4 ms·

Two of my favorite artifacts in the British Museum are the Young letter and the Champollion publication, where Young in 1818 explains his theory that hieroglyph

Two of my favorite artifacts in the British Museum are the Young letter and the Champollion publication, where Young in 1818 explains his theory that hieroglyphic pictograms sometimes represent sounds, and Champollion in 1822 gives a detailed phonetic breakdown of each hieroglyph (photos in https://blog.britishmuseum.org/everything-you-ever-wanted-to-know-about-the-rosetta-stone/ https://blog.britishmuseum.org/everything-you-ever-wanted-to... and also in https://cosmolearning.org/images/a-letter-from-thomas-young-about-hieroglyphs-1018/ https://cosmolearning.org/images/a-letter-from-thomas-young-...). They're on display in a case, easy to miss, near the replica Rosetta stone that you can touch ( https://g.co/arts/Jc9fSG2q4FfZzCPT9 https://g.co/arts/Jc9fSG2q4FfZzCPT9 ) I love these artifacts because they show a real live example of the way people did science a few centuries ago. The pace is thought-provoking -- it took 4+ years between one person's letter and another's results? we didn't even declare the translation "done" until 1824? -- and I've always wondered what was going on there. This is an interesting book review, helps fill in some gaps for me! I am a little surprised to see the author use the phrase "Elgin Marbles". This was used ubiquitously a few years back but at some point in the past 5-10 years the preferred phrase seems to have become "The Parthenon Sculptures" (see e.g. https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/british-museum-story/contested-objects-collection/parthenon-sculptures https://www.britishmuseum.org/about-us/british-museum-story/...). I'm not quite sure when this happened and when I looked it up recently I couldn't find good news coverage explaining the conscious choice to change the name.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago
Elgin Marbles is such a famous, well-known, and old name that any modern renaming of it must succeed with culture before it sticks.
- boomboomsubban 5y ago
  It'd probably stick pretty easily if they put the things back in the Parthenon, they're only know as the Elgin Marbles as the Earl of Elgin looted them.
  - evgen 5y ago
    And if Elgin had not 'looted' them it is also possible they would be scattered around Athens as landfill and building material. As a simple example, the Rosetta Stone that is the focus of this article was yoinked by locals for building material and used as fill in the wall of a fort some distance away from its original location. It was only saved because when some French soldiers were rebuilding the foundations of the fort wall someone recognized the significance of the inscription on the stone. It is a sad fact that were it not for this 'looting' we would have far fewer artifacts to examine and use to inform our understanding of the past because the locals would have continued to treat these sites and objects as open-air quarries.
    - boomboomsubban 5y ago
      This ignores the millions of artifacts in boxes that will almost certainly never see the light if day, and the untold number that the British destroyed while looting what they wanted/they colonized the area.
      - evgen 5y ago
        The artifacts are catalogued and stored, which is more than can be said when it comes to a lot of older cultures. I would have a lot more sympathy for the arguments that the rapacious British were nothing but a detriment to archaeology and understanding of the past when you could point me to the preservation efforts that existed before the British arrived. There were far worse outcomes in terms of historical preservation than to be colonized by the British (e.g. pity those locations colonized by the Spanish, who actually were as bad as you suggest the British colonizers to be.)
        uwagar 5y ago
        what is being used is preserved simply by its use. an idol in a hindu temple is sacred and washed and annointed. only when its removed from its context it needs to be preserved. the brits and other colonizers simply take what they want because guns rule.
- ranko 5y ago
  The sculptures were created approx 440 BCE, and Elgin wasn't involved with them till around 1800 CE, so it's not obvious that "Elgin Marbles" is an old name in this context. It's also not obvious that Elgin removed them legitimately (the alleged source of his authority is either lost or never existed in the first place).
grey-area 5y ago
European museums are full of looted treasures taken from other countries. Perhaps it seemed a little inappropriate to continue to name them after the looter rather than the place they came from?
- secondaryacct 5y ago
  See it another way: the people who "owned" the things did nothing with them for centuries, when Champolion decoded the language millenia later, while the Egyptians were busy praying their new gods destroying their own ancient culture. You dont need to have been shat from an egyptian vagina to deeply understand, respect and eventually contribute to its culture a thousand times better.
yitchelle 5y ago
Came across this podcast some weeks back where they tell the story of how various artefacts ended in British museums. Hopefully, they can expand this out to other museums round the world. https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-british-stole/ https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-brit...
- anitil 5y ago
  I was about to make the same recommendation. Marc Fenell is great, he's been a beloved figure in Australian radio for some time. He has a very compassionate view on the world.

TedDoesntTalk 5y ago

Elgin Marbles is such a famous, well-known, and old name that any modern renaming of it must succeed with culture before it sticks.

boomboomsubban 5y ago
It'd probably stick pretty easily if they put the things back in the Parthenon, they're only know as the Elgin Marbles as the Earl of Elgin looted them.
- evgen 5y ago
  And if Elgin had not 'looted' them it is also possible they would be scattered around Athens as landfill and building material. As a simple example, the Rosetta Stone that is the focus of this article was yoinked by locals for building material and used as fill in the wall of a fort some distance away from its original location. It was only saved because when some French soldiers were rebuilding the foundations of the fort wall someone recognized the significance of the inscription on the stone. It is a sad fact that were it not for this 'looting' we would have far fewer artifacts to examine and use to inform our understanding of the past because the locals would have continued to treat these sites and objects as open-air quarries.
  - boomboomsubban 5y ago
    This ignores the millions of artifacts in boxes that will almost certainly never see the light if day, and the untold number that the British destroyed while looting what they wanted/they colonized the area.
    - evgen 5y ago
      The artifacts are catalogued and stored, which is more than can be said when it comes to a lot of older cultures. I would have a lot more sympathy for the arguments that the rapacious British were nothing but a detriment to archaeology and understanding of the past when you could point me to the preservation efforts that existed before the British arrived. There were far worse outcomes in terms of historical preservation than to be colonized by the British (e.g. pity those locations colonized by the Spanish, who actually were as bad as you suggest the British colonizers to be.)
      - uwagar 5y ago
        what is being used is preserved simply by its use. an idol in a hindu temple is sacred and washed and annointed. only when its removed from its context it needs to be preserved. the brits and other colonizers simply take what they want because guns rule.
ranko 5y ago
The sculptures were created approx 440 BCE, and Elgin wasn't involved with them till around 1800 CE, so it's not obvious that "Elgin Marbles" is an old name in this context. It's also not obvious that Elgin removed them legitimately (the alleged source of his authority is either lost or never existed in the first place).

grey-area 5y ago

European museums are full of looted treasures taken from other countries. Perhaps it seemed a little inappropriate to continue to name them after the looter rather than the place they came from?

secondaryacct 5y ago
See it another way: the people who "owned" the things did nothing with them for centuries, when Champolion decoded the language millenia later, while the Egyptians were busy praying their new gods destroying their own ancient culture. You dont need to have been shat from an egyptian vagina to deeply understand, respect and eventually contribute to its culture a thousand times better.

yitchelle 5y ago

Came across this podcast some weeks back where they tell the story of how various artefacts ended in British museums. Hopefully, they can expand this out to other museums round the world. https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-british-stole/ https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/stuff-the-brit...

anitil 5y ago
I was about to make the same recommendation. Marc Fenell is great, he's been a beloved figure in Australian radio for some time. He has a very compassionate view on the world.