The Olufsen Collection: From 19th-Century Expeditions to Digital Museum Collection – Part 2

This is a guest post by Aizat Ishembieva.

This second installment compares the work of Professor Esther Fihl and her interpretations of the Olufsen Collection and the Danish Pamir Expeditions to Central Asia, to the organisation and presentation of the digitalised collection discussed in Part 1. The fundamental work of Professor Fihl played a central role in rediscovering, reshaping, and expanding our understanding of Olufsen, the objects he collected, and the expeditions as a whole. 

In her two-volume publication Exploring Central Asia (2002, 2010), Fihl offers an expanded and meticulously detailed catalogue of the Olufsen Collection, conceived as part of a broader investigation into the Danish Pamir Expeditions, their academic representations of Central Asia, their historical working conditions, and the worldview that shaped their participants’ encounters with the region.  Her research reflects this holistic approach. However, this post will not attempt to engage in a full discussion of Fihl’s wider research objectives. Instead, it focuses on the structure and approach of her catalogue to consider how it represents the Olufsen Collection and complements its digital counterpart at the National Museum of Denmark. It also brings a few notable examples and reflections that may offer readers an engaging entry point to explore the Olufsen Collection. 

Organised according to Olufsen’s original Lists I and II and grouped into five cultural-geographical regions, the catalogue was significantly expanded through modern research. It combines technical documentation with ethnographic and historical commentary. Each entry contains detailed descriptions of materials, construction methods, and decoration, alongside translations of Olufsen’s handwritten notes and newly added contextual analyses. In this way, Fihl’s catalogue functions as both a reference work and an interpretive text, bridging the gap between archival data and anthropological understanding. 

Each entry begins with a heading introducing the artefact by its catalogue number, object type, and, where available, an illustration. Objects are generally grouped according to Olufsen’s lists, although Fihl does occasionally reorganize them when clearer analytical distinctions are required. The collector’s commentary follows, presenting Olufsen’s original numbering and description translated from Danish. This section is particularly valuable because it preserves the expedition’s primary documentation while making it accessible to non-Danish readers. The English translations are especially important for researchers, as Lists I and II and related accounts remain unpublished and are not publicly accessible.

The next part of the technical description provides a precise analysis of form, materials, processing, and decoration, often noting alterations, signs of wear or damage sustained over time. Fihl goes beyond Olufsen’s observations by adding technical terms, construction methods, and diagrams such as textile-weave patterns and cut sketches. These reconstructions, complete with exact measurements and seam details, allow researchers to understand both the making and the use of objects. The documentation thus enriches knowledge of the artefacts’ material history while offering insight into their cultural significance and the conditions under which they were collected and preserved.

In compiling these analyses, Fihl collaborated with specialists in textiles, metalwork, leather, and ceramics, employing methods such as photomicrography to identify materials and techniques of production and decoration. 

Each entry concludes with references and provenance information situating the object within wider scholarship. Fihl draws upon both published and unpublished writings by Olufsen and other expedition members, as well as comparative ethnographic sources and museum histories, thereby extending her catalogue beyond physical description to include cultural and historical interpretation. For almost every entry, she adds her own measurements, enabling comparison with the museum’s records and occasionally revealing changes in an object’s condition over time.

Finally, the inventory number links each artefact to its Q-number registration in the National Museum’s Ethnographic Collection. Fihl clarifies instances where multiple items were grouped or divided, assigning sub-numbers to complex sets such as the felt tent (Q.174 a–ii). This meticulous cross-referencing enables researchers to move seamlessly between the printed catalogue and the museum’s online database, ensuring that neither the archival record nor its later scholarly interpretation becomes detached from the other.

Subsequently, when the Olufsen Collection (Samlinger Online) digital database is explored alongside Esther Fihl’s two-volume catalogue Exploring Central Asia (2002/2010), two different epistemologies of ethnographic representation emerge. Both draw upon the same archival foundation—the field lists, expedition reports, accession records, and both published and unpublished materials by Ole Olufsen and other members of the Danish Pamir Expeditions—but they mediate this material through distinct curatorial logics.

Form, Structure, and Access

The Olufsen Collection digital database of the National Museum of Denmark is designed for retrieval; its modular structure treats each record as an independent, searchable unit, preserving archival continuity but in doing so detaches the object from its broader historical and ethnographic context. 

An instance of this is clearly demonstrated in the entry for Q.3r, listed as smykke / Smykke fra Kirgisistan (Jewellery from Kyrgyzstan). The record follows a standardised data format including fields for materials (silver, stone, glass), dimensions (length 26 cm), place (Sart – Khokand, Kyrgyzstan), time (1800–1897), and acquisition details linking the object to Ole Olufsen’s First Pamir Expedition (1896–1897). Additional fields include object ID 70320, photographer (Arnold Mikkelsen), and a high-resolution image (File ID ES-377251, 20 MB, 1790 × 3839 pixels).

