5 ms·
>> subsequently staff at the British Museum Library used 19th century techniques to try to flatten and mount it, which has contributed to its current condition
by ptaffs 12y ago
>> subsequently staff at the British Museum Library used 19th century techniques to try to flatten and mount it, which has contributed to its current condition today rendering the text very difficult to see.
The article says today's specialists have the answer, when previously they were amateur: preservation specialists are having to glean as much as they can, since previous staff didn't really know how to preserve something this important, patronizingly calling them 19th century techniques. I imagine in another few hundred years the specialists of the time will call today's techniques damaging.
It's a common habit to forget learning is continual and we should never stop questioning and challenging the so-called experts. They should stop digging up Dinosaur bones and think twice (or more) before excavating historical sites.
- JacobAldridge 12y agoI had a similar thought in a recent discussion about Stonehenge [1]. We have to draw the line somewhere, although I guess even today's "non-destructive" could appear to be desecration to future experts. Bonus points because I visited Stonehenge and and Salisbury Cathedral Magna Carta on the same day. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8210452 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8210452
- bostonpete 12y ago> patronizingly calling them 19th century > techniques. I imagine in another few hundred > years the specialists of the time will call > today's techniques damaging. How is it patronizing to mention that techniques from more than a 100 years ago are less effective than what we could do with today's knowledge/techniques? I would hope that specialists in a few hundred years time would be able to spot certain damaging practices that we're not aware of today. Was there some derogatory comment that I missed about how amateurish experts of the past were?
- th0ma5 12y agoI think about this a lot. In the very near future, we'll have wanted all video to also include a pan or something of the surroundings so that a 3D model could be created. Who knows in the future a technical for spectral analysis could describe materials better and we'll have wished all video included at least one sunlight shot for reference... anyway... I think about this issue a lot, even if my thinking is ill-informed BS, it is all still a curious idea, so thanks for posting this.
- slg 12y ago> I imagine in another few hundred years the specialists of the time will call today's techniques damaging. They have actually stopped or delayed certain archaeological excavations because of exactly this issue. The Terracotta Warriors are the first example that comes to mind. The pieces are all elaborately painted, but current preservation techniques have proved ineffective in protecting the paint after they are first unearthed. They are intentionally leaving some areas unexcavated in the hopes that future preservation techniques will be more advanced and hopefully be more successful.
- JoeAltmaier 12y agoBut historical sites are disappearing at the rate cities develop. There is no waiting. Previous preservationists were often actually amateurs i.e. civilians with no professional training. Today's experts are certainly far more capable than previous amateurs. Surely another century of science will be able to do a better job. But that's moot. The documents have to be treated as we best know how today.