Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Olthannon wrote:
To bring this slightly back round to my original topic intention, I have a general question for people on here. Does the idea of historical accuracy mean a lot to you? Or are you quite happy to accept a great deal of nonsense in say tv and film?

And as an aside to that: if you were to visit a "living history site" (not necessarily a museum) would you expect the organisers or original creators to have professional qualifications? If you visited somewhere like say a Viking settlement or some sort of colonial village in the US would you be okay with the fact that the people running it were just "lifelong enthusiasts"?

If when replying to this you could say what country you were from that would be a big help!

Cheers

UK here

Whether I want historical accuracy depends a lot on what's being done, if its an entertainment i'll be happy enough for a bunch of sort of looks ok stuff (eg generic 'war' movie), but it it's claiming to be 'based on real events' i'll want it to be much closer to the facts (U-571 this means you!), I also tend to get annoyed with historical shows where too many of the people hold beliefs and attitudes from today rather than from their actual period (like a medieval drama where nobody really seems to have religion as a key part of their lives, or slavery era Jamaica with nobody being involved in slavery)

As to a living history site I wouldn't demand it be organised/run by people with qualifications (and i'd certainly hope they were enthusiasts whether they had them or not), that said one potential issue with enthusiast compared to professionals is they are more likely to be 'trapped' into yesterdays information based on whenever they first got into the subject

i'd want them to provide as much information about where they got info for parts of the site etc from, so this house is based on excavation evidence, this comes from contemporary writing, this process is based on experimental archeology as we know what the finished product looks like and what tools they had but not how it was made. The how we found out about it is as interesting as the final objects to me

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:


As to a living history site I wouldn't demand it be organised/run by people with qualifications (and i'd certainly hope they were enthusiasts whether they had them or not), that said one potential issue with enthusiast compared to professionals is they are more likely to be 'trapped' into yesterdays information based on whenever they first got into the subject

i'd want them to provide as much information about where they got info for parts of the site etc from, so this house is based on excavation evidence, this comes from contemporary writing, this process is based on experimental archeology as we know what the finished product looks like and what tools they had but not how it was made. The how we found out about it is as interesting as the final objects to me

I think this issue is just as likely to happen with professionals as with enthusiasts. Any person can easily learn to a certain level and then not continue their studies once they leave the study system. Many journals are priced at levels accessible to institutions but at values way above the average employed person to afford. So its very easy to fall behind if one isn't working at the forefront of study. Enthusiasts might suffer more as they might not know the journals nor reference points to consult, however I would say that remaining at the forefront of understanding is something that the company running the event/site would have to maintain at the company level. Providing access to material, encouraging staff to read up and providing work time for them to further their studies. Just the same as a farmer or other land based industry might pay for staff to go on training courses to gain new skills and maintain/upkeep old ones. You don't expect your workers to take their ticket courses in their own time, so you'd not have to expect your museum staff to do their reading and studies (or attend lectures) fully in their own time.
Of course keen staff will undertake their own studies and further their own knowledge, but an employer has to give time within the work day for that too if they want staff to remain at the forefront of understanding.

Well you did come to dakka after all.

Archeology should have every potential to appeal to the general. Can be really exciting stuff.

 Olthannon wrote:
In this instance, the hypothetical living history place is a brand new space, a small team with limited funding but nobody professional within the management. Perhaps a group who work in an office all week and on weekends want to dress up as Vikings and bring other people in to educate them about the past. They are presenting something in a certain light based on how they've say googled it over the years or what they've watched on tv. Would you question their motives or just enjoy the setting as a place to say take the kids or simply enjoy a different weekend experience?

As an entertainment experience it sounds cool,

but hopefully they'd push it more as that than as a historical experience as basing it on tv shows (eg Amazon's Vikings) could meant it was pretty far from the known facts and veering into made up 'everybody knows they had horned helmets' territory,

not something I'd be bothered about for something selling itself as entertainment, but I would if it was claiming this is what we know


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Overread wrote:

 OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote:


As to a living history site I wouldn't demand it be organised/run by people with qualifications (and i'd certainly hope they were enthusiasts whether they had them or not), that said one potential issue with enthusiast compared to professionals is they are more likely to be 'trapped' into yesterdays information based on whenever they first got into the subject

i'd want them to provide as much information about where they got info for parts of the site etc from, so this house is based on excavation evidence, this comes from contemporary writing, this process is based on experimental archeology as we know what the finished product looks like and what tools they had but not how it was made. The how we found out about it is as interesting as the final objects to me

I think this issue is just as likely to happen with professionals as with enthusiasts. Any person can easily learn to a certain level and then not continue their studies once they leave the study system. Many journals are priced at levels accessible to institutions but at values way above the average employed person to afford. So its very easy to fall behind if one isn't working at the forefront of study. Enthusiasts might suffer more as they might not know the journals nor reference points to consult, however I would say that remaining at the forefront of understanding is something that the company running the event/site would have to maintain at the company level. Providing access to material, encouraging staff to read up and providing work time for them to further their studies. Just the same as a farmer or other land based industry might pay for staff to go on training courses to gain new skills and maintain/upkeep old ones. You don't expect your workers to take their ticket courses in their own time, so you'd not have to expect your museum staff to do their reading and studies (or attend lectures) fully in their own time.
Of course keen staff will undertake their own studies and further their own knowledge, but an employer has to give time within the work day for that too if they want staff to remain at the forefront of understanding.

