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

[Wudang]

Being able to contemplate the distant past; being able to communicate to the distant future; being able to get a glimpse of the mind of another person, even and especially an already dead person, through their work; all these are part of what makes us humans special, and what makes art, or the work of artisans, valuable.
<snip>

Beautifully written. If you get the chance, watch Alice Roberts "Prehistoric Autopsy" where they recreate 3 ancient hominids and give a glimpse into their worlds. One of the most enthralling TV shows I've seen.

 

[mumblethrax]

We're only now starting to cope seriously with what was unabashed looting.

Hell, we're still engaged in it. See, for example, David Green's notorious funding of the looting of Iraq, which helped him establish a collection (of problematic authenticity) that is now primarily housed in The Museum of the Bible, which opened in the distant past of 2017, and which unwitting visitors might mistake for a reputable institution.

 

[Thermal]

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.

And the task of much of society is to preserve some of the past for the appreciation of future generations. You think we should fill Pompeii back in too, and put a supermarket over it?

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.

An artisan, even a lowly potter, would surely be more proud to have their work admired centuries later than having it buried in a ditch, I feel comfortable asserting. What was once considered disposable is now a piece of cultural history.

"Loot it to prevent looting" is a weird way to put it. "Protect it to preserve it" rings a little more true.

 

[mumblethrax]

And the task of much of society is to preserve some of the past for the appreciation of future generations.

If your task is preservation, then filling in archaeological sites after digging them up is almost certainly what you should do. Once a site is exposed to the elements, you have problems.

An artisan, even a lowly potter, would surely be more proud to have their work admired centuries later than having it buried in a ditch, I feel comfortable asserting.

Nobody does any of this to make long dead people happy.

"Loot it to prevent looting" is a weird way to put it. "Protect it to preserve it" rings a little more true.

"Looting" is far more accurate for the vast majority of antiquities collections.

 

[Wudang]

"Looting" is far more accurate for the vast majority of antiquities collections.

<Father Ted>"It was just resting in my museum."</>

 

[Thermal]

If your task is preservation, then filling in archaeological sites after digging them up is almost certainly what you should do. Once a site is exposed to the elements, you have problems.

And letting them get built over and crushed, or succumb to shelling from hostiles who are not as concerned about history is going to preserve them longer than being preserved in a museum?

Nobody does any of this to make long dead people happy.

Obviously. But I do enjoy thinking about the artisans, and wondering about their lives and workdays, and if they would even believe that their handiwork might still be seen millenia later.

"Looting" is far more accurate for the vast majority of antiquities collections.

No doubt, but at least they remain preserved for the public to see and learn about/from firsthand.

 

[mumblethrax]

And letting them get built over and crushed, or succumb to shelling from hostiles who are not as concerned about history is going to preserve them longer than being preserved in a museum?

We're talking about sites and context. Those are not preserved in museums. They have, by and large, been destroyed by museums. Artifacts get preserved, but there's relatively little scientific value in the preservation of artifacts.

No doubt, but at least they remain preserved for the public to see and learn about/from firsthand.

The public does not have access to the vast, vast majority of most museum collections. They don't have the floor space for them. The British Museum exhibits about 1% of its collection.

 

[Thermal]

We're talking about sites and context.

No, we were talking about a ******* jug. If you're taking the goalposts for a walk, vaya con dios.

Artifacts get preserved, but there's relatively little scientific value in the preservation of artifacts.

Yet great artistic, historic, and cultural significance.

The public does not have access to the vast, vast majority of most museum collections. They don't have the floor space for them. The British Museum exhibits about 1% of its collection.

Oh who the hell cares? You want to negate museums because they don't display everything at once now?

My kids and I have loved and appreciated virtually every museum and site we have had the pleasure of visiting. You want them all under dirt. Fine, your point is made but I don't see any further point in continuing.

 

[alfaniner]

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".

I think I recall there being some deterioration on the lowest part of the David statue where people had reached up to touch it, even though it wasn't allowed.

I know there is a lot on the St. Peter Statue in the Vatican because it is (or was) traditional to rub or touch its foot. (I did it.) There are no toes left and it is just a worn stump. But it was cast of metal so had been holding up for quite some time. This would have been in 1980 and I don't know if it's been restored or blocked off since then.

