Where should archeological finds be shown?

Where should archeological finds be shown? - Printable Version

+- RomanArmyTalk (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat)
+-- Forum: Recreational Arena (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Forum: Off-Topic (https://www.romanarmytalk.com/rat/forumdisplay.php?fid=18)
+--- Thread: Where should archeological finds be shown? (/showthread.php?tid=17677)

Pages: 1 2

Where should archeological finds be shown? - Caballo - 10-13-2010

I'd like to kick off a debate - where should finds be shown?

The choices seem to me to be:-
a/ Near where they were found (eg Crosby Garrett in Cumbria, Staffordshire Saxon hoard in Staffordshire)
b/In national centres where there is both a local large population and a strong visitor (especially international visitors) population (eg Newcastle for Hadrian's Wall, York, London, Birmingham (where much of the Staffs hoard will be displayed I understand), Cardiff
c/In national centres with a large local population but not much visitor traffic (eg Leeds Royal Armouries)
d/ in the capital , the biggest city and a lot of international traffic(eg Sutton Hoo helmet in British Museum)

I can see the rationale for d (capital city) - although individual treasures would not be as highlighted in the midst of such their superb stuff. But it provides visitors all year round , both domestic and abroad. Against it is showing finds outside their local context and the capital may be far from other population centres.

I can see b (major cities with lots on international visitors)- we have an obligation not only to ourselves but also to international visitors, and the finds can also be close to the historical context (eg Newcastle for Hadrians Wall). It also provides visitors all year round , both domestic and abroad.

I'm less convinced about a and c, where the danger is that a multi million centre is built and very few people visit it, leading to potential financial risks (eg Royal Armouries Leeds). Or very few people come to visit except for enthusiasts like me.

I'm even less convinced by the smaller museum approach ("we'll attract people to visit our town" approach).

For example, in France this unique helmet in in the museum at Autun.

Autun? Me neither.

Don't get me wrong- I really like small museums and visit as many as I can. But should items of national importance be shown there where they neither have a large domestic population nor attract foreign visitors?

Re: Where should archeological finds be shown? - Jona Lendering - 10-13-2010

I opt for (a): leave it where it once was, as much as possible.

Museums can be used to explain the choices you make when you are reconstructing.

Re: Where should archeological finds be shown? - Cunicula - 10-13-2010

Problems with small museums often include lack of security and difficulties with cases/the environment

Re: Where should archeological finds be shown? - jkaler48 - 10-13-2010

Major/important finds should be displayed in national treasure venues (this means capital cities for the most part) But copies should be on display near find area AND exhibits should make yearly or "frequent" exchange visits. (Copy travels to the capital and original to the find area)

Re: Where should archeological finds be shown? - jvrjenivs - 10-13-2010

I would vote for option B. Although I like local museum and I certainly am not against them, they sometimes seems to have too little knowledge to take care of the items shown. In that regard I would say B is better, as a bigger museum with more finds has a bigger collection and thus easier has a big enough specialist staff for taking care of the items. That said I'm also in the opinion that the example of Newcastle for Hadrians wall wouldn't get my vote as I think some of the sites are good enough to have their own museums. I think that when you would go for option B Hadrians wall county still deserves 3 spots, namely Newcastle, Vindolanda and Carlisle.

Re: Where should archeological finds be shown? - jvrjenivs - 10-13-2010

Quote:But copies should be on display near find area AND exhibits should make yearly or "frequent" exchange visits. (Copy travels to the capital and original to the find area)

Sounds fun, but also rather expensive!

Re: Where should archeological finds be shown? - D B Campbell - 10-13-2010

Quote:I'm also in the opinion that the example of Newcastle for Hadrians wall wouldn't get my vote as I think some of the sites are good enough to have their own museums. I think that when you would go for option B Hadrians wall county still deserves 3 spots, namely Newcastle, Vindolanda and Carlisle.

So A, then. :wink: My choice, too.

I liked it when some of the Newstead items went on loan to Melrose museum, but now (afaik) they're back in Edinburgh (D) -- at least they have replicas at Melrose (A). But some sites are too tiny or inaccessible to merit their own museum, which is why the Antonine Wall material is housed in Glasgow (B) and Edinburgh, neither of which lies on the Antonine Wall.

My favourite is still Chesters, which qualifies as another A.

I heard recently that a Roman centre was planned in Perthshire -- the heart of Flavian Scotland --, but couldn't get funding. I guess As are expensive.

