A 4-Year-Old Boy Breaks a 3,500-Year-Old Jar at an Israeli Museum

[Darat]

...snip...

More to the point, I wasn't arguing that one Rodin was better than a repro using his stuff. Surely if a couple frat boys knocked over Venus and destroyed her, we could 3-d print a replica within a week, yes? Maybe fix her up with some arms and irises while we're at it.
....snip....

I would love to see them try and reproduce versions that were as they were created which for most of the old statues means decorated and painted. I'd like to see reproductions of lots of old stuff - not preserved as ancient objects but reproduced as we think they looked at the time. Always thought they could do this with even old buildings - Imagine a slice of the Colosseum repaired to look as it did when it was built.

 

[Thermal]

I would love to see them try and reproduce versions that were as they were created which for most of the old statues means decorated and painted. I'd like to see reproductions of lots of old stuff - not preserved as ancient objects but reproduced as we think they looked at the time. Always thought they could do this with even old buildings - Imagine a slice of the Colosseum repaired to look as it did when it was built.

I've seen some computer generated renditions of the Colluseum in its besplendored glory, and it would truly be a sight to behold. But the Shpinx at Gaza just looks like a lion/Pharaoh with wearing one of those rubber noses and glasses.

 

[JayUtah]

My experience viewing La Jaconde years ago was from across the room. It was disappointing. However, at the British Museum—also years ago—the Rosetta Stone was just out there in the room next to a staircase, for anyone to molest. (I may have touched the underside of it, just for bragging rights, but I won't cop to that if asked.) And back when the Apollo 10 command module was in Michigan, I got to actually climb inside with the curator's permission. (That was a special case owing to my stature in my profession.) Now it's in San Diego behind Plexiglas.

As a former librarian, preservation is second nature to me. I've curated special collections including books from the 1500s (e.g., Palladio's Quattro libri di architettura). It's a sacred responsibility to preserve these artifacts for future generations. However, the museum experience can be disheartening. What's the point of going all the way to Paris if the closest you can get to a famous painting is a dozen meters? Why go see the Hope Diamond if it's behind a foot of bulletproof glass?

I don't know if I speak for everyone, but having these close-up experiences with history is what makes the museum special. I've been on several museum ships, for example, and I'm used to Do Not Touch signs. The preservationist in me agrees with that. But these are warships, built to last. In San Francisco harbor, the Jeremiah O'Brien has restored one of their 5-inch gun tubs to be a hands-on experience. You can sit in the seat and run the train and elevation gear and really get a feel for what it must have been like.

I really do sympathize with museums that want to put as little between the guest and the experience as possible. And I sympathize with museums that have to put Ramses II in a bulletproof glass case to keep him from being damaged by a jillion careless fingers or by some paint-throwing demonstrator. This is why we can't have nice things.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Why go see the Hope Diamond if it's behind a foot of bulletproof glass?

It took me a moment to figure this out. At first I was thinking "why would anyone want to shoot the Hope Diamond?"

 

[mumblethrax]

It took me a moment to figure this out. At first I was thinking "why would anyone want to shoot the Hope Diamond?"

It knows what it did.

 

[Thermal]

I think it was in the Louvre that they had a little display up, showing a piece of antique marble untouched, and a piece repeatedly touched by oily human hands. The difference made me acutely aware of the short sightedness of "just one touch won't hurt".

 

[Thermal]

... What's the point of going all the way to Paris if the closest you can get to a famous painting is a dozen meters?

*drums fingers, waiting for edit*

 

[TragicMonkey]

I think it was in the Louvre that they had a little display up, showing a piece of antique marble untouched, and a piece repeatedly touched by oily human hands. The difference made me acutely aware of the short sightedness of "just one touch won't hurt".

There's a problem in cemeteries with lipstick-wearing people kissing marble headstones, apparently it causes stains that can't just be wiped off.

 

[Thermal]

There's a problem in cemeteries with lipstick-wearing people kissing marble headstones, apparently it causes stains that can't just be wiped off.

