Archaeology Institute Fighting British Museum over 3D Scans of Parthenon Marbles(news.artnet.com)
news.artnet.com
Archaeology Institute Fighting British Museum over 3D Scans of Parthenon Marbles
https://news.artnet.com/art-world/institute-of-digital-archaeology-2096277
50 comments
The Parthenon had survived for two millennia, and it was destroyed in an incredible act of vandalism:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenon#Destruction
I don't know which is more guilty, the Turks who used it as an ammunition dump or the Venetian who targeted it with mortars. In comparison, the vandalism and larceny of Lord Elgin is small potatoes. The marbles definitely ought to be returned to Greece, and replicas installed in-situ as they are now too fragile to withstand Athens' current pollution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenon#Destruction
I don't know which is more guilty, the Turks who used it as an ammunition dump or the Venetian who targeted it with mortars. In comparison, the vandalism and larceny of Lord Elgin is small potatoes. The marbles definitely ought to be returned to Greece, and replicas installed in-situ as they are now too fragile to withstand Athens' current pollution.
The pollution isn't an issue as 1) they would be kept in the Acropolis Museum, in a controlled environment and 2) the British Museum "cleaned" their marbles and removed their protective layer that means even pollution free normal weather would quickly destroy them.
I meant the originals should be in the Acropolis museum and replicas installed on the Acropolis itself, and in the British Museum if they want to.
It cracks me up but there's a funny little sign in the British Museum near the marbles that addresses the controversy over returning the marbles that basically says 'as soon as Greece gets its shit together and proves they can care adequately for their artifacts we'll gladly return them'. Its very patronizing and VERY British.
It reminds me of a joke;
Why are the pyramids in Egypt?
Because they were too heavy to carry to the British Museum.
Why are the pyramids in Egypt?
Because they were too heavy to carry to the British Museum.
There are more Egyptian obelisks outside Egypt (and Italy alone has almost as many as Egypt).
It's also a bunch of horseshit, because the Acropolis museum in Athens is absolutely phenomenal and clearly shows that Greece is capable of caring for them adequately.
Indeed. That was not the case 20 years ago (when I first saw those pamphlets on "Why we're not giving these back"), but today the Acropolis Museum is absolutely stunning. It sits at the base of the hill, and the top floor is oriented the same as the Parthenon. It contains all of the meropes and other art, laid out as if you were able to walk right up to it in its original site. It's an extraordinary exhibit, and your appreciation of the Acropolis will be vastly enhanced by visiting.
Some pieces are original; others are reproductions of pieces held elsewhere. (It's not just the British Museum, but also the Louvre and Berlin Museum.) Those museums should do a 1:1 swap: the reproductions for the originals. The originals should all go back to where they belong.
I do actually respect the British Museum as a museum of British Empire, which was a noteworthy historical event in itself. The theft of artifacts is itself history at this point. But they have plenty of pieces to display that, which interfere less with Greece's need to recover from colonization -- including connecting to its own great past.
Some pieces are original; others are reproductions of pieces held elsewhere. (It's not just the British Museum, but also the Louvre and Berlin Museum.) Those museums should do a 1:1 swap: the reproductions for the originals. The originals should all go back to where they belong.
I do actually respect the British Museum as a museum of British Empire, which was a noteworthy historical event in itself. The theft of artifacts is itself history at this point. But they have plenty of pieces to display that, which interfere less with Greece's need to recover from colonization -- including connecting to its own great past.
I would agree with returning them more if the parthenon was going to restored and the marbles returned to the original positions; however it seems pointless to transport them from one The British Museum to the Acropolis Museum which has 1/4 of the visitors.
These are stolen good, really it should only be the rightful owners' opinion that matters.
His rejection didn't stop him:
After its earlier request to make a 3-D scan outside of visiting hours was declined, the IDA entered the British Museum during visiting hours to make a partial scan using a hand-held camera last month.
Right...
Apparently the British Museum allowed scanning twice already; though to more reputable institutes.