Oh I totally agree, especially as i'm in that sort of position regarding my molecular biology study at the moment (oh for more free journal access) but as long as you're enthusiastic and interested you can keep up with the broad strokes through reading the free abstracts even if the papers contents are blocked by a pay wall. It's a risk both pro and am folk will become stuck in the past (excuse the pun), I just think it's more likely to happen in an am situation especially if the whole museum is set up that way so may not realise how fast things can change (again depending on what it is the broad stokes of the field could be stable with changes only in the minor details)

Olthannon wrote:To bring this slightly back round to my original topic intention, I have a general question for people on here. Does the idea of historical accuracy mean a lot to you? Or are you quite happy to accept a great deal of nonsense in say tv and film?

And as an aside to that: if you were to visit a "living history site" (not necessarily a museum) would you expect the organisers or original creators to have professional qualifications? If you visited somewhere like say a Viking settlement or some sort of colonial village in the US would you be okay with the fact that the people running it were just "lifelong enthusiasts"?

If when replying to this you could say what country you were from that would be a big help!

Cheers

LordofHats wrote:I'm more annoyed by people stupidly taking TV/Movies/Games as accurate representations of history than I am by TV/Movies/Games taking liberties with history.

As to the aside, I think it's a matter of budget. There are some places people can be surprised how bone thin the budget is. Most historical sites I know of in the US do have qualified people actually running the show, but are very dependent on lifelong enthusiasts for their day to day affairs.

US here. . . I'm with LoH here in that the way people handle/view media set in a historical period is much different than the production of said material. There are times where, due to rating concerns, certain historical activities/events are altered to be more publicly palatable (ie, Raynald de Chatillon in the movie "Kindom of Heaven" was purportedly far worse than he was portrayed in the film, and they portrayed him as pretty not cool). . . There are times where the filmmakers *want* to have a proper example of equipment shown on screen, but have to fudge due to the fact that examples may not exist, or may not be able to transport to filming locations (ie, any film featuring WW2 planes, the so-called "button counters" LOVE to dissect those films for featuring an aircraft that was all wrong for the content of the movie)

Additional commentary on the historical accuracy front: in many respects when I view media set in a historical period, how I react to it in some ways depends on how the film carries itself. By this I mean, is it a film set in a historical period that is striving for accuracy (something like Darkest Hour, or Dunkirk), or is it a film set in a period with a more modern story to tell (Braveheart, The Patriot, dozens of John Wayne movies, etc)? Just so I'm clear, when I talk about "more modern stories", I mean how we can so often use film to discuss attitudes and views of the time period the piece was made in more than we can attitudes and views of the period being portrayed (we used a few John Wayne movies in a "History of the American West" course I took in undergrad to study norms of the 1930s-1950s in which the films were made)


As for "living" history sites, I do agree with the budget thing. . . however, I'm OK with the "lifelong enthusiast" acting/dressing as a blacksmith or whatever job, especially where there is someone with strong "real" qualifications in some sort of oversight position. Which is essentially another way of saying the same thing as LoH

I used to think that the doctorate meant nothing when considering who could write a history book; that as someone else said, it just represented someone who had time and could write essays well.

Then I actually sat down to do a doctorate, and many years later, I have a very different conclusion. I sit and look back at an academic article I wrote before starting and compare it to my knowledge now; and realise that I made many serious flaws in my judgements due to a lack of wider historical knowledge . I simply couldn't contextualise things properly, and furthermore, was incapable of seeing that from my limited methodology and knowledge base.

In other words, I've come to realise that initial opinion I had on the matter was quite wrong. I've since dealt with a great many enthusiastic amateurs who all are vastly knowledgeable about their one individual section of rivet counting, but very little beyond it. The problem I think, is that the amateur by definition does it for fun and only looks at what interests them. The professional meanwhile, reads all the boring bits he doesn't want to read, gets into the nuts and bolts and the whys of what he does, and generally is capable of seeing a far bigger picture than the amateur ever could. It's a job/trade rather than something you do entirely for pleasure, which means you take the lumps with the good stuff.

