3 ms·

Strange choice of language. What word do they use for things that are "original" in the ordinary sense of the word? Surely there's something less awkward than

Strange choice of language. What word do they use for things that are "original" in the ordinary sense of the word? Surely there's something less awkward than "original with a past"?

ChuckMcM 10y ago
There are "historically significant" artifacts which are things that are both original and something about them was also historically important or interesting. And of course artifacts that are historically insignificant but original and so sometimes good examples of items from the time. The Steamboat Arabia museum has a lot of stuff you would find in the 1850's version of WalMart, none of it is historically significant but the items are great examples of what the stuff people were talking about when they wrote letters and books probably looked and felt like. The key is separating the item (which can be an original, a re-creation[1], a restored original, or a replica) and the context (the item's history) [1] I believe, but am not sure, that this was the term for something made with the original materials but using different techniques. Some things like Samurai swords have a gap where it was lost how they were made, and so all you get are recreations of swords of that type rather than new original swords. And yes, I know, its all semantics really, but archivists are nothing if not sticklers about details.
- jessriedel 10y ago
  That's not the distinction I'm talking about. I'm talking about the distinction between an object that actually was created at the relevant time period, and one that was created later to mimic one (perhaps indistinguishably so).
  - ChuckMcM 10y ago
    That is the thing though, there is no distinction. Try the following thought experiment, "Hagar the shipwright makes a boat for Eric the Red, then trips and falls into a frozen lake where he is frozen for 1500 years, when he is discovered he is thawed out, whereupon he goes to the same forest he always goes to, cuts down the same kinds of trees he always cuts down, and builds another boat." Both boats are original, one is "old" and one is "new", but their time of creation has no impact on their originality. You are perhaps seeking a distinction that does not exist.
    - jessriedel 10y ago
      No. We have a continuum of examples connecting almost all distinction we draw. The existence of continuums is not evidence against the supreme usefulness of identifying extremely bimodal distributions. Ring species do not negate the meaningfulness of species. "Number of parts replaced" interpolates between restorations and original, but it doesn't invalidate the distinction. Hypothetical time-traveling vikings does not invalidate the distinction between "original", as the word is commonly understood, and "original", as you've insisted it should be used.

Strange choice of language. What word do they use for things that are "original" in the ordinary sense of the word? Surely there's something less awkward than "original with a past"?

ChuckMcM 10y ago

There are "historically significant" artifacts which are things that are both original and something about them was also historically important or interesting. And of course artifacts that are historically insignificant but original and so sometimes good examples of items from the time. The Steamboat Arabia museum has a lot of stuff you would find in the 1850's version of WalMart, none of it is historically significant but the items are great examples of what the stuff people were talking about when they wrote letters and books probably looked and felt like. The key is separating the item (which can be an original, a re-creation[1], a restored original, or a replica) and the context (the item's history) [1] I believe, but am not sure, that this was the term for something made with the original materials but using different techniques. Some things like Samurai swords have a gap where it was lost how they were made, and so all you get are recreations of swords of that type rather than new original swords. And yes, I know, its all semantics really, but archivists are nothing if not sticklers about details.

jessriedel 10y ago
That's not the distinction I'm talking about. I'm talking about the distinction between an object that actually was created at the relevant time period, and one that was created later to mimic one (perhaps indistinguishably so).
- ChuckMcM 10y ago
  That is the thing though, there is no distinction. Try the following thought experiment, "Hagar the shipwright makes a boat for Eric the Red, then trips and falls into a frozen lake where he is frozen for 1500 years, when he is discovered he is thawed out, whereupon he goes to the same forest he always goes to, cuts down the same kinds of trees he always cuts down, and builds another boat." Both boats are original, one is "old" and one is "new", but their time of creation has no impact on their originality. You are perhaps seeking a distinction that does not exist.
  - jessriedel 10y ago
    No. We have a continuum of examples connecting almost all distinction we draw. The existence of continuums is not evidence against the supreme usefulness of identifying extremely bimodal distributions. Ring species do not negate the meaningfulness of species. "Number of parts replaced" interpolates between restorations and original, but it doesn't invalidate the distinction. Hypothetical time-traveling vikings does not invalidate the distinction between "original", as the word is commonly understood, and "original", as you've insisted it should be used.