Archaeological remains - who cares?

[Berbescu]

Well, some answers then.

quot;](is it not better to have a copy of the piece to look at rather than not being able to see it at all?)

That's something that museums already do with their own collection!

So you are saying the Elgin Marbles on display in London are only copies of the original? Then it should not be an issue toreturn the originals to Athens!?

Unless they are lying to the public, as far as I know those on display are the originals. Museums throughout Europe are already starting to create digital archives (photos, 3D scans, etc.) of their collections. The replicas are usually created for scientific or educational purposes. And sometimes they ARE put on display in museums (with a sign that says it is a replica).

But there is a difference between a replica (no matter how good) and the original - in terms of monetary value and scientific value. There will always be collectors. The museums will always want to keep their artefacts for possible future study.

[Berbescu]

When it comes to that preservation, countries should pool together since some have much money but little archaeological heritage, while others, such as Italy and Greece to pick but two, have an embarassingly rich archaeological heritage, without the means to support or even preserve what is there.

I would disagree that some countries have more or less heritage than others. The Americas and Africa have just as much heritage that needs preserving as does Europe. From a scientific point of view, the monumental architecture and the gold bracelets have no more value than the common broken pots or stone tools found at sites. In fact, the common tools like pots, farming tools, pieces of daub wall, etc. have more value than monumental architecture because those common items tell us more about the lives of the people who lived in ancient times.

And although many rich countries DO conduct research and conservation projects in poor countries, tax payer's money is more commonly spend in country. Rarely will one country support another country with nothing physical in return. Mostly if they are part of some common cause.

Take this case in point:-

If a particular museum in London had a large collection of replicas including, let's say, Michelangelo's David and Trajan's Column, would as many people go to see the replicas as the originals?

If you want to see what Trajan's column looked like, you would do better to go and look at the casts made by Napoleon III now in London ( V&A museum), or the Museo de Civilita Romana outside Rome, or the museum at St Germain-en-Laye.

In fact I was referring specifically to the Victoria and Albert collection of casts (and I know that there are others). There are many cases in which the casts are now better than the originals. Many originals are deteriorated from acid rains and other destructions. I had the good fortune to see the replica of Trajan's Column at the V&A museum but still the original is impressive for me to look at (even if has less scientific value).

My original point was that even though the replicas are more valuable from a scientific point of view, in the eyes of the public (non-historians usually) the originals have more value. It doesn't matter to them if they are conserved well or badly. This is an obvious fact. Consider that a collector will pay much money on the black market for an original artefact but he will not pay a fraction of that price to make a replica legally.

Creating replicas that the public can see in every city of the world, or online or that are for sale, will do nothing to decrease the black market trade in artefacts. Some would even argue that it would increase the demand for originals, so making more looting of archaeological sites. Nobody is stealing them for scientific research. Only for making money or for putting in their private collection.

[sonic]

I think that discussions of this kind are extremely interesting, but in the main avoid the major difficulty with all of the issues: the legal angle.

For example:

There are now vast amounts of European artefacts in U.S. museums, many bought at auction in Christie's or Sotheby's in London. If it is decided that the Elgin marbles must be returned, there would be a legal case for all of the European artefacts to be returned too. After all, all of the goods - the Marbles, as well as the European artefacts - were bought in good faith from the legal representatives of that country at that time. The fact that the Marbles were bought from a 'Turkish government' is immaterial, since they were legally (according to international law) the rulers of Greece at that time.

Such a ruling would open the floodgates to litigation concerning innumerable artefacts residing in the US, and many of the museums would not be able to afford the legal costs to defend against a large number of claims, so ruining them as institutions.

Furthermore, such a ruling would bring into question who naturally had the right to claim artefacts. The Egyptian material spread around the world would naturally go to the Egyptians, since they can claim a direct link to their heritage.

But does that mean that all Celtic material should therefore be taken to museums in Cardiff by the Welsh, in Dublin by the Irish and in Edinburgh by the Scots, since they have a claim to being the direct descendants of the Celts, whereas the French, being descended from the Franks, are actually German?? hock:

The can of worms that this debate opens can be, and, let's be fair, with the lawyers practicing in the West today! :lol: would be taken to extremes by anyone who wanted to cause trouble and lay claim to valuable artefacts.

Like I said, it's a fascinating discussion, but in the end there can probably be very few 'winners' and far too many 'losers'.