Don't get me wrong, I've spotted the very occasional exception (this is a general rule, not an absolute one); but things are best left to professionals in most cases and history is no different in that regard. By all means have volunteers to help grease the place along, but direction should be provided by those who have dedicated knowledge.

Thanks all for the replies. Again I'll not bring my own opinion in for a while until later on, but add another slant to the discussion based on what you've been saying.

If you went to a living history site and there was nobody, not even in the management, had any grounding in history or archaeology, would that be more of an issue?

In terms of enjoying historical films, do you guys on the whole see something like Gladiator to be accurate?

 Olthannon wrote:
Thanks all for the replies. Again I'll not bring my own opinion in for a while until later on

Out of curiosity, why not? We're members of the public, too, and our opinions are every bit as diverse, and every bit as subjective to biases, differences of priority and interest etc. We're no more likely to skew people's perspectives than people without degrees pertaining to the past.

Insert Indiana Jones theme song.

Dunno about digging up bones but man iv been enjoying Baumgartner restorations YT Channel. some crazy attention to detail.

also Cringing at a lot of youtube knife and tool "restoration" vids watching people take old rusty stuff to the angle grinder and wire wheels. not that its any of my business. its their stuff. i just feel the end products always end up looking gaudy AF.

 Olthannon wrote:

If you went to a living history site and there was nobody, not even in the management, had any grounding in history or archaeology, would that be more of an issue?

In terms of enjoying historical films, do you guys on the whole see something like Gladiator to be accurate?

1) I assume by grounding you mean formal education at degree level or higher? If the displays are solid, if the information is accurate, if the interaction is good then chances are it wouldn't be a huge issue, but it would hinge more so on the self learning skills of those involved. I think it also depends at what level one is talking. If its consumer public level then the standard is very casual and low; whilst if you are talking more about having a one on one chat at some point and going into intermediate or higher levels of depth then it could show up weaknesses.
It might be a bit like TV in that the general thrust would be ok, but it the minor details would add up a lot more incorrect or inaccurate or out of date elements.
Again I think this swings round to the target audience and overall intentions of the event; certainly a better quality event with a target at a more mature and learned market is going to potentially suffer if no one involved has formal studies of the era; at least in terms of modern advances and understanding. However like I said earlier amateurs can achieve just as a high a level of understanding as doctors in something like historical studies. Indeed many keen amateurs will go on digs, attend lectures and the like. So it can be done, but might present more challenges the higher up it aims to go in depth and quality.

2) As someone with no formal studies and no self learnt ones, of the era I would say Gladiator displays a gritty "realistic" angle of the era. I can't speak at all for accuracy of what's presented, I've just not the knowledge to make that judgement call. I wouldn't, however, hold it up as documentary level. I would totally expect there to be twists of the truth; adaptations and possibly even some totally made up stuff. I'd consider it more "realistic" than, say the 300 films which I land firmly in the fantasy genre for what they depict. I'm at a level of understanding where in films like Gladiator and Braveheart and Kingdom of Heaven I don't understand the source material enough to be able to disseminate the truth from the lies; but I lump both as entertainment not documentary.

 Olthannon wrote:


If you went to a living history site and there was nobody, not even in the management, had any grounding in history or archaeology, would that be more of an issue?

In terms of enjoying historical films, do you guys on the whole see something like Gladiator to be accurate?

1. If I went to a living history site, and it happens to be an area that I have studied to some degree, and I'm noticing major things that are blatantly wrong (I'm NOT referring to modern legal requirements such as handicap access or exit signs and the like) that shows me that there's clearly no one in charge who knows what the feth they are on about, then yeah, I'll have an issue with that place.


2. On a film like Gladiator, and this is just my personal opinion, I think the film makers got the "feel" of Rome down, even if we know for some historical fact Commodus was NOT killed by a former general-turned-gladiatorial slave. But then if viewed as some sort of morality tale, I think Gladiator was meant to serve as a more modern warning/lesson (what that lesson is, I won't speculate on, as it may be against forum rules, and I haven't really "studied" this particular film in that light) and less of a true to history docu-drama type of film.

I've been to a couple of places which were using actors to play parts of people of the time. One was Princess Charlotte's tea cottage in Kew Gardens, and the other was Hampton Court Palace.

In these cases I presume the actors have been given scripts which direct them on how to behave and speak, and enough background knowledge about the scenario to convey some proper facts. I would expect the scripts to have been written by subject experts.

Obviously these scenarios are a bit of fun designed to bring the venue to life and engage the public was a few fun facts. They are not serious history lessons.

To to Gladiator... It contains bits of historical accuracy mixed with complete nonsense designed to create a spectacle. For example, the silver faced helmet worn by the emperor is a facsimile of real silver cavalry helmets used in military religious parades. OTOH, Roman armies didn't use trebuchets to fling fireballs as a tactical battlefield weapon.