In a statement released to Artnet News, the British Museum said it received regular requests to scan objects in its collection. “We facilitated the scanning of the Parthenon Sculptures by our colleagues from the Acropolis Museum in Athens on two occasions in 2013 and 2017,” the statement read. “We work hard to accommodate scanning and study requests where possible. It’s important to us that any request is properly supported so that we can ensure the highest levels of quality and accuracy and this is always balanced against our other commitments and work as an institution.”
After its earlier request to make a 3-D scan outside of visiting hours was declined, the IDA entered the British Museum during visiting hours to make a partial scan using a hand-held camera last month.
Right...
Apparently the British Museum allowed scanning twice already; though to more reputable institutes.
In a statement released to Artnet News, the British Museum said it received regular requests to scan objects in its collection. “We facilitated the scanning of the Parthenon Sculptures by our colleagues from the Acropolis Museum in Athens on two occasions in 2013 and 2017,” the statement read. “We work hard to accommodate scanning and study requests where possible. It’s important to us that any request is properly supported so that we can ensure the highest levels of quality and accuracy and this is always balanced against our other commitments and work as an institution.”
I think people love to treat the British Museum like some sort of mustache twiddling villains but in reality its just run by people that are intensely devoted to caring for the collection and history.
I have the utmost faith that if this group had been vouched for by reputable institutions and historians, had the funding, and had something novel to do (non-destructively) with an object in their collection the curators would have been more than supportive.
I have the utmost faith that if this group had been vouched for by reputable institutions and historians, had the funding, and had something novel to do (non-destructively) with an object in their collection the curators would have been more than supportive.
Is the IDA non-reputable?
> Founded in 2012, the IDA is a joint venture between Harvard University, Oxford University, and Dubai’s Museum of the Future, focused on digital imaging techniques in archaeology. It digitally reconstructed Palmyra’s third century “Triumphal Arch”, which was destroyed by the Islamic State group in 2015.
I don't know anything about the Dubai Museum of the Future, but the other two are pretty reputable institutions, unless there's something I'm missing.
> Founded in 2012, the IDA is a joint venture between Harvard University, Oxford University, and Dubai’s Museum of the Future, focused on digital imaging techniques in archaeology. It digitally reconstructed Palmyra’s third century “Triumphal Arch”, which was destroyed by the Islamic State group in 2015.
I don't know anything about the Dubai Museum of the Future, but the other two are pretty reputable institutions, unless there's something I'm missing.
Fair enough. But most of this is still unnecessary.
All that should be a requirement for visual access to scan the artifact is just being non-destructive in my opinion.
I can’t image a justifiable reason to prevent this person from scanning for any reason beyond physically protecting the museum.
All that should be a requirement for visual access to scan the artifact is just being non-destructive in my opinion.
I can’t image a justifiable reason to prevent this person from scanning for any reason beyond physically protecting the museum.
> Apparently the British Museum allowed scanning twice already;
The devil is in the detail though. They ‘allowed’ scanning by representatives from the country that many believe should still have their artwork.
Not allowing the scanning would likely have been a diplomatic incident.
The devil is in the detail though. They ‘allowed’ scanning by representatives from the country that many believe should still have their artwork.
Not allowing the scanning would likely have been a diplomatic incident.
I was at the Parthenon a few weeks ago. Had a guide who was an archaeologist and art historian. He casually mentioned the “theft” by the UK of parts of the Parthenon. I had no idea how evocative and current this issue was. This solution seems a reasonable one, it was rather odd to think that Greece would need to make replicas to place in their own historical sites. However, I suppose if the British Museum complied with this request the cylinder of Cyrus would be next and then hundreds of other artefacts. “Fake” artefacts are fine for tourists to look at but not very useful for Scholarship, return of artefacts would be a huge shift of power in Scholarship. Perhaps Greece could add envelopes more moral force to their argument by showing how well they support others scholars access to artefacts and that having the originals all together in Greece would enrich and improve access for all.
> However, I suppose if the British Museum complied with this request the cylinder of Cyrus would be next and then hundreds of other artefacts.
What's wrong with that? Robbed treasure should be returned.
What's wrong with that? Robbed treasure should be returned.
Yeah. I'm British, I have zero problem returning the parthanon marbles. Of all the things in the British Museum it's probably the most obvious one to return: it's unique, it's location specific and it's part of something else that would be immesurably enhanced by it's reconstitution.