I've never been entirely clear on the popularity of marble. Did a countertop for a cool looking kitchen few years back, and warned the customer repeatedly that it is prone to scratching and staining. They called me a few months ago, saying "I don't want to hear a goddamned word from you Thermal, just bring those quartz samples over here".

 

[ZirconBlue]

My experience viewing La Jaconde years ago was from across the room. It was disappointing. However, at the British Museum—also years ago—the Rosetta Stone was just out there in the room next to a staircase, for anyone to molest. (I may have touched the underside of it, just for bragging rights, but I won't cop to that if asked.) And back when the Apollo 10 command module was in Michigan, I got to actually climb inside with the curator's permission. (That was a special case owing to my stature in my profession.) Now it's in San Diego behind Plexiglas.

As a former librarian, preservation is second nature to me. I've curated special collections including books from the 1500s (e.g., Palladio's Quattro libri di architettura). It's a sacred responsibility to preserve these artifacts for future generations. However, the museum experience can be disheartening. What's the point of going all the way to Paris if the closest you can get to a famous painting is a dozen meters? Why go see the Hope Diamond if it's behind a foot of bulletproof glass?

I don't know if I speak for everyone, but having these close-up experiences with history is what makes the museum special. I've been on several museum ships, for example, and I'm used to Do Not Touch signs. The preservationist in me agrees with that. But these are warships, built to last. In San Francisco harbor, the Jeremiah O'Brien has restored one of their 5-inch gun tubs to be a hands-on experience. You can sit in the seat and run the train and elevation gear and really get a feel for what it must have been like.

I really do sympathize with museums that want to put as little between the guest and the experience as possible. And I sympathize with museums that have to put Ramses II in a bulletproof glass case to keep him from being damaged by a jillion careless fingers or by some paint-throwing demonstrator. This is why we can't have nice things.

Surely there is a happy medium between keeping people a dozen meters away and having things set out to be easily toppled by children.

 

[Disbelief]

I would love to see them try and reproduce versions that were as they were created which for most of the old statues means decorated and painted. I'd like to see reproductions of lots of old stuff - not preserved as ancient objects but reproduced as we think they looked at the time. Always thought they could do this with even old buildings - Imagine a slice of the Colosseum repaired to look as it did when it was built.

The Parthenon in Nashville, TN with the statue of Athena is something.

https://www.nashvilleparthenon.com/history

 

[mumblethrax]

Surely there is a happy medium between keeping people a dozen meters away and having things set out to be easily toppled by children.

I don't honestly see strong reasons for antiquities museums to exist. They primarily serve to showcase ill-gotten artifacts, completely divorced from archaeological context, often with dubious agendas behind them. Something you'll never hear an actual archaeologist say: "It belongs in a museum." We're enabling some of the worst hoarders in the world.

 

[theprestige]

I don't honestly see strong reasons for antiquities museums to exist. They primarily serve to showcase ill-gotten artifacts, completely divorced from archaeological context, often with dubious agendas behind them. Something you'll never hear an actual archaeologist say: "It belongs in a museum." We're enabling some of the worst hoarders in the world.

What would you hear an actual archaeologist say?

"It belongs in the ground, and I shouldn't even have a job"?

"Let's just photograph it in situ and publish a coffee table book, weather and vandals will do the rest"?

"It belongs in my workshop, where I can clean it and catalog it and pet it and have tea with it and then lock it away in a vault where it will be safe from prying eyes forever"?

"It belongs in a museum - no not your musuem you dirty colonizer, some other musuem that's more worthy"?

"Let ISIS or the Taliban have it; they know better than you or I how to care for it"?

"Let the Turks use it as a munitions depot; what could go wrong"?

 

[Thermal]

I don't honestly see strong reasons for antiquities museums to exist. They primarily serve to showcase ill-gotten artifacts, completely divorced from archaeological context, often with dubious agendas behind them. Something you'll never hear an actual archaeologist say: "It belongs in a museum." We're enabling some of the worst hoarders in the world.