However as with the actors, I regard a film like Gladiator as a piece of fun loosely based on history, not as a documentary.

 Olthannon wrote:
Thanks all for the replies. Again I'll not bring my own opinion in for a while until later on, but add another slant to the discussion based on what you've been saying.

If you went to a living history site and there was nobody, not even in the management, had any grounding in history or archaeology, would that be more of an issue?

In terms of enjoying historical films, do you guys on the whole see something like Gladiator to be accurate?

Providing it was set up by people who did have a grounding, or at least were very into the subject and knew what they were talking about.

No. "Based on history" is the closest I would get but it is a time period I have studied so the glaring mistakes and omissions hack me off (as well as the acting but that's a different story).

Are we to presume that you are looking at making your own living history exhibition up that north? Danelagh?

 Olthannon wrote:
Thanks all for the replies. Again I'll not bring my own opinion in for a while until later on, but add another slant to the discussion based on what you've been saying.

If you went to a living history site and there was nobody, not even in the management, had any grounding in history or archaeology, would that be more of an issue?

In terms of enjoying historical films, do you guys on the whole see something like Gladiator to be accurate?

Hmm, I think it depends- if I spot some obvious myths being propagated early on it will sour the whole experience, but it wouldn't specifically bother me having amateur-run museums, no. Sometimes you need a bunch of amateurs to kickstart enough interest in a period to get the funding anyway.

As to Gladiator: ahaha no. It's fun, and I agree it captures some of the crazy... feel of Rome, but even the way dozens of gladiators die in the first couple of bouts is completely bonkers for such valuable commodities.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I've been to a couple of places which were using actors to play parts of people of the time. One was Princess Charlotte's tea cottage in Kew Gardens, and the other was Hampton Court Palace.

In these cases I presume the actors have been given scripts which direct them on how to behave and speak, and enough background knowledge about the scenario to convey some proper facts. I would expect the scripts to have been written by subject experts.

Obviously these scenarios are a bit of fun designed to bring the venue to life and engage the public was a few fun facts. They are not serious history lessons.

I think Hampton Court has more than just scripts- the actors are pretty good at off-the-cuff in-character improvisation too!

My family went there ten years ago- when "Henry VIII" walked out with his entourage, he was wearing a typical Henry VIII get-up, complete with massive codpiece of course. My mum was staring at this monstrosity as they walked past, and one of the attendents (a steward or something) walked up to her and said: "Do not gawp madam, it does not become you", with a totally straight face, and carried on past

nfe wrote:


Out of curiosity, why not? We're members of the public, too, and our opinions are every bit as diverse, and every bit as subjective to biases, differences of priority and interest etc. We're no more likely to skew people's perspectives than people without degrees pertaining to the past.

Absolutely no idea how to work the multiquote function but I'll go down the list.
Simply put, yes me adding my own opinion to this will skew the results. I will try to make the questions or discussion points as unbiased and general as possible because I want people to go their own route and explore and discuss certain ideas as everyone has been doing. This is not to do with academia, just basics of pubarch. As I'm not associated with a university this is nothing to do with academia interacting with the general public but this is of professional interest and takes on an interesting research parameter. As this hopefully progresses I'll be able to take some of the responses and break these down further, contrasting with other responses to previous Q&A sessions I've organised in the past. Of course with the owner's permission, but I will probably PM the people I'd like to quote further down the line. The great thing about this forum based is that is a great deal more personal and I can take the time to talk individually and update certain questions based on responses.

also Cringing at a lot of youtube knife and tool "restoration" vids watching people take old rusty stuff to the angle grinder and wire wheels. not that its any of my business. its their stuff. i just feel the end products always end up looking gaudy AF

Yes unfortunately these are all terrible. It's a shame because clearly there is a huge market for these kinds of videos and people are really interested in them. The objects I'm working on at the minute have an excellent local history interest and the folks nearby are desperately interested in them and hope a museum picks them up. They are particularly interested in the work I'm doing to conserve them and how this comes about. The problem tends to be in client confidentiality and the risk factor of discussing objects which are secured. For several years now I've toyed with the idea of setting up a youtube channel to do some before and after videos or stop frame pictures of in progress work to show how we conserve objects. But as I've said it's difficult with clients who don't want their valuable objects on the internet and also it's a ballache to set that sort of thing up in a workspace. Still if there was real interest in it I would consider it more seriously.

1) I assume by grounding you mean formal education at degree level or higher? If the displays are solid, if the information is accurate, if the interaction is good then chances are it wouldn't be a huge issue, but it would hinge more so on the self learning skills of those involved. I think it also depends at what level one is talking. If its consumer public level then the standard is very casual and low; whilst if you are talking more about having a one on one chat at some point and going into intermediate or higher levels of depth then it could show up weaknesses.

