4 ms·

An elite education: Discovery of an ancient Athenian ephebic list

37 points by diodorus 4y ago

ggm 4y ago
I take great heart from the continual discovery of new things, even amongst the detritus of what is held and known, we have much to discover. That the Ashmolean assumed the Scots relic was a cast of theirs, speaks volumes both for indexing (or lack of it) and assumed supremacy of the Ashmolean over other historical collections.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  > That the Ashmolean assumed the Scots relic was a cast of theirs, speaks volumes both for indexing (or lack of it) and assumed supremacy of the Ashmolean over other historical collections. Why would the Ashmolean assume, without evidence, it was a super-rare original which happened to from the same period as the Ashmolean's piece? A cast seems much more likely to me, but I don't work in that field. Do you? Maybe I just don't understand some context.
  - pram 4y ago
    My reading is: because it says theres so few of the tablets from this time period, they assumed the other museum couldn't possibly have an 'undiscovered' one?
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      If that's true, what's wrong with it? If you said you had a Van Gogh on your wall, wouldn't I reasonably assume it's not an original?
      - ggm 4y ago
        If you were the art gallery of Wales, and I was the art gallery of scotland, no: assuming only your art provenance is valid and no other gallery can establish it is exceptionalism. If you are the art gallery and I am some random with a prior cleaning job for a rich dead person who just happens to claim I have a van gogh, sure: good initial assumption. That's not exceptionalism, it's caution based on experience
happy_path 4y ago
> The monument was donated to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in 1887. According to https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/AIUK14/1 https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/AIUK14/1 > This small stele or plaque was donated to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in 1887 or 1888 by Alexander Wood Inglis. There is currently no information on how he acquired it. I assume he (or the previous owner) acquired the stele by the same means the marbles of the Parthenon were acquired.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- yesenadam 4y ago
  Steling?

37 points by diodorus 4y ago

ggm 4y ago

I take great heart from the continual discovery of new things, even amongst the detritus of what is held and known, we have much to discover. That the Ashmolean assumed the Scots relic was a cast of theirs, speaks volumes both for indexing (or lack of it) and assumed supremacy of the Ashmolean over other historical collections.

wolverine876 4y ago
> That the Ashmolean assumed the Scots relic was a cast of theirs, speaks volumes both for indexing (or lack of it) and assumed supremacy of the Ashmolean over other historical collections. Why would the Ashmolean assume, without evidence, it was a super-rare original which happened to from the same period as the Ashmolean's piece? A cast seems much more likely to me, but I don't work in that field. Do you? Maybe I just don't understand some context.
- pram 4y ago
  My reading is: because it says theres so few of the tablets from this time period, they assumed the other museum couldn't possibly have an 'undiscovered' one?
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    If that's true, what's wrong with it? If you said you had a Van Gogh on your wall, wouldn't I reasonably assume it's not an original?
    - ggm 4y ago
      If you were the art gallery of Wales, and I was the art gallery of scotland, no: assuming only your art provenance is valid and no other gallery can establish it is exceptionalism. If you are the art gallery and I am some random with a prior cleaning job for a rich dead person who just happens to claim I have a van gogh, sure: good initial assumption. That's not exceptionalism, it's caution based on experience

happy_path 4y ago

> The monument was donated to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in 1887. According to https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/AIUK14/1 https://www.atticinscriptions.com/inscription/AIUK14/1 > This small stele or plaque was donated to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland in 1887 or 1888 by Alexander Wood Inglis. There is currently no information on how he acquired it. I assume he (or the previous owner) acquired the stele by the same means the marbles of the Parthenon were acquired.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
yesenadam 4y ago
Steling?