It's also not that interesting in the museum context. I don't actually think they would lose anything much by returning it. It's become like the Mona Lisa, totemtic, but not actually that interesting as an exhibit. I was pretty underwhelmed when I saw it in its broken state. I would much rather other people got to see a reconstructed Parthanon then I get to see the broken parts.
Unfortunately it's become such a heated topic I'm not sure I see a time when it gets returned without Greece having some kind of leverage over the UK.
It's also not that interesting in the museum context. I don't actually think they would lose anything much by returning it. It's become like the Mona Lisa, totemtic, but not actually that interesting as an exhibit. I was pretty underwhelmed when I saw it in its broken state. I would much rather other people got to see a reconstructed Parthanon then I get to see the broken parts.
Unfortunately it's become such a heated topic I'm not sure I see a time when it gets returned without Greece having some kind of leverage over the UK.
"Unfortunately it's become such a heated topic I'm not sure I see a time when it gets returned without Greece having some kind of leverage over the UK"
I don't understand your point here. Are you suggesting that returning it should be postponed because it would be an admission of bad practice or wrong doing of some kind?
I don't understand your point here. Are you suggesting that returning it should be postponed because it would be an admission of bad practice or wrong doing of some kind?
I'm not saying it shouldn't be returned, I'm saying it won't be, not in the near future.
The Parthanon marbles are a political touchstone/dog-whistle in the UK, especially for people who view the empire in a largely positive light. Views like that are sufficiently widespread that it would be hard to get the sufficient public support for one of the two major political parties to back their return. Corbyn vowed to, but his wing of the Labour party are out of power at the moment. If they were to come back we might see a change in attitude, but they would be strongly attacked for it. I can't find any indication of the current Labour leadership's position, I would expect them to dodge the issue as the try to appeal to the center.
The Parthanon marbles are a political touchstone/dog-whistle in the UK, especially for people who view the empire in a largely positive light. Views like that are sufficiently widespread that it would be hard to get the sufficient public support for one of the two major political parties to back their return. Corbyn vowed to, but his wing of the Labour party are out of power at the moment. If they were to come back we might see a change in attitude, but they would be strongly attacked for it. I can't find any indication of the current Labour leadership's position, I would expect them to dodge the issue as the try to appeal to the center.
I guess the level of public knowledge about the British Empire is really very low. I just found out the other day that British gunboats shelled Wanzou district in the 1920s, killing anywhere between a handful to about a thousand people (depending on source). There are just so many 'incidents' like this that are deeply present abroad (imagine if the French had shelled Liverpool in the 20's!) but really obscure at home. (The burning of the summer palace is another Chinese example.
Yup. I try to learn as much history as I can, but I've not heard about that attack. Although from a quick google that particular one doesn't look like it was totally unprovoked, although it does appear to have been totally out of proportion to the provocation. I'll have to read up on that in more detail when I've got the time.
An aspect of the defense of empire that particularly frustrates me is the way people will attempt to obfuscate that all the european empires were about resources. People like to make out that we colonised India because we wanted to teach them about western beauracracy and trains. The initial occupaction was conducted by a literal commercial company for commercial gain. Robert Clive became one of (possibly the?) richest men in Europe as a result.
Similarly people make rebellions sound like they were completely unjustified. At the same time, if you ask them what Britain would have done if the Germans had invaded during WWII, they'd tell you we'd have fought them to the bitter end. It's the nationalistic version of the idea that "no-one is the villain of their own story". Somehow us invading somewhere is different to Germany (or France) invading Britain.
An aspect of the defense of empire that particularly frustrates me is the way people will attempt to obfuscate that all the european empires were about resources. People like to make out that we colonised India because we wanted to teach them about western beauracracy and trains. The initial occupaction was conducted by a literal commercial company for commercial gain. Robert Clive became one of (possibly the?) richest men in Europe as a result.
Similarly people make rebellions sound like they were completely unjustified. At the same time, if you ask them what Britain would have done if the Germans had invaded during WWII, they'd tell you we'd have fought them to the bitter end. It's the nationalistic version of the idea that "no-one is the villain of their own story". Somehow us invading somewhere is different to Germany (or France) invading Britain.