 

[mumblethrax]

No, we were talking about a ******* jug. If you're taking the goalposts for a walk, vaya con dios.

We're talking about why it's a problem to remove artifacts from their archaeological context.

Yet great artistic, historic, and cultural significance.

I don't see that The Temple of Dendur is made more significant because I can get on the subway to go and ogle it.

Oh who the hell cares? You want to negate museums because they don't display everything at once now?

No, I'm saying they do not exhibit the feature you say they do. Like I said earlier, they're out of control hoarders. Almost everything they "own" is not viewable by the public. They aren't preserving the bulk of their collections so the public can look at them.

 

[TragicMonkey]

To karmically balance the cosmos after a 4 year old boy breaks a 3500 year old jar, a 3500 year old boy must break a 4 year old jar.

 

[alfaniner]

To karmically balance the cosmos after a 4 year old boy breaks a 3500 year old jar, a 3500 year old boy must break a 4 year old jar.

Just give King Tut an expired container of Gerber.

 

[angrysoba]

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.

A week ago, or so, I took my son to see the British Museum. I explained to him, in confident parental tones, the controversy about the acquisition of the Ancient Egyptian monuments, the Rosetta Stone, the Assyrian statues and the Parthenon Marbles...

Or at least I explained as best I could from some cobbled together memories that were likely completely inaccurate. I may have ended up looking like one of those insufferable ignoramases who waffle on about things they half remember from school, that is part myth and part invention.

... I am no doubt rationalizing, but I find that having these in one place made history come alive to my son, and no doubt the millions of other visitors. The fact that you could (but shouldn't) touch them (except the Rosetta Stone) also made them feel literally more immediate, and the fact that the museum itself is free (assuming you can afford to go and stay in London for the day/weekend is another bonus for the place.

Yes, maybe they should be returned, and the museum emptied out, but if so many of the Assyrian statues would have been destroyed by ISIS by now. Many of the Parthenon marbles were destroyed by various religious groups over the years, and may have ended up in far worse state exposed to air pollution in the last century or so.

In summary, I have no ethical qualms about taking my son to see the stolen loot, and I recommend anyone with the opportunity to do so too.

 

[grunion]

A week ago, or so, I took my son to see the British Museum. I explained to him, in confident parental tones, the controversy about the acquisition of the Ancient Egyptian monuments, the Rosetta Stone, the Assyrian statues and the Parthenon Marbles...

Or at least I explained as best I could from some cobbled together memories that were likely completely inaccurate. I may have ended up looking like one of those insufferable ignoramases who waffle on about things they half remember from school, that is part myth and part invention.

... I am no doubt rationalizing, but I find that having these in one place made history come alive to my son, and no doubt the millions of other visitors. The fact that you could (but shouldn't) touch them (except the Rosetta Stone) also made them feel literally more immediate, and the fact that the museum itself is free (assuming you can afford to go and stay in London for the day/weekend is another bonus for the place.

Yes, maybe they should be returned, and the museum emptied out, but if so many of the Assyrian statues would have been destroyed by ISIS by now. Many of the Parthenon marbles were destroyed by various religious groups over the years, and may have ended up in far worse state exposed to air pollution in the last century or so.

In summary, I have no ethical qualms about taking my son to see the stolen loot, and I recommend anyone with the opportunity to do so too.

A few years ago I had a free day in Delhi and used it to tour the Red Fort. I tagged along with a group of middle schoolers getting a tour and I learned a lot about the Mughal Period. At the Diwan-i-kas we got a detailed description of the most resplendent item of furniture ever produced, the Peacock Throne. It was extremely ornate, rendered from gold, and several jaw-dropping precious stones were inset, including the grandma of them all, the Kohinoor diamond. In the 1730s it was sacked by Nadir Shah, the ruler of Iran. A replacement throne was built, not quite but almost as beautiful (minus the best stones) which was sacked by the British in the 1850s. The empty pedestal sits there Ozymandiasly. I could sense some of the hackles being raised in the young students as they heard the story the guide told. Especially when they learned that the Kohinoor is among the British Crown Jewels and they have no intention to return the stolen property.

