. Minor issues that should be addressed:
3. In the abstract, for geographical precision and having in mind an international readership, the paper should specify that the Oltenia Museum in Craiova in based in Romania.
4. In the first sentence, the authors should write the “European Union (EU)” (full name of the institution before the abbreviation).
5. Page 1, line 32: for the sake of symmetry, I suggest “the crossroads between eastern Europe and western Asia” (adding eastern).
6. Page 1, line 44 and the following ones: the sentence starting with “including the exhibition…” is unclear. Please revise so as to read clearly.
7. Page 2, line 47-49: O1 and O2 are not formulated as objectives, but as research questions. Please either rephrase to research questions (including the abbreviations RQ1 and RQ2) or drop the question marks and rephrase the sentences as research objectives.
8. Page 3, line 12: “the entire exhibition sqm (theme, …)” – please rephrase with full words before using the abbreviated form. Perhaps: “the entire exhibition space (theme, …)”.
Author Response
Please see attachment.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This was an interesting paper and I enjoyed reading it. While there is a growing literature about museums in post-communist contexts, this mainly focuses on big museums in capital cities. There’s be little written about smaller museums, in regional capitals, interpreting regional issues. Therefore this paper potentially has an interesting contribution to make to debate.
There are a number of issues which I suggest the authors could consider when revising this paper:
a) You tend to assume that there is a single Oltenian identity. But all identities are contested in some way. There will always be differing views on what constitutes any identity and Oltenian identity in particular. Therefore I suggest you should be careful in your use of ‘Oltenian identity’ because there may be no such thing. There will be ‘dominant’ understandings of Oltenian identity, or ‘widely shared’ views about Oltenian identity, but there won’t be a single Oltenian identity or an understanding of Oltenian identity that everybody shares in exactly the same way. Acknowledging this point could add greater nuance to this paper.
b) The discussion of the master narrative of the museum (section 5.1, page 5) doesn’t go into much detail (it’s mostly an account of what’s in the museum, followed by a short paragraph (lines 234-238) about the master narrative itself. Why not use the framework you presented earlier (encoding, decoding, represented) to expand this section? If you undertook interviews with museum staff (page 4) then you should be able to say more about the encoding of a master narrative. Similarly, through observations of visitors you can say something about the decoding of this narrative. At the moment the main focus is on who/what is represented.
On the subject of the master narrative, any museum narrative will be partial and selective and something/someone will be left out. So you could also comment on who/what is excluded from the master narrative (Ottoman influences? Jewish communities in Oltenia? Slavic communities? Roma communities? Influences from across the Danube with Bulgaria/Serbia?).
Another issue relating to the master narrative is that of continuity with the communist period. When the museum talks about hardships, the struggle of the people and its rulers to preserve the independence of the country (page 5, lines 234-238) and so on, this sounds exactly the same as the master narrative of Romanian history that was promoted by Ceausescu from the 1970s onwards. In many ways, the way that history is taught in post-communist Romania is quite similar to how it was taught during the communist era (but without glorifying the Communist Party). Themes such as the uniqueness of the Romanian people, their continued occupation of the territory that is now Romania, their struggle against foreign invaders, the drive to preserve independence – these were all prominent themes in communist historiography. So it’s possible that the master narrative of the museum hasn’t changed very much since the end of communism apart from removing any mention of the glorious communist regime. The best source to look at for this is Lucian Boia’s Istoria si mit in constiinta romaneasca.
Again, on the master narrative: is it inward-looking (focusing on uniquely Romanian influences and development) or outward-looking (focussing on connections and links to other European countries). It sounds quite inward-looking – another point of similarity with the communist period under Ceausescu. This brings us back to the 2 discourses of Romanian identity: Eastern (emphasising autochthonous, indigenous, Romanian developments, something strongly promoted by Ceausescu) or Western (acknowledging wider European connections and influences). Which is these is most prominent in the museum?
In summary, I think there is a lot more that you could say to investigate and interpret the museum’s master narrative in greater depth.
c) In section 5.2 you could again go into more detail about how the museum represents Oltenian identity. Firstly, see my comment above (a) about whether there really is a single Oltenian identity. What’s more significant is that the museum probably tries to represent a single Oltenian identity. This raises the question of why. And it again bring in the issue of what is not included in this identity. Is this Oltenian identity (as represented by the museum) exclusively Romanian, or does it include other communities? Again is it inward or outward looking (you mention how the Danube linked the Oltenia with the other Romanian regions, but what about links to other countries and the rest of Europe?). Is Oltenian regional identity ‘closed’ (entirely produced by influences within the region) or ‘open’ (created through contact, communication, exchange with other regions outside Romania). In short, what type of Oltenian identity is the museum constructing – and why might it be doing this?
Again you could structure section 5.2 around encoding of Oltenian identity (by museum professionals), decoding of this identity (by visitors – and you suggest that some visitors contest the museum’s master narrative [Page 6, line 302]) and who/what is represented. This, again, would result in a more detailed and more nuanced discussion.
d) The conclusion is perhaps the most unconvincing part of the paper. It mostly re-states points that you have already made in the paper. The conclusion is the place to link your findings back to the theoretical position that you set out in Section 2. What does the Craiova Museum tell us about the role of museums in communicating a particular version of history? What do the findings tell us about the role of museums in constructing a particular version of regional identity? What are the implications of your findings - for museum researchers and museum practitioners? What do we learn about museums from the Craiova case study? What is the contribution of this paper to understanding what museums do and how they work? What do these findings tell us about museums in a post-communist context? These are the sorts of questions that the conclusion should consider. I would suggest that you rewrite the conclusion completely – it will result in a much stronger ending to the paper (and it will also mean that the findings have relevance to researchers outside Romania).
