The European Museum of Students is the result of over ten years of work and is an original and valuable addition to the museums of the University of Bologna, the oldest university in Europe and one of the earliest student universities in the world. It is thus fitting that the University of Bologna should take steps to promote the knowledge and study of the student world with a centre for the documentation of student history, hence a location going beyond the function of an ordinary museum

The “Academic Museum” constitutes a crucial locale for a new history of science. As a space of academic self-fashioning and self-affirmation, it can illustrate historical concepts of objectivity, cultures of evidence or the performance of knowledge. University collections delineate emerging academic disciplines and allow scientists to use material culture in order to mark out their professional identities. Accordingly, the “Academic Museum” can be investigated as accumulated cultural capital for academics and their scientific fields. Museum” can be investigated as accumulated cultural capital for academics and their scientific fields

Italy has some of the oldest universities in the world and its university heritage is among the most significant in Europe. Botanical gardens and anatomical theatres developed in fifteenth and sixteenth century and were later introduced in other European universities. In recent years, there has been a growing interest in Italian university heritage, both from the Italian academy, the Italian Council of Rectors (CRUI) and from national and international organisations such as the ANMS (Associazione Nazionale Musei Scientifici), UMAC (the international committee for university museums and collections of ICOM) and Universeum, the University Heritage European Network

In the Education Faculty at La Trobe University over 300 art works are exhibited around the walls and corridors of the building. This is named the F.M. Courtis Collection after the art educator who acquired the first works in 1958. The purpose of the acquisitions was to build a teaching collection for use by lecturers and student teachers. The collection was developed to provide examples of the stylistic periods in Australian art since European settlement across a range of art media. It was assumed that young people had limited access to quality art in rural regions and that being in daily contact with the works they would come to appreciate art which would then enrich them as teachers. The head of art education was responsible for the collection. Mr Courtis has been succeeded by four other curators in the last half century

In 1851, Britain lost probably one of the greatest painters of all time: Joseph Mallord William Turner died, whose paintings can instantly be recognised and remain to this day the treasure of nineteenth-century impressionism. The collection of his paintings, now held at the Tate Britain and in the Ashmolean Museum of the University of Oxford, was put together at the time, patiently catalogued and arranged with extreme care through the work of one man: John Ruskin, university teacher, art critic, would-be geologist, and temporary executor of Turner’s will. This example may sound completely outdated, and yet I would like to suggest that it encapsulates many issues that need addressing in relation to university heritage today. For this is a story where conservation and the sense of a legacy was crucial, and where the links between university and general access to knowledge had to be firmly established and reinforced both by individuals and by institutions. Without Ruskin and Oxford University and the many schemes developed to properly house the collections of paintings and the numerous drawings of the artist, Turner’s oeuvre would probably have been sold and scattered throughout the country or even the world.
 

The University of Uppsala was established by a papal bull in 1477. Over the past five centuries its various departments have collected a vast array of items that have been used for teaching or research. These items bare silent witness to the cultural history of each department and cumulatively of the University itself. Some mark not only fundamental milestones for Uppsala University and for Sweden, but for the history of science as a whole

Heritage is a contingent concept defined according to identity, power and culture transformations. At the same time, heritage encompasses historical elements that reveal these transformations, whether in an entire society or in a small institution. In every agora, citizens participate in the ‘double construction’ of their heritage and negotiate the narrative of their history. As small but well-structured and deterogeneous societies, universities have their own codes and conflicts to create and to manage their specific heritage. Furthermore, historically universities are centres for constructing knowledge to produce objects and for constructing objects to (re)produce knowledge. Therefore, the paths of universities and the paths of the material culture of science follow a somehow parallel course and university heritage is a valuable source for understanding the past, present and future of science and technology. Scientific instruments and machines enable historians to study not only academic experimentation and didactics, but also the powerful image of technology, gender construction or international politics. On the other hand, university archives, libraries and spaces are other axes of university heritage and should be considered together as evidence of a same history