One of my favorites: when one of my kids visited Greece a couple years ago, they had a display of frescos with plaster reproductions of missing pieces, with an explanation of who stole them and specifically which museums where the pilfered art was on display. When we went to the Louvre later, we saw some of the missing pieces with a placard acknowledging the gracious "gift" from the people of Greece. Ballsy.

 

[mumblethrax]

What would you hear an actual archaeologist say?

"It belongs in its original context." Dig it up, study it, cover it back up for future generations to glean more information about.

Yes, there are obvious problems with that approach too, but "Loot it so it doesn't get looted" does not strike me as preferable.

 

[JayUtah]

Surely there is a happy medium between keeping people a dozen meters away and having things set out to be easily toppled by children.

Happily there is. The Rosetta Stone is now behind glass, but in a way that ironically lets you see it better than before. La Jaconde has been given a new exhibition experience that lets visitors have an up-close (albeit brief) experience with the painting.

Sometimes it comes down to budget and importance. Last time I was in the Egyptian Museum in Cairo, I'm pretty sure I could have just walked away with a number of lesser exhibits. They pour the lion's share of their money into the Tutankhamen exhibit and everything else is in a wooden case with simple or no locks. Not everything is a Rosetta Stone or a Gutenberg Bible. Luckily we have enough surviving parts for 5-inch gun tubs that we can go replace one if some kid wrecks it. But I don't know how many 3,400 year old jars there are left in the Holy Land.

Details aside, it's just a hard call sometimes. The Hecht Museum's editorial policy is to err on the side of removing obstructions. And clearly they erred here, but this is their conscious acceptance of risk. I get it. There's something magical about climbing down inside the pyramids at Giza. There's something visceral about working a ship's gun or sitting inside an early spacecraft or seeing and touching a piece of the Titanic. This is the feeling museums are supposed to give you.

Other museums have gone entirely the other direction. They put replicas on display while keeping the originals behind closed doors. No disrespect to the artisans who made them, but they simply don't instill that sense of wonder and connection with the past. They're props, not artifacts.

 

[Thermal]

"It belongs in its original context." Dig it up, study it, cover it back up for future generations to glean more information about.

Yes, there are obvious problems with that approach too, but "Loot it so it doesn't get looted" does not strike me as preferable.

Most works "original context" was to be seen and admired. I don't think the original artisans would be too keen on having their **** buried in the dirt, with some crew digging them.up every few decades.

 

[JayUtah]

...a placard acknowledging the gracious "gift" from the people of Greece. Ballsy.

We're only now starting to cope seriously with what was unabashed looting. The joke goes, "Why are the pyramids in Giza? Because they were too big for the British Museum to remove." If you go to Luxor (the one in Egypt, not Las Vegas) you can see a beautiful obelisk, one of a set of two. The other is in Paris.

 

[mumblethrax]

Most works "original context" was to be seen and admired. I don't think the original artisans would be too keen on having their **** buried in the dirt, with some crew digging them.up every few decades.

The context I'm talking about is where it was found, what was around it, etc. The things that let us actually understand specifically how it was used. The task of archaeologists isn't to "respect the artist's wishes" or whatever, it's to understand the past.

In any case we're talking in this instance about an unadorned clay jug that was used for holding wine and oil. It was almost certainly not meant to be seen and admired. It was meant to hold wine and oil.

 

[Thermal]

We're only now starting to cope seriously with what was unabashed looting. The joke goes, "Why are the pyramids in Giza? Because they were too big for the British Museum to remove." If you go to Luxor (the one in Egypt, not Las Vegas) you can see a beautiful obelisk, one of a set of two. The other is in Paris.

In Place de la Concorde, IIRC?

We are currently planning a trip.to the Valley of the Kings in 2027 to catch the eclipse. I seriously would like to return some souvenirs back to them. They've got loads of mummies in a museum in Philly that Egypt might like back.