Not at all, although it's getting rarer in the past 20 years, not everyone in archaeology has a degree. A lot of people kind of sidle into it from different areas or are drawn to it like particularly sad moths to an ancient flame. One of the real problems in archaeology is the idea that it is stuck behind academia and that is certainly not the case. I don't trust most academics running archaeological excavations because most of them are about as practical as a nail in the head. Certain ideas about post excavation drive me round the bend, this is not true in all cases but it is certainly the vast majority. With the best will in the world, academics just don't suit practicality and reality, in must be something in the brain. Some of the best and most insightful conversations I've had are with people in random situations who have asked what I'm doing or are passing and want to know more.

Years ago I was finishing off a pint down a pub I'd only been to once, it was quite small and my mates had buggered off home so I was sat quietly on a table, an older couple sat down next to me and we got to chatting, asking about what I did, hows the beer etc. Now the bloke was built like the proverbial brick outhouse so I thought there's not much conversation when I say oh I'm an archaeologist. Couldn't have been more wrong, "Ah" says he, me and the missus went to Pompeii and we loved it. What got him the most was that he was an ex brickie worked the trades his whole life. The techniques used in the foundations of the Roman buildings were the same as what he was using 2000 years later and he connected with it instantly and he was absolutely hooked. Spent a wonderful evening having a few more beers with him and his wife talking about archaeology and recommending a few things like the Vindolanda tablets and some recent excavations in France about Neanderthal hunting patterns. Casual interactions like that are the best way to inform people about the subject. In a museum setting often people are in education mode and almost stubbornly refuse to take in information. However if you sidle it in to everyday stuff then people lap it up.

Are we to presume that you are looking at making your own living history exhibition up that north? Danelagh

I'd rather pap myself quite frankly. No the reason I ask about living history sites is they are a great way for people to learn more about the past. And it adds so much more to knowledge and understanding of the public because they are able to interact with things. Often seeing things on display is interesting and mildly absorbing, but being able to see other people use these objects changes everything dramatically. And of course they are hugely successful with kids and people who like to do dress up. The people who work there do tend to be volunteers and have a varying degree of knowledge. What I'm interested in here is how people with not much knowledge (I don't mean this in a negative way, just in a not everyone knows the intricacies of 600AD way) can enjoy themselves and whether people critically analyse these types of sites or are happy to enjoy them for what they are.

Again similar to my asking about historical films. To me I'd argue that no media can be historically accurate, it's an impossibility. People who piss their frillies online because their understanding of history is completely wrong and they won't stand for it is laughable. People need to accept that it's not going to be perfect, but that does not mean it can't be close as possible and still enjoyable. There is a lot of problems with utter disregard for historical fact in favour of making something more entertaining. The two are not in direct competition.
Another point to make is that certain parts of history get subverted constantly in favour of shall we say less than appealing characters and so if living history sites have nobody from an archaeological or historical professional background involved (Ie someone who has worked in the field for some years and has done some research) who is controlling what they are saying and is it acceptable for them to purvey this to the general public who may have even less information than the organisers.

Anyway I hope that clears up a few things, apologies for not replying more frequently I've been a wee bit snowed under with work but will try and keep active on here because everything has been really insightful and I appreciate you guys taking your time to share your thoughts. Please do add in anything you like, questions or recent news stories and I'll try and dip in when I can to add things or respond.

Cheers!

 Olthannon wrote:

nfe wrote:


Out of curiosity, why not? We're members of the public, too, and our opinions are every bit as diverse, and every bit as subjective to biases, differences of priority and interest etc. We're no more likely to skew people's perspectives than people without degrees pertaining to the past.

Absolutely no idea how to work the multiquote function but I'll go down the list.
Simply put, yes me adding my own opinion to this will skew the results. I will try to make the questions or discussion points as unbiased and general as possible because I want people to go their own route and explore and discuss certain ideas as everyone has been doing.

You've a very optimistic view of the stock people put in archaeologist's opinions I don't think we're any more likely to skew someone's opinion than the next guy - not in the internet, not in the modern climate!

This is not to do with academia

I thought you were bouncing ideas from a paper you are publishing and with a view to another publication in the future?

Fun observation I've made in the last year.

We've started going to an auction site once a week and they get all sorts; from household junk to antiques; they also do themed sale events where they've got a whole selection fitting to a top - bygone era; old toys; instruments; clothes etc....

One thing I've started to notice is that with the old stuff it can be interesting to go and just see what turns up, rather like a museum. However the big difference is that you can pick stuff up and have a proper look at it. You can turn it around and look at the other side; get a feel of it in your hands. Even just feeling the weight and balance of things changes the perception of them.