Anti-seizure legislation for museums organizing international exhibitions

„International exhibitions are playing an increasingly important part in the life of our museums and galleries. Such exhibitions draw together items from collections in many different countries, introducing visitors to different cultures and civilisations, and increasing their understanding of other countries. They make it possible for visitors to study works of a particular movement or artist which are usually scattered across the world, and encourage them to visit the museums or galleries’ permanent collections” – wrote Anne O’Connell in one of the fi rst studies devoted to the process of implementation of the immunity from seizure to museum’s legal practice.
The immunity of seizure is „the legal guarantee that cultural objects on temporary loan from another State will be protected against any form of seizure during the loan period”. There are three main reasons for which the lenders ask for: protection against application for pre-judgment relief. This would cover the situation when someone wishes to claim ownership of a work of art and brings legal proceedings to do so; protection against applications to enforce any judgment or arbitration award. This is the situation where an individual or company is owed money by the owner of the works of art, and wishes to seize the works of art so that it can be sold to pay the debt due; protection against criminal seizure. This category would grant protection against any seizure by police or customs or any other enforcement authority in the exercise of their powers.
Since the 1960.ties, the notion of ‘immunity from seizure’ became one of the main subjects of international exchange of museum items and problem of intercultural policy. The first solutions were proposed and adopted in U.S. In 1994 the anti-seizure legislation was introduced in France. In the years 2003/2004, an extensive study was carried out on State indemnity systems at the request of the European Commission. On the subject of immunity from seizure, the study group stated that „it is better for both borrowers and lenders to be protected from any third party action. It therefore seems wise for each country to introduce a law ensuring immunity from seizure. In result of this conclusion the Working Group on Immunity of Seizure, co-chaired by Poland and Germany, was established by the EU Program Mobility of Collection and worked 2008–2010. The first result of the research was ascertain that 6 of 27 Member States (MS) implemented Immunity from Seizure to practice (Austria, Belgium, Estonia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, UK), either as a separate regulation or as paragraphs in civil codes, 2 MS have regulation that are related to the subject (Lithuania and Romania), 2 MS have almost finalized its legislation (Finland, Italy), 7 MS are considering to enacting anti- seizure legislation at some point in the future (Czech Republic, Greece, Latvia, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia). It means that 17 of 27 MS are on the way toward reciprocity of anti-seizure cover in exhibition and museums items’ exchange. It was also observed that 14 MS (Cyprus, Estonia, Finland, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and previously UK) have practiced letters of comfort, when this form of legal guaranty was a condition of loan (usually asked by Russia). The amount of Members States of EU implementing the anti-seizure legislation in service of public cultural activity is still growing up. 63% of countries decided to introduce or are on the way to introducing Immunity for Seizure regulation for museums’ purposes. Having analyzed legal basements, the group concluded that there are still existing but decreasing group of countries where the letters of comfort play the role of anti-seizure legislation.
The final conclusion at the moment might be that different States follow different approaches, which may work best for them. This all depends on their respective legal tradition and system, but also on the amount of international art loans they are conducting, temporary exhibitions they are hosting, or the demands of lending States or museums. When considering immunity from seizure guarantees (including legislations) States assess which approach would fit them best.

The idea of a convenient perpetual calendar emerged in the Middle Ages in geographical areas with limited access to clergymen, who, equipped with liturgical calendars and the so-called Paschal tables (used to set the dates of movable feasts), enforced the Third Commandment on behalf of the Catholic Church.
The need for a handy tool that enabled an illiterate user to track the calendar independently arose in remote mountainous areas, cut-off from ecclesiastic outposts by the prolonged winter seasons. For the tools in question, the days of the year were usually carved on wood, and, above or beneath them, special marks were made for days devoted to assorted Catholic martyrs and saints. Each month had a few such festivals, to be “kept holy” along with Sundays and the movable feasts.