3 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoMy 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 agoIf 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 agoIf 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