Re: Where should archeological finds be shown? - Robert Vermaat - 10-13-2010

A & B. The mass of finds should stay locally, where you can create a good view of what was found. Even very good pieces would be better for the 'local view' and should not be whisked away to the larger musea. But if it must be so, leave a good replica near the findspot.

Trouble is, I know, finances. Musea should in my opinion be part of a single-funded network, instead of in competition with each other over visitors and funds. Look at Tullie House and that helmet: had there been a single network, combined finances would for sure have secured that helmet.

I'm not in favour of large musea, for the reason already mentioned here: 90% (or more) will remain forever in the cellar, while only the best stuff will be on display, without a proper context.

But let me stir up this debate a little more:

Nowhere in your choices I saw anything resembling the British Museum, filled with stuff from other countries? :mrgreen:

Re: Where should archeological finds be shown? - Caballo - 10-13-2010

Quote:Musea should in my opinion be part of a single-funded network, instead of in competition with each other over visitors and funds. Look at Tullie House and that helmet: had there been a single network, combined finances would for sure have secured that helmet.

I think this is a brilliant idea. A bit like the National Grid, moving power/ money to where it is needed, when it is needed. and maybe it could be accompanied by a similar flow of artefacts (especially the ones otherwise held in store) between museums. I hate to think of important items being rarely seen , whether because they are in store, because they are geographically inaccessible, or worst because they are in private closed collections.

Quote:Nowhere in your choices I saw anything resembling the British Museum, filled with stuff from other countries?

Well, actually, that was d ( in the capital , the biggest city and a lot of international traffic(eg Sutton Hoo helmet in British Museum). And the issue was really what we do with future finds in each country, rather than with finds (found/ bought/ saved from destruction by well meaning aristocrats/ looted by imperialists / ransacked by invading armies (insert your preference)) historically. I think what happens with stuff already there is another question- though speaking personally, I would like the Parthenon marbles re-united in Greece from London, Berlin etc..

Re: Where should archeological finds be shown? - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 10-13-2010

All finds should be put back into the ground where they came from immediately.

No excavation should be done anywhere, period.

I live next to an unexcavated Castellum (literally): Matilone.

Now they are putting up some park ON the location because it is a protected archaeological monument.

Ridiculous !

Finds should be shown in musea, preferably in or near the region they were found.

Want to see them ? travel.

Also, the city of Rome should be depopulated and excavated thoroughly, and after that, be rebuilt in its original splendour without the idiotic stuff built by the Christians like churches, and the Vatican should be demolished immediately, all archives opened, and all artefacts returnedto the new senate of Rome.

M.VIB.M.

Re: Where should archeological finds be shown? - John Conyard - 10-13-2010

This is a very stimulating debate. I will happily discuss the pros and cons of the British Empire another time. And state control of museums, banks etc.

But in the immediate future I think we really need to consider why we want to display these finds, and that will inform where we place them.

If we want to use a major find to attract tourists and inward investment then I can see the local and regional argument. But if we want to maximise the numbers of people seeing them we need to put them in a major museum in a regional or national centre. I would like to place them in a regional context, partly for local people and partly to place the object in context. So no to a national collection.

No to a, and c, and I fear d. London is fun for a visit but you need a gas mask and an NBC suit.

Which leaves b, strong regional museums. But which ones? Along the Wall the Hancock, or now the Great North Museum, certainly gets the visitor numbers. But Vindolanda is also well known and the largest employer in the area. In many ways it is far more than a museum. York has a strong Roman collection, and high numbers of tourists. Cardiff and London would also rate highly. Would Birmingham?

Re: Where should archeological finds be shown? - jkaler48 - 10-13-2010

And while we are in the area Should museums display quality copies of items in private collections and should items in private hands be required to be made available at reasonable times (when offered for sale?) for measurement photos analysis. While some items remain in private hands doesn't the public have some right to Heritage information about the items?

Re: Where should archeological finds be shown? - Gaius Decius Aquilius - 10-13-2010

I have several observations here:

First is the relative isolation some regions. In Europe is it of less importance. The comparative distance between both small local museums, and big cities is less real distance than in most other parts of the world. We have only one major city museum and one major museum in the state capital, which is only a large town. The area my state covers is comparable to some European countries. Naturally these museums a chuck full of local flavor and dwell on the regional history. There is nothing wrong with this. This is how tourist money is brought in. However, without traveling exhibits we would see nothing else. I have never seen a real Roman helmet. I probably never will. We are still not large enough to see important exhibits that hit cities like New York or San Francisco. These places are also not as easy to travel to as you might expect. Outside of several days drive, there is no access except by air. We have nothing like European rail service. We only see the occasional “on loan” exhibits that are generally modest. Because of this I would favor large cities, but with active exchange programs or loan programs. These programs do not necessarily exclude small local museums. With competent management, small local museums as well as large can organize exchange programs. This brings me to the next subject.