Object Q.3r in the digital database: The screenshot is cropped; for the complete record, please follow the link.

By contrast, in Esther Fihl’s Exploring Central Asia (2010, II:489), the same artefact is embedded within a narrative and typological structure. The entry begins with Olufsen’s original note (Liste I) —“one large silver ornament from which hang various toilet accessories (bisaathe-chuba)”—and is followed by a detailed technical analysis and interpretive commentary. Fihl’s catalogue presents the object within a continuous reading sequence, inviting the reader to follow its material construction, decorative logic, and social function. Her typological organization encourages reading through the collection, rather than searching within it, producing interpretive depth rather than data segmentation.

In Fihl’s catalogue, object Q.3r is found in entry #250 titled “Breast ornament with toilet accessories.”

Catalogue entry #250 from Fihl (2010, II:489).

Description, Materiality, and the Language of Objects

Another contrast appears in how each source describes materiality. In the digital database, descriptions are short and factual: “wool,” “leather,” “metal,” “brown,” “height  cm.” The language is taxonomic, designed for consistency rather than narrative. This style of description reflects the museum’s internal needs—inventory control, conservation, and data exchange. It preserves factual precision but communicates little about the tactile, aesthetic, or cultural qualities of the artefacts.

Fihl’s language, on the other hand, is richly analytical. Her technical sections include detailed accounts of construction, decoration, and wear, often supplemented with sketches or diagrams. She records signs of use, repair, or transformation, linking these to the object’s functional and symbolic life.

An example of this difference can be seen in the silk cap with owl feathers from Khiva (Q.225), collected during Olufsen’s Second Pamir Expedition (1898–99). In the digital database, the entry provides concise metadata:

(autotranslated into English) Object: Hat; Material: Cotton (red/yellow), silk (red/yellow), owl feathers; Dimensions: Diameter 17 cm, Height 12 cm; Place: Khanate of Khiva, Uzbekistan; Date: 1800–1899.

Object Q.225 in the digital database: The screenshot is cropped; for the complete record, please follow the link.

The record includes information about acquisition and funding sources, but remains limited to essential fields such as material, dimensions, and provenance. The description—“round cushion/upholstered (Shape type)”is purely functional, reflecting a digital logic of standardisation and retrieval. The object appears as a data entry, defined by material and measurement rather than meaning.

In contrast, the same object in Fihl’s catalogue, entry #183 “Cap” (2010, II:419), offers a vivid ethnographic and technical description. She begins with Olufsen’s original note, from Liste II (translated into English by Fihl)— “little silk cap with owl feathers, worn by all unmarried women in Khiva. Owl feathers protect against evil spirits”—and expands it into a rich account of the cap’s construction, materials, and cultural symbolism. Fihl details the red silk in satin weave with silver threads, the quilted cords that form the crown, the twined silk edging, and the bunch of owl feathers fastened at the top. She explains how the silver threads have oxidised with age, and how the warp ends are gathered into a tuft at the neck.

Furthermore, Fihl situates these material features within a broader cultural and symbolic context. Drawing on Olufsen’s field notes, she explains that owl feathers were believed to protect young unmarried women from evil spirits, particularly Alvasti. She quotes Olufsen’s ethnographic observations and cross-references comparative studies (Andrews 1991; Westphal-Hellbusch and Slotkahn 1976; Zerrnickel 1995) to show the longevity of this tradition. In her catalogue, description becomes interpretation—each physical detail is connected to social meaning, belief, and craftsmanship.

Catalogue entry #183 from Fihl (2010, II:419).

This example reveals how the two sources operate through fundamentally different languages of materiality. The digital database translates the object into quantified information, emphasising precision and interoperability; the printed catalogue translates it into an ethnographic narrative, emphasising sensory texture and symbolic meaning. The database offers accessibility and visual documentation; Fihl’s catalogue provides context, interpretation, and historical depth.

 Context, Interpretation, and the Presence of Absence

Contextualization marks another essential divergence between the Olufsen Collection digital database and Fihl’s catalogue. The digital records in the Olufsen Collection aim for neutrality. They rarely provide interpretive commentary, cultural significance, or discussion of social function. Visual documentation is inconsistent and only a portion of the objects are illustrated. For a general user, this can make the collection appear abstract and incomplete. This minimalism reflects an institutional priority: digitization projects often aim first to ensure coverage and data preservation, while interpretive enrichment is deferred to a later time. Fihl’s catalogue, by contrast, compensates for these absences. Her interpretive commentaries reinsert the social and cultural dimensions omitted by the database. She frequently quotes expedition diaries, refers to comparable artefacts in other museum collections, and cites ethnographic literature to explain each item’s broader meaning. A strong example of this difference can be seen in the case of the headdress ornament Q.317 from Bukhara or Turkestan, collected during Olufsen’s Second Pamir Expedition (1898–99).