Take swords - staring at a whole selection on a wall is neat, but you gain a whole different view by just holding one.


Museums and learning history I think have suffered in that they rarely let you touch stuff (even though a good many displays are fake artifacts anyway with the real ones kept in major institutions or in storage for protection). You get a little note card of info and get to look; but you can't touch nor interact with them.
Living displays, as noted above, build a connection that's got potential to go further because people can get involved and touch; they can get a feel for something even if they are not doing displays themselves.

 Overread wrote:
Fun observation I've made in the last year.

We've started going to an auction site once a week and they get all sorts; from household junk to antiques; they also do themed sale events where they've got a whole selection fitting to a top - bygone era; old toys; instruments; clothes etc....

One thing I've started to notice is that with the old stuff it can be interesting to go and just see what turns up, rather like a museum. However the big difference is that you can pick stuff up and have a proper look at it. You can turn it around and look at the other side; get a feel of it in your hands. Even just feeling the weight and balance of things changes the perception of them.

Take swords - staring at a whole selection on a wall is neat, but you gain a whole different view by just holding one.


Museums and learning history I think have suffered in that they rarely let you touch stuff (even though a good many displays are fake artifacts anyway with the real ones kept in major institutions or in storage for protection). You get a little note card of info and get to look; but you can't touch nor interact with them.
Living displays, as noted above, build a connection that's got potential to go further because people can get involved and touch; they can get a feel for something even if they are not doing displays themselves.

Anyone selling any antiquities is bad news from my angle, but I totally agree with the sentiment. I'm one of the rare archaeologists that hates museums. Just don't go in them at all other than when I'm dragged by my girlfriend (also archaeologist) or if I have to teach in one. Tactile interaction with the past and sensory interaction with their original context, for me, is key. I think it'd be easy to begin to address but no one ever seems to bother. For example, we throw away hundreds of thousands of sherds at every post-Pre-pottery Neolithic excavation in the Mediterranean and Near East every season - I really don't see why museums can't just fill a sandbox with them and let people have at it.

 Overread wrote:
Fun observation I've made in the last year.

We've started going to an auction site once a week and they get all sorts; from household junk to antiques; they also do themed sale events where they've got a whole selection fitting to a top - bygone era; old toys; instruments; clothes etc....

One thing I've started to notice is that with the old stuff it can be interesting to go and just see what turns up, rather like a museum. However the big difference is that you can pick stuff up and have a proper look at it. You can turn it around and look at the other side; get a feel of it in your hands. Even just feeling the weight and balance of things changes the perception of them.

Take swords - staring at a whole selection on a wall is neat, but you gain a whole different view by just holding one.

This can go too far. I recently corresponded with one of the blue-blooded aristocracy about one of his ancestors, and had the pleasure of being invited over for luncheon. It turned out he had a pile of scrapbooks assembled by the chap I was interested in, which he plonked on the desk in front of me with great enthusiasm. The spines were cracking, and the things were generally in awful condition. He'd been using them as paperweights, and occasionally, doorstops; and was consequently somewhat perplexed at the somewhat frantic care I began taking when trying to open them (supporting the spine, and so on). 'Bloody things are always falling apart, don't worry about damaging it', he bellowed with friendly gusto.

Just to put this in perspective, these scrapbooks had letters from the likes of Queen Victoria, Henry Gladstone, William Thomson, and so on in.

I think the final stroke was when I went to use the toilet and found a large banner of thanks signed by about fifty rather eminent naval officers hanging above the toilet with chemical cleaners stacked on top of the bottom part of it.

There's hands on and then there's 'this stuff should not be in the hands of the general public and how the hell do I persuade them them to relinquish this stuff'!?!'.

Ketara I agree that authentic records and unique items should indeed be protected for the future. However with so many reproductions out there now it would be far more engaging to get people with their hands on stuff. Even if its fake they can still get a more complete appreciation for what it represents and what the original is like.

I also think it does reinforce learning far more than a few postcards on displays. Which have always annoyed me because most don't go into much detail and in the "gift shop" anyone with any desire to learn more often can't find more than coffee table books.

As a straight answer to the original question, I imagine long periods of tedium interspersed with moments of immense satisfaction?

 Overread wrote:
Ketara I agree that authentic records and unique items should indeed be protected for the future. However with so many reproductions out there now it would be far more engaging to get people with their hands on stuff. Even if its fake they can still get a more complete appreciation for what it represents and what the original is like.

I also think it does reinforce learning far more than a few postcards on displays. Which have always annoyed me because most don't go into much detail and in the "gift shop" anyone with any desire to learn more often can't find more than coffee table books.