Other points:
Page 2, line 49: O2. I think something is missing here. Should this be ‘What are the components of Oltenia’s regional identity as represented in the museum’? If the objective doesn’t directly refer to the museum I would question whether it’s appropriate to include it in the paper. Reading the discussion in section 5.2 it looks like you are focusing on the Oltenian regional identity as portrayed in the museum.
Page 3, line 122: “entire exhibition sqm”. Something wrong here?
Page 3, line 131: “the desire to glorify the Slavonic influence”. It’s important to clarify that this only applies in the 1950s and early 1960s (and reflected Romania’s fanatical loyalty to the USSR). Once Ceausescu came to power the emphasis was firmly on indigenous Romanian values and the Slavic influences were downplayed. Incidentally, ‘Slavic’ is probably a better term than ‘Slavonic’ here.
Page 4, line 161: “ethnogenesis”. Not a very common word, so I would suggest that you explain what it means. If this ethnogenesis refers to the Roman occupation of Dacia then it’s important to recognise that the Romans weren’t Christian at this time.
Page 4, line 164: “modern infrastructure”. Can you give more details on what this means.
Page 4, line 170: “undertaken” is probably better than “carried on”
Page 4, line 175: “visits of”. “Visits to” would be better
Page 5, line 183: “controllers”. This is very ambiguous. Do you mean the museum’s managers? Or curators? Or someone else?
Page 4, line 195. “The economic, political and social components”. Of what?
Page 6, lines 258-9: “re-ethnicization of national identity, in line with the pan-European current in the entire Europe”. I wasn’t at all clear what you meant by this
Page 6, line 266: “rules”. Should be “rulers”?
Page 6, line 282: “Phanariot”. This won’t mean much to readers who aren’t familiar with Romania. I suggest that you explain that this refers to the period of Greek leaders appointed by the Ottoman Empire.
You talk in a number of places about the strategic location of Oltenia/Craiova and this seems to be an important element of your analysis. It would be useful to add a map showing the location of Craiova, but also of neighbouring states in order to show the context for parts of your discussion.
Good luck in revising this paper!
Author Response
Please see the attachment.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
The revised manuscript is a much-improved version of the originally submitted paper. As a reviewer, I am satisfied that the authors have went to serious lenght in their effort to address all the issues pointed out in the report. Consequently, it is my professional opinion that the resubmitted manuscript is now ready for publlication in Societies. I congratulate the authors and I look forward to read this paper once published.
Author Response
Thank you very much for your time, patience and support. We really appreciate your hard work and energy to review the manuscript a second time.
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors have clearly made major revisions to this paper and I thank them for addressing my comments fully and professionally. The paper is now much improved and it has much more nuance and detail in its analysis. It reads well and makes a useful contribution to the literature.
I still feel that the conclusion could be a lot stronger. There are additional issues that the authors could address to create a stronger and more persuasive ending to the paper. For a start, the conclusion should re-assert that this is a paper about regional museums/regional identity and as such it has addressed an issue which has been neglected by previous museums research (which tends to focus on national museums and national identity). In other words, the authors should remind readers of the original contribution of this paper. The authors could also consider any ways in which regional museums 'work' differently from national museums (or are they working in a similar way but at a different scale?). If there is anything distinctive about how regional museums differ from national ones then the conclusion is the place to highlight this. I think it is worth the authors spending some more time on the conclusion so that the paper ends in a really strong way.
I'm glad to see that the authors have added a map (on page 7). However, I think another map is needed. This would be a basic 'context' map for readers who are not familiar with Oltenia/Craiova. It should be placed after the introduction (and signposted in the introduction). It simply needs to show the location of Oltenia, of Craiova, and the names of neighbouring countries (Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary). Bear in mind that the maps on page 7 do not identify Oltenia or the location of Craiova.
A few minor textual changes:
Page 4, line 157: "religious identity" is probably clearer than "confessional identity"
Page 5, line 204: "language is the binder of the ethnic identity". This might be better: "language binds the ethnic identity"
Page 9, line 421: "Wallachia ruler". Should be "Wallachia's ruler"
Page 9, line 448: "catch his eye". "Catch his or her eye" would be better
Page 10, line 490: "public lightning". I wasn't clear what this meant
Page 11, line 523: "much acclaimed Dacian land". I wasn't clear what this meant.
I would suggest that you check the references to ensure that you have adopted a consistent style in terms of the use of italics for the titles of books/journals, and also the use of bold for dates.
Finally I suggest that the authors look again at the abstract to see if any changes are needed following the revisions to the first version of the paper
Author Response
We would like to take this opportunity to express our thanks to the reviewer for the time and effort dedicated to providing feedback on our manuscript twice, as well as for the insightful comments and valuable input that helped us cosiderably improve our paper.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