Object Q.317 in the digital database. The screenshot is cropped; for the complete record, please follow the link.

In the digital database, the entry identifies the object simply as an “ørering\Øresmykke fra Uzbekistan” (earring \Earring from Uzbekistan), listing its materials—gold, coral, glass, silver, and turquoise—along with dimensions (length 18 cm, width 7.5 cm) and provenance “Bukhara & Turkestan, Historical Turkestan, Uzbekistan”. The record also includes technical metadata about production and acquisition, and a high-resolution photograph by Arnold Mikkelsen (File ID: ES-377255, CC-BY-SA license). The data is precise, structured, and visually rich, yet interpretively thin. The entry does not clarify whether the object was worn on the ears or as a headdress ornament, nor does it address its symbolic or cultural significance.

In contrast, Fihl’s catalogue has the same object under entry #285.  “Headdress ornament” (2010, II:507) transforms the same object into a detailed ethnographic narrative. Building on Olufsen’s original note—“Woman’s earring of gold with precious stones” (List II, no. 143)—Fihl reconstructs both the physical design and its potential cultural meanings. She describes the hollow, moon-shaped central part made of thin silver, gilded and set with turquoise, from which hang nine delicate chains with coral beads, red stones, and glass pendants. Fihl’s account links these details to comparative sources: she cites similar ornaments from Bukhara, Tajikistan, and Samarkand, explaining that this crescent-shaped form (mokhi tüller, “golden moon”) was especially popular among women at the turn of the nineteenth century. By referencing Olufsen’s notes and other ethnographic studies (Pugachenkova & Khakimov 1988; Sychova 1994; Kalter 1995), Fihl corrects Olufsen’s earlier misclassification of the object as an earring and reframes it within its appropriate cultural and typological category—a headdress ornament.

Catalogue entry #143 in Fihl (2010, II:507).

Conclusion

The Ethnographic Collection online database and Esther Fihl’s Exploring Central Asia represent the Olufsen Collection through distinct yet complementary curatorial logics shaped by their form, audience, and purpose. The digital platform speaks in the impersonal language of institutional metadata, where collective authorship and curatorial conventions prioritise accuracy and preservation, giving an impression of neutrality. Fihl’s catalogue, by contrast, foregrounds individual scholarly authorship. Through translation and commentary, she reinterprets archival material and mediates between Olufsen’s nineteenth-century fieldwork and the modern reader

Rather than opposing one another, these forms constitute interdependent layers in the collection’s afterlife. The digital platform ensures institutional continuity and open access, while the printed catalogue preserves intellectual depth and interpretive richness. Together they reflect the transformation of ethnographic heritage in the digital age—from static artefacts to dynamic nodes of data and interpretation—while also exposing tensions between neutrality and narrative, nineteenth-century epistemologies and contemporary recontextualisation.

In this sense, digitisation—echoing Mary Louise Pratt’s (2007) concept of the contact zone—is not a neutral act of preservation but an ongoing encounter between past and present forms of knowledge. Ultimately, the Ethnographic Collection online database and Fihl’s catalogue illuminate how different representational systems produce different kinds of understanding. Each has its limitations, yet together they offer a fuller picture of the Olufsen Collection—not as a static record of the nineteenth century, but as a living archive continually reshaped by technology, scholarship, and the politics of representation.

Bibliography

Clifford, James. “Museums as Contact Zones.” In Routes: Travel and Translation in the Late Twentieth Century, 188–219. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997.

Dmitry Miloserdov, “Arms and armor of Khanates Central Asia (Bukhara, Kokand, Khiva) of the late 18th – early 20th centuries,” Оружие и Доспехи в Ханствах Средней Азии (Бухара, Коканд, Хива) Конца XVIII – Начала XX в. (2019).

Fihl, Esther. Exploring Central Asia: From the Steppes to the High Pamirs, 1896–1899. 2 vols. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2010. (Originally published 2002, Thames & Hudson/Rhodos).

Olufsen, Ole. Through the Unknown Pamirs: The Second Danish Pamir Expedition, 1898–99. London: William Heinemann, 1904.

Olufsen, Ole. The Second Danish Pamir-Expedition: Old and New Architecture in Khiva, Bokhara, and Turkestan. Copenhagen: Gyldendalske Boghandel, Nordisk Forlag, 1904.

Olufsen, Ole. The Emir of Bokhara and His Country: Journeys and Studies in Bokhara (with a chapter on my voyage on the Amu Darya to Khiva). Copenhagen: Gyldendal, 1911.

The Olufsen Collection.

Pratt, Mary Louise. Imperial Eyes: Travel Writing and Transculturation. 2nd ed. London and New York: Routledge, 2007.