Unfortunately that isn't what people want. You give people replicas in museums and they turn their noses up at it. People want the real thing, although bizarrely will often assume that most things on display are replicas when they aren't at all.
Museums can be wonderful, interactive and incredibly educational places, providing they have a good budget and a management who isn't just a business degree graduate who can slope into any job regardless.
I think the one thing missing in a lot of museums now are models, replicas of ancient cities or villages, particularly through time have always been deeply fascinating to people but unfortunately that market has dried up. Although with new technology people are clearly hoping for VR to take that niche, I fully believe that failing to provide the physical will be an real shame.

Hands on is difficult but ultimately rewarding. It's all about finding a balance that will work and certain museums can provide that depending on their collections. Running a museum is not an easy enterprise, especially when the heritage sector is cut to the bone. Now more than ever the reliance is on volunteers and enthusiasts, which unfortunately means that there are no jobs available for those who have qualifications necessary for those roles.

 Olthannon wrote:

 Overread wrote:
Ketara I agree that authentic records and unique items should indeed be protected for the future. However with so many reproductions out there now it would be far more engaging to get people with their hands on stuff. Even if its fake they can still get a more complete appreciation for what it represents and what the original is like.

I also think it does reinforce learning far more than a few postcards on displays. Which have always annoyed me because most don't go into much detail and in the "gift shop" anyone with any desire to learn more often can't find more than coffee table books.

Unfortunately that isn't what people want. You give people replicas in museums and they turn their noses up at it. People want the real thing, although bizarrely will often assume that most things on display are replicas when they aren't at all.
Museums can be wonderful, interactive and incredibly educational places, providing they have a good budget and a management who isn't just a business degree graduate who can slope into any job regardless.
I think the one thing missing in a lot of museums now are models, replicas of ancient cities or villages, particularly through time have always been deeply fascinating to people but unfortunately that market has dried up. Although with new technology people are clearly hoping for VR to take that niche, I fully believe that failing to provide the physical will be an real shame.

Hands on is difficult but ultimately rewarding. It's all about finding a balance that will work and certain museums can provide that depending on their collections. Running a museum is not an easy enterprise, especially when the heritage sector is cut to the bone. Now more than ever the reliance is on volunteers and enthusiasts, which unfortunately means that there are no jobs available for those who have qualifications necessary for those roles.

But if a museum has the original, can't they display the original in a secure case, and have replicas available for tactile exploration and learning as an adjunct to the display? That allows the best of both worlds.

 Olthannon wrote:


Unfortunately that isn't what people want. You give people replicas in museums and they turn their noses up at it. People want the real thing, although bizarrely will often assume that most things on display are replicas when they aren't at all.
Museums can be wonderful, interactive and incredibly educational places, providing they have a good budget and a management who isn't just a business degree graduate who can slope into any job regardless.
I think the one thing missing in a lot of museums now are models, replicas of ancient cities or villages, particularly through time have always been deeply fascinating to people but unfortunately that market has dried up. Although with new technology people are clearly hoping for VR to take that niche, I fully believe that failing to provide the physical will be an real shame.

When done right, I honestly don't think people know the difference between the replica and real thing. . . when I was in elementary school in the 1990s, we went on a field trip to an art museum who was showing the traveling King Tut setup, and read sometime afterward about how, the British Museum or whoever has overall control/custody of the collection was temporarily halting the "traveling" pieces because after so many years of travel, even the replicas were getting a bit worse for wear.

I'd further read (though I am not sure how much I actually believe it) that the "entire" Louvre museum is showing replicas, all of the real thing original paintings are stored in a highly secure vault where it is nominally impossible to get to them, much less steal them.


I do agree that VR and AR systems to showcase older cities, or timelapse city growth/collapse (looking at you, Rome) could provide some boost to public fascination with old stuff. Part of the reason why I personally think that physical models of ancient cities, or sections, or defenses and what have you are generally "failing" is that once you've seen it once, there really isn't that much reason to go back to the museum on repeated trips.

Ethically, most museums are supposed to say "this is a replica", to avoid confusion.

Display of objects depends on the conservation. With certain objects, it's difficult or impossible to display without causing damage to the object and they are better off in stores. Security is less of an issue in comparison to the condition of the object.
Museums are getting better on the whole in terms of interactive display, it just depends which ones you go to!

 Kroem wrote:
Sounds harsh, but I think the public perception is that archaeology is the more 'boring' side of history having been dragged past cases of old coins and worn bits of stone as a child.

However, Time Team was certainly very popular in the UK and I do like books that put a bit more explaination into how the physical evidence can be interpreted (I read a good one recently about dark age britain but annoyingly can't find it now!)

Time Team may be popular with viewers it is not popular with much of the academic community, or site owners.
Heard lots of nasty stories about Time Team fething up dig sites, using JCB's for ecavation work (not kidding) to fit with the BBC programming schedule and not clearing up afterwards. Time Team has caused a lot of damage to some sites.