 

[Ziggurat]

An eye for an eye, justice must be done.

When the boy is 3,500 years old, we smash him with a 4-year-old vase.

 

[theprestige]

An eye for an eye, justice must be done.

When the boy is 3,500 years old, we smash him with a 4-year-old vase.

As long as we put him back in his original archaeological context when we're done.

 

[dann]

The French give a ****, apparently. They actually have laws about how many 'original' casts can be made (12).

Well, they're French. They don't have a say about The Little Mermaid. She is the property of the State of Denmark and Disney World, I think. The latter doesn't tolerate copying, or so I've heard.

I think I recall there being some deterioration on the lowest part of the David statue where people had reached up to touch it, even though it wasn't allowed.

I know there is a lot on the St. Peter Statue in the Vatican because it is (or was) traditional to rub or touch its foot. (I did it.) There are no toes left and it is just a worn stump. But it was cast of metal so had been holding up for quite some time. This would have been in 1980 and I don't know if it's been restored or blocked off since then.

People enjoy sitting on Hans Christian Andersen's lap for photos. I think it's encouraged.

 

[dann]

The 4-year-old boy is back.

 

[JayUtah]

I know there is a lot on the St. Peter Statue in the Vatican because it is (or was) traditional to rub or touch its foot. (I did it.) There are no toes left and it is just a worn stump. But it was cast of metal so had been holding up for quite some time. This would have been in 1980 and I don't know if it's been restored or blocked off since then.

I don't think there's any plan to stop tourists rubbing St. Peter's foot or to restore or protect it from further damage. However, the Pietà is now behind glass because of a previous vandalism attempt.

I approve of the way the Hecht Museum has handled this. From what has been reported, there was no malice and very little negligence on the family's part. Any caregiver knows it takes only seconds for a child to get into a pickle. It sounds like the poor boy just wanted to know what the jar looked like inside, tipped it over by accident, and was horrified and immediately remorseful at the result. It's not as if he's romping through the museum with a baseball bat. And I wrote previously that it is a conscious decision by the museum to minimize barriers between viewers and artifacts; that's an assumption of risk that makes it a little morally problematic to punish the family or the child.

I've seen the photos of the broken jar, and I'm somewhat familiar with the repair and restoration techniques for ceramics. This does not look like a difficult repair, and I think it's a very progressive approach to turn this into a teaching moment. You never know what good will come of being gracious. It's still sad that a relatively rare intact find now has to be restored.

I'm perversely reminded of a friend of mine who nearly blinded himself building a pipe bomb when we were both teenagers. (I wasn't involved, but we were the same age.) He didn't grease the threads and the friction of screwing on the end cap sparked the charge. Luckily he regained his sight in full and went on to become an Army Ranger demolitions expert.

 

[angrysoba]

A few years ago I had a free day in Delhi and used it to tour the Red Fort. I tagged along with a group of middle schoolers getting a tour and I learned a lot about the Mughal Period. At the Diwan-i-kas we got a detailed description of the most resplendent item of furniture ever produced, the Peacock Throne. It was extremely ornate, rendered from gold, and several jaw-dropping precious stones were inset, including the grandma of them all, the Kohinoor diamond. In the 1730s it was sacked by Nadir Shah, the ruler of Iran. A replacement throne was built, not quite but almost as beautiful (minus the best stones) which was sacked by the British in the 1850s. The empty pedestal sits there Ozymandiasly. I could sense some of the hackles being raised in the young students as they heard the story the guide told. Especially when they learned that the Kohinoor is among the British Crown Jewels and they have no intention to return the stolen property.

I think I get what you're saying here, but in your case, the Royal family keeping the Koh-i-noor diamond looks like more of an example of straight up pillage.

I have seen the crown jewels in the Tower of London, but you have to pay a hefty price to get in, and I am not sure if the Koh-i-noor diamond is always on display anyway.

The British Museum, on the other hand, is free so any street urchin or chimney sweep in Ye Olde London Town can marvel at its treasures, and it is also an active research institution.