Materiales usados en los tres días del Taller

Although the interest specifically connected to sport in museums is only beginning to develop at the time of writing, the field of sports history is extensive. Johnes (2008) and Moore (2013) argues that there is almost too much written about the sporting past and that often what is written has no specific purpose, being instead research for research sake.115 _{Vamplew (1989) argues that the inability of sports historians to work} with other organisations, for example museums, has prevented them from placing sports history within wider social, economic, environmental, and cultural contexts.116 Vamplew asserts that the field has therefore concentrated too much on facts, and not enough on the role and value of sport. In agreement with Vamplew’s argument, Moore (2012) asserts that the main issue preventing this robust approach to sports history is the lack of a relationship between sports historians and museums. Moore argues that if this relationship could be developed, it would offer a new direction and quality of understanding within the history of sport. To support this argument, it is possible to explore examples where sports historians have addressed the issue of the material culture of sport, but the separation between the theoretical discussion and museum practice renders the resulting findings deficient. For example, Booth (2005) explored the history of sport by examining its associated historical material culture, but the resultant analysis has too narrow a focus and there is no discussion of the importance or relevance of the object.117 _{Likewise, Phillips, O’Neil and Osmond (2007) evaluated} the use of film, photography and monuments to support the study of the sporting past in their paper which aimed to demonstrate sports history should not just be about the

115 _{Johnes, M. ‘British Sport History: The Present and the Future’. Journal of Sport History. 35, no.1}

(2008): p.66; Moore, K. ‘Sport History, Public History, and Popular Culture: A Growing Engagement.’

Journal of Sport History 40, no.1 (2013): 401-417.

116 _{Vamplew, W. ‘Australian sports history: a research agenda’. The International Journal of the History} of Sport 6, no.2 (1989): p.252.

117 _{Booth, D. ‘Evidence Revisited: Interpreting Historical Materials in Sport History’. Rethinking History 9,}

72

written word.118 _{Phillips, O’Neil and Osmond suggest that sports historians should} employ a range of sources within their research, but fail to address the potential of all material culture, and the opportunity to work with museums to access such objects. Similarly, Hardy, Loy and Booth (2009) developed a typology of sporting material culture which demonstrates recognition of the importance of the object. However the framework is limited on two counts. Firstly, it fails to draw on museum classifications and typology and instead looks towards history as traditionally connected to categorizing the written word. This makes the framework unwieldy and difficult to align to museum classification. Secondly, it fails to draw on the work of wider sporting heritage experts such as Moore, who had already developed significant arguments within this field by 2009 to support typological development.119 _{As a result, the article} provides a general overview of the types of sports material culture that might be found, organizing them into arbitrary segments but with no real wider exploration of the potential practical uses of the typology, or the benefits to the public or public organisations. Finally, Gammon’s (2011) consideration of what sporting heritage is, discusses only in terms of sport-specific sites and there is no reference to how the use of objects or the use of museums could support the field.120 _{These examples} demonstrate that material culture itself is not valued or understood sufficiently by those writing about sporting heritage for it to be included within studies developed by the majority of those working in the fields of sports history and tourism. The lack of references to museums demonstrates that there is a lack of communication and understanding between the two fields. Therefore, the majority of sports historians fall short of understanding either the breadth of opportunity available in terms of sporting collections held in museums, or what constitutes material culture in the first place. The example of Johnes and Mason (2008) above, however is an example of a sports historian (Johnes) and a museum theorist (Mason) working together to explore sports

118 _{Phillips, M., O’Neil, M., and Osmond, G. ‘Broadening Horizons in Sport History: Film, Photographs and}

Monuments’. Journal of Sport History 34, no.2 (2007): p.287.

119 _{Hardy, S., Loy, J., and Booth, D. ‘The Material Culture of Sport: Towards a Typology’. Journal of Sport} History 36, no.1 (2009): pp.129-152.

120 _{Gammon, S. ‘The Construction of Sport Heritage Attractions.’ Journal of Tourism Consumption and} Practice 3. No.1 (2011).

73

history through museums and confirms Moore and Vamplew’s argument that there is a greater need to combine the fields of historical practice and theory.121

Vamplew (2004) argues that one of the main reasons for the lack of interest by sports historians in using museum collections is linked to the belief that sport specific museums cater “for the nostalgia market, thus often institutionalizing the “good old days” and allowing misplaced views of a “golden age” to breed myth and misconception”.122 _{However, Vamplew argues that whilst some sports specific} museums attached to specific clubs have tended to focus more on the successful features of the club’s history rather than a more realistic approach, in general, museums utilise sporting objects with the same professional rigour as any other collection. Vamplew maintains, therefore, that sports historians should have no concerns about using these collections. In agreement with Vamplew’s argument, Moore (2012; 2013) contends that the reason sports historians have tended to avoid the use of museums in their research is largely because sports historians believe material culture, and museum display, is less valid than written history.123 _Considering Moore is writing on the outer boundaries of this thesis, it is safe to assert that there is still a gap in both perception and practice between those working in the fields of sports history and their use of museums and material culture in 2013.