In my experience, both museum content and management is riddled with politics to the detriment of the system way beyond what it should be. When items are displayed, they are accompanied with a description that is so sanitized, or politicized, it often borders on being disinformation. Real historical context and significance is distorted or simply ignored when presented to the general public. The history and archaeology of my area is no exception. Absolutely nothing that can be perceived as or twisted into something negative is never allowed to seen, discussed, or even mentioned in passing when dealing with the public. What is well known in archaeology will never receive any public mention what so ever. For example, there is no mention of the evident ecological damage by historic populations. The mounting evidence of sporadic cannibalism is totally unwelcome, even in private between professional archaeologist and museum staff. Anyone wishing to study a topic in more depth or detail does not do it here at the museum level.

Museums are funded in large part by government at some level. When the government gets involved, politics get involved. Museum positions are sometimes regarded as almost feudal like fiefdoms to be handed out by successive administrations. That people with influence in the museum system often have financial ties to elected official is, we are assured, “purely coincidental”. Consequently, behind the scenes power struggles and the formations of cliques with an agenda is the rule rather than the exception. The results are to be as expected. I note one wing of the local city museum is dedicated to local political bosses. I never see anyone in there. This is of course a waste of space and money. In one instance, the local politicos downtown did not want to accept a traveling painting exhibit from the Guggenheim Museum in Barcelona Spain which include works by El Greco, Miro, and Picasso to name a few. Why? Because the city hall crowd did not know who they were. There was also a local art "group" with "connections" who was being pushed, in place of the Guggenheim exhibit, it was rumored. (These kind of rumors are often based on somthing true, in my expierience.) Finally someone informed city hall on who El Greco, Miro, and Picasso were, and how this could be used as ammunition by a political opponent in an election, so we got the exhibit. So the story goes. With the local media mostly afraid to report on the real goings on, who knows. I don't blame them. I am afraid also. However, with this poor level of cultural literacy and all the political agendas, how can you expect museums to be run? Even when the museum board, as riddled as it will be with political appointments, and is competent enough to seize on an opportunity that presents its self.

I have a number of samurai armors in my possession. Some are restored. I buy damaged or neglected parts and repair and re-lacquer them. I have a number of Roman replica armors. (Remember, in the American southwest there is nothing Roman what so ever. Not even a reenactment group. The public here has never even seen a Deepeeka replica. ) I have no family and intend to donate what I have to museums if I can find one. I still have no idea of where they will go.

Ralph

Re: Where should archeological finds be shown? - MARCvSVIBIvSMAvRINvS - 10-13-2010

Great posting Ralph !

I agree fully with it.

M.VIB.M.

Re: Where should archeological finds be shown? - Nantonos - 10-14-2010

Quote:The choices seem to me to be:-
a/ Near where they were found (eg Crosby Garrett in Cumbria, Staffordshire Saxon hoard in Staffordshire)
b/In national centres where there is both a local large population and a strong visitor (especially international visitors) population (eg Newcastle for Hadrian's Wall, York, London, Birmingham (where much of the Staffs hoard will be displayed I understand), Cardiff
c/In national centres with a large local population but not much visitor traffic (eg Leeds Royal Armouries)
d/ in the capital , the biggest city and a lot of international traffic(eg Sutton Hoo helmet in British Museum)

I'd like to rephrase your questions. Where should finds be placed:

a/ In a small local museum near the site they were found, so that they can be viewed in context and as an assemblage
b/ In a large provincial museum, so they can be seen on the same trip, but out of context
c/ In the capital city, where demands on space and presumed visitor interest (people like the Egyptian stuff. Who wants to know about British stuff?)

I would therefore go for a) because a visit to the site and an appreciation of the finds in context can be made. if you want to see stuff, travel.

It really ticks me off to go to some ancient site, see a small smattering of less important finds and maybe a photo or too of the more important finds, which are in some larger museum, in storage.

Quote:For example, in France this unique helmet in in the museum at Autun.

Autun? Me neither.

You could be making one of several points by your brief example and I'm not sure which:

a) You visited Autun museum and found that it was small and badly organised
b) You visited a large museum in the area, like the one at the internatinal centre in Bibracte, and expected to see the helmet there instead
c) You never heard of Autun and wonder why the helmet isn't in the national museum in Paris

or some other option that I didn't think of. Without knowing what you meant, i can't really discuss your point.