This article analyzes the evolution of ethnographic museums in the context of political and social pressures in the 20th century, especially under communist regimes. The two world wars and the communist regime deeply influenced the national museography, promoting ideologies such as proletarian internationalism, socialist realism and scientific atheism, to the detriment of national specificity. Museums of history and ethnography were the most affected, but neither art nor natural history museography remained untouched. The standardization pressures triggered instinctive reactions of rejection, with an emphasis on regional and national specificity in periods of political relaxation. Several personalities in the field of archeology and ethnography, such as Kurt Horedt and Ion Nestor, indirectly supported ethnography through their activities. Cooperative agriculture and the Soviet model produced negative changes in the Romanian villages, and the post‑December period brought the degradation of traditional values. Ethnography museums had the role of preserving and researching rural heritage, but they faced difficulties in adapting to contemporary realities. Ethnographic museums have played a crucial role in preserving national and cultural identity by developing national and regional strategies and programs. Administrative reorganization and museum policies have contributed to strengthening the museum network and diversifying the cultural offer. However, museums face challenges in heritage development and urban ethnography research. Inter‑museum cooperation, including with history and natural history museums, is essential for projects aiming to preserve and safeguard heritage. The importance of a high professional awareness and specialized education in museography is emphasized to ensure success and performance in the field. Ethnography museums must recalibrate their role and adapt to contemporary requirements, while maintaining their mission of preserving national and cultural identity.
Read full abstract