4 ms·

Keeping them in lots of separate places just magnifies the probability of the public not being able to view them.

by haney 8y ago

natch 8y ago
But maybe only centralize them when you can provide reasonable assurance of the safety of the items. In the meantime, place them with more secure facilities for safekeeping. I think national pride gets in the way, though.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Securing and protecting many small facilities is going to cost more than doing so for one facility and impinges on the reasons for gathering artefacts - study, education, etc..
natch 8y ago
I think the probability of public viewing is down to zero now, so that didn’t work out so well, did it?
wruza 8y ago
Now it is zero though.
ztjio 8y ago
A single museum could be broken into many smaller buildings, with measures taken specifically to avoid spreading fires and things like earthquake damage from one building to another. Decentralization doesn't have to mean spreading things miles apart.
- skookumchuck 8y ago
  Exactly. If you visit Mt Vernon (Washington's home), the kitchen is in a separate building. It seems odd, until the guide tells you that kitchen fires were common, and so the kitchens were separated from the main house.
ZenPsycho 8y ago
Usually the public viewing areas are limited in space. The bulk of a 20 million artefact collection would have to be kept in more recently built warehouses, possibly underground, and kept near by the main museum. In the event of a fire they can be sealed and filled with argon gas, exactly the same as any highly sensitive data centre, such as for instance, the IRS data centre, or the stock market. Funding for such things should have been a no brainer considering the high potential economic value of these objects. The Brazilian government should have thought of this building as though it's a bank, because it basically is, if you consider that the museum could have decided to, for instance, sell off most of the collection if it decided to, and have ended up well ahead of losing essentially billions of dollars.
- MattBlissett 8y ago
  > The bulk of a 20 million artefact collection would have to be kept in more recently built warehouses That's not often the case. These museums were built to house these collections, and often include rooms full of drawers, compacting shelving etc with the collected objects. This incudes the basement, but not only the basement. For example, the Natural History Museum in London has "the majority" of their 80 million specimens stored in the museum in London. You may be able to go on a behind-the-scenes tour of your local museum.

Keeping them in lots of separate places just magnifies the probability of the public not being able to view them.

by haney 8y ago

Keeping them in lots of separate places just magnifies the probability of the public not being able to view them.

But maybe only centralize them when you can provide reasonable assurance of the safety of the items. In the meantime, place them with more secure facilities for safekeeping. I think national pride gets in the way, though.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Securing and protecting many small facilities is going to cost more than doing so for one facility and impinges on the reasons for gathering artefacts - study, education, etc..

natch 8y ago

I think the probability of public viewing is down to zero now, so that didn’t work out so well, did it?

wruza 8y ago

Now it is zero though.

ztjio 8y ago

A single museum could be broken into many smaller buildings, with measures taken specifically to avoid spreading fires and things like earthquake damage from one building to another. Decentralization doesn't have to mean spreading things miles apart.

skookumchuck 8y ago
Exactly. If you visit Mt Vernon (Washington's home), the kitchen is in a separate building. It seems odd, until the guide tells you that kitchen fires were common, and so the kitchens were separated from the main house.

ZenPsycho 8y ago

Usually the public viewing areas are limited in space. The bulk of a 20 million artefact collection would have to be kept in more recently built warehouses, possibly underground, and kept near by the main museum. In the event of a fire they can be sealed and filled with argon gas, exactly the same as any highly sensitive data centre, such as for instance, the IRS data centre, or the stock market. Funding for such things should have been a no brainer considering the high potential economic value of these objects. The Brazilian government should have thought of this building as though it's a bank, because it basically is, if you consider that the museum could have decided to, for instance, sell off most of the collection if it decided to, and have ended up well ahead of losing essentially billions of dollars.

MattBlissett 8y ago
> The bulk of a 20 million artefact collection would have to be kept in more recently built warehouses That's not often the case. These museums were built to house these collections, and often include rooms full of drawers, compacting shelving etc with the collected objects. This incudes the basement, but not only the basement. For example, the Natural History Museum in London has "the majority" of their 80 million specimens stored in the museum in London. You may be able to go on a behind-the-scenes tour of your local museum.