I know a hereditary peer in Somerset, lovely fellow, who had a 'chat' with a banker type who moved into the local village and acted like he owned the place. One of the things he did was suggest to the BBC they send the Time Team to excavate the local monastery ruins, which are on private grounds. Muppet started waffling on about 'public interest'. Didn't get anywhere, not only was he out of line to call Time Team in on someone else's property, this peer had known others who had experiences with Time Team and didn't want them anywhere near the site.
The only good thing that can be said about Time Team is that they do very good infographics, during the show someone in the back office will do a 3d digisculpt of the site as it was, they do a good job at that. Everything else is amateur hour at best, and akin to calling in a gang of vandals at worst.

The monastery is still not excavated, and is a pristine site, more or less as it was when Henry VIII ordered it razed. The idea is to wait until they can get a proper team in to do a proper job, and not before. Allowing for what the site is, fairly deep buried with some surface ruins and covered in grass, but never build on or near since the destruction. So there is no rush, and it has to be done right first time. This means no Time Team for starters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ketara wrote:


There's hands on and then there's 'this stuff should not be in the hands of the general public and how the hell do I persuade them them to relinquish this stuff'!?!'.

If you want any headway with that considering the aristocracy the 'general public' is not the way to go. Unless he is a general, and his name is Public.

My perception of archeology is.....

.... your career begins and ends in ruins.





I will get my coat.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


There's hands on and then there's 'this stuff should not be in the hands of the general public and how the hell do I persuade them them to relinquish this stuff'!?!'.

If you want any headway with that considering the aristocracy the 'general public' is not the way to go. Unless he is a general, and his name is Public.

It's only an issue if you say it to their face. The vast majority of the upper class are only different to the general public from their own perspectives nowadays. Even actual peers have limited priveliges compared to past eras, that relate to their political responsibilities instead of their social standing.

Sure, massage their egos whilst trying to get them to donate some valuable artefact to a museum, but thats no different to trying to convince anyone to give up something for a good cause.

 Haighus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:

 Ketara wrote:


There's hands on and then there's 'this stuff should not be in the hands of the general public and how the hell do I persuade them them to relinquish this stuff'!?!'.

If you want any headway with that considering the aristocracy the 'general public' is not the way to go. Unless he is a general, and his name is Public.

It's only an issue if you say it to their face. The vast majority of the upper class are only different to the general public from their own perspectives nowadays. Even actual peers have limited priveliges compared to past eras, that relate to their political responsibilities instead of their social standing.

Sure, massage their egos whilst trying to get them to donate some valuable artefact to a museum, but thats no different to trying to convince anyone to give up something for a good cause.

There is more to it than that.

Say you bought something and it ended up being regarded as an artifact (but not treasure, as that implies a specific legal standing). There might be some persuasion' that the artifact is better off in the hands of the nation to preserve history. A similar artifact in the hands of the family that orginally owned it, and can show a lineage for is another matter entirely.
The traditional aristocracy however are a preserve of the nations history, they do not like it when someone says, or implies that what they have should be taken away for 'the good of the nation'. For a start most of them have a better understanding of heritage than the intellectuals who want to reassign their artifacts to their own care. In a way its a form of nanny state, we-know-best approach that they have a long grown contempt for.
This is a serious issue and a continual struggle for many of them.

If a noble uses a folder filled with letters from Queen Victoria as a paperweight or a doorstop that is what they do. I have heard of 'worse'. It would also be a mistake to assume they dont know what they have got. Looking at items in the 'family pile' in a nonchalant way if quite usual for the aristocracy. Also they do tend to allow access, a banker who boughtb the same folder at auction, knew its monetary value and kept it in a vault something is far more likely to be uncooperative if a travelling scholar asks to view.

One example tale regards one of the senior royals, I will not mention which one. He uses a Napoleonic French Marshal's baton as a riding crop, ebony with gold eagle on top. The works, provenanced and the real deal. It's very clearly an artifact. The same regiment that captured it guards the family home.
Now His Highness once urged on his horse a little too firmly and bend the 'confounded birdy thing' on top. Yes he knew EXACTLY what it was, it is just how things are said. That baton was straightened out later. The message here is that he is a Prince of the House, the artifact belongs to them, not to the nation specifically, and if a British Prince uses a Napoleonic Marshal's baton as a riding crop that is what he does. Now for you and I to do that would be a travesty, but we don't embody the living history of our nation, and we are not British Princes. We also don't have the loyalty of the regiments that claimed the baton to begin with, which is important as if you asked the current generation of guardsmen who is more worthy to have the baton, their Prince or some stuffy curator, you can be sure how they would answer.