A commercial company founded by pirates!
The incident seems actually pretty typical to me. There's often an element of provocation, a degree of legal ambiguity, often a degree of moral ambiguity about the laws themselves (extraterritoriality etc). My guess would be that the Nationalists would have seen it as fully within their rights to seize a merchant vessel in China for military purposes.
The attack stands out because it comes in just in the tail of the first world war, and it's a naval bombardment of the civilian city of an allied power. It's unlikely (but possible) that a chinese person who had served on the western front alongside the british might have returned home only to be blown up by a british shell! It's also recent enough that it's presumably within living memory for some people who live in the area.
It's also an odd time, because at that point, the british and japanese were close allies, and were mentioned in the same breath by the chinese.
The incident seems actually pretty typical to me. There's often an element of provocation, a degree of legal ambiguity, often a degree of moral ambiguity about the laws themselves (extraterritoriality etc). My guess would be that the Nationalists would have seen it as fully within their rights to seize a merchant vessel in China for military purposes.
The attack stands out because it comes in just in the tail of the first world war, and it's a naval bombardment of the civilian city of an allied power. It's unlikely (but possible) that a chinese person who had served on the western front alongside the british might have returned home only to be blown up by a british shell! It's also recent enough that it's presumably within living memory for some people who live in the area.
It's also an odd time, because at that point, the british and japanese were close allies, and were mentioned in the same breath by the chinese.
Given the first sentence of their comment, how do you think that they are suggesting that it should not be returned?
The way the British acquired them does look really sketchy. Like, indefensible. Time to send them back.
Quite. The Dutch should return the Netherlands to the Hapsburgs, or possibly to the Romans or Belgii.
I'm all for false equivalence disco parties but this one is quite a stretch!
You seem to enjoy trying to derail conversations, why do you do this?
Obvious analogies are obvious.
Brilliant meta-derail, to bring up obvious analogies when discussing your bizarrely stretched and non-obvious one.
Different people have different bases of knowledge, experience, principles and moral philosophies. It is obvious to the average Serb that Kosovo is rightfully part of Serbia while many others would disagree. The Aztecs find it obvious that industrial scale human sacrifice was morally correct.
Standpoint epistemology, do you dig it?
Standpoint epistemology, do you dig it?
I guess, if you say so. I'll have to keep in mind that "stealing is OK" is part of the British moral framework, I was unaware of that, thanks for the insight.
The legal owner of the Parthenon gave Elgin the right to take the marbles. The issue is that the modern day owners of the Parthenon dont recognize the legitimatecy of that transaction. It's a bit more muddy than straight up theft.
I think the analogy to other historical issues is apt. Who is the rightful occupant of modern day Iran? If you could trace your lineage to an assyrian who owned a plot of land in Nineveh, and was displaced by the Babylonians, should you be able to kick out the current occupant? What if another person came along, and could prove their family owned the land under Babylonian rule but was displaced by the Persians?
I think the analogy to other historical issues is apt. Who is the rightful occupant of modern day Iran? If you could trace your lineage to an assyrian who owned a plot of land in Nineveh, and was displaced by the Babylonians, should you be able to kick out the current occupant? What if another person came along, and could prove their family owned the land under Babylonian rule but was displaced by the Persians?
Those are side issues. The main issue is that the marbles were stolen and we ask that they are returned. Everything else is haggling with our stolen cultural treasures.
And, yes, of course, the British should give back everything else their bandit hordes pillaged and looted from the lands they invaded.
And, yes, of course, the British should give back everything else their bandit hordes pillaged and looted from the lands they invaded.
It is also important to note the inept British museum.
Water dripping from the ceiling! [1]
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4WEFQMuWn8
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4WEFQMuWn8
Other articles on this matter have pointed out that good scans will enable CNC replicas with sub-millimeter accuracy, in marble from close to the original quarry sites. Good for tourists and scholars?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Digital_Archaeol...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Digital_Archaeol...
But can they keep it in a polluted Greek environment
Link didn't work for me. This is the text from a google cache.
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tzRU7A...
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:tzRU7A...
Having replicas could allow for some reconstruction work too, which, depending on the execution, and while I'm skeptical, could turn out quite cool.
3D scanning ought to be high on a museum’s priorities, not something that outside entities force on them.
Artifact scanning happens, but largely it's seen as out of the scope of the curatorial responsibilities of most museums.
Museums have different purposes, and few are close to as large or wealthy as the V&A or Natural History. Mostly, staff are tied up preparing for exhibits, handling outreach and marketing, working events, performing curatorial duties, and managing operations, often not exclusively.
A 3D scanner of some quality starts around $6000, a laptop that can scan and process things quickly about as much, storage and hosting is anywhere from $20-40k on a 3-5 year lifecycle, and a DAM capable of managing 3D digital assets could be a few thousand a year.
Now assuming you are given funding, you've got to take a person who is qualified to handle the artifacts, understands the scanning process, can assess the quality of and correct their scans, has the time and access to label the digital objects so they can be integrated by the people who manage the collections, find someone who understands how to manage the "3D parts", and suddenly you have an idea of the burden the scale of this task would place on a museum with maybe half a dozen to a dozen full time staff and several hundred or thousand artifacts.
This doesn't even touch rights of artists or owners, since few museums own everything they exhibit. Even more challenging, try convincing those people that allowing a third party to own digital simulacra of their works won't somehow backfire on them.
Museums have different purposes, and few are close to as large or wealthy as the V&A or Natural History. Mostly, staff are tied up preparing for exhibits, handling outreach and marketing, working events, performing curatorial duties, and managing operations, often not exclusively.
A 3D scanner of some quality starts around $6000, a laptop that can scan and process things quickly about as much, storage and hosting is anywhere from $20-40k on a 3-5 year lifecycle, and a DAM capable of managing 3D digital assets could be a few thousand a year.
Now assuming you are given funding, you've got to take a person who is qualified to handle the artifacts, understands the scanning process, can assess the quality of and correct their scans, has the time and access to label the digital objects so they can be integrated by the people who manage the collections, find someone who understands how to manage the "3D parts", and suddenly you have an idea of the burden the scale of this task would place on a museum with maybe half a dozen to a dozen full time staff and several hundred or thousand artifacts.
This doesn't even touch rights of artists or owners, since few museums own everything they exhibit. Even more challenging, try convincing those people that allowing a third party to own digital simulacra of their works won't somehow backfire on them.
Good point, and thank you for the details. It must be a lot more time-consuming than it appears at first glance. As an engineer, I really ought to know better than to make that mistake!
Surely making a digital copy and releasing it to the world for free would be the first priority of any museum that wants to preserve things forever
> Surely making a digital copy and releasing it to the world for free would be the first priority of any museum that wants to preserve things forever
They wouldn't release it freely anyway, the copyright fees from owning the one high quality photograph of various artworks basically funds most British museums.
They wouldn't release it freely anyway, the copyright fees from owning the one high quality photograph of various artworks basically funds most British museums.
Statens Museum for Kunst (link above) has released hundreds of scans under the CC0 license.
Yes, and I greatly appreciate the efforts of the Danish Statens Museum for Kunst, for sharing great scans of many objects in their collecction, including several of the Belvedere figures.
https://www.myminifactory.com/category/SMK-Statens-museum-fo...
But "Bust of a Philosopher or Barbarian" is my favorite, I made a large 3D print of him that I keep on my desk.
https://www.myminifactory.com/object/3d-print-bust-of-a-phil...
https://www.myminifactory.com/category/SMK-Statens-museum-fo...
But "Bust of a Philosopher or Barbarian" is my favorite, I made a large 3D print of him that I keep on my desk.
https://www.myminifactory.com/object/3d-print-bust-of-a-phil...
That reminds me of that excellent Ordinary Thing's clip ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDtLZ-l_ItE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDtLZ-l_ItE
But perhaps a compromise would be for the Museum to make its own scans using the best available technology, and make the data available to any institutions that want it? Or allowing the Archaeology Institute to do their scans on the condition that the data is made available to others.