From: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Subject: Re: 8L
Reply-To: lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner)
Organization: Columbia University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 15:54:01 GMT

In article <17637@bcars664.bnr.ca> Henry.Troup@BNR.CA writes:
>In article <1992Nov4.052309.27957@news.columbia.edu>,
>lasner@watsun.cc.columbia.edu (Charles Lasner) writes:
>|>
>|>So, if they are to be treated as a museum, then why have they been selling
>|>off some of the artifacts merely because someone decided they had "enough"
>|>of certain types of modules, etc.?  As far as I'm concerned, this
>disqualifies
>|>them from consideration.
>
>Many museums of archeology sell artifacts.  Real ones, with certificates
>of authenticity.  For example, there are several tens of thousands of
>Roman pottery lamps.  Literal shiploads of red Samian dinnerware.  When
>artifacts exist in profusion, typical examples are often, legally, and
>ethically, sold off.  Most museums can display only 10% of collections, BTW.

There is no consensus whatsoever that the number considered "excess" to the
collection is actually so.  Moreover, if 10% as a rule-of-thumb is standard, 
then likely this place is too eager to sell, etc.

>
>Selling artifacts a) raises money for the museums b) clears storage of a
>lot of essentially identical objects (in the Roman cases, many
>factory-made) c) provides a legal source, cutting into the illegal
>artifact trade d) makes it possible for people to own attractive
>interesting (to them) artifacts.

a) is debatable in this case since the price was quite low; firing one
dead-wood executive likely raises more money than any other activity.
b) doesn't apply due to the size and quantities involved.
c) doesn't exist
d) is contrived since the people involved were manipulated into it after
the fact of their visit to the place.

>
>Lots of museums do it. Good ones, like the Royal Ontario Museum and the
>Smithsonian.  Any museum that sponsors archeological digs, likely - you
>know how many tonnes of artifacts can be found in a good dig?

There aren't tons of equipment involved here.
Moreover, no attempt was made to find out through the standard organizations
whether anyone was interested in the equipment; however interested parties 
did see the advertisements put out by the place with little effort, since
the place spent a lot of money on print ads when they resorted to the
module sales.  It is debatable whether the sales ever covered the costs of
the ads.

There is an interesting problem with computers in a museum:  there is too
easily a tendency for the place to want to merely display a likeness or
mockup of the machine, or worse, cannibalize it so that merely the "guts"
is present, while any relevant displays are faked.  Especially if a distortion
of the original machine is more readily viewed by uninformed attendees, who
won't be aware of the revisionist activities.

These machines aren't so old that there aren't relevant experts available
to make them functional again (most of them anyway), and in some cases, the
machines are in current use!  A responsible museum will first make the item
work, then figure out a way to best display it.  Video equipment is available
to allow visitors a view from a nearby location without resorting to
destruction of the equipment, etc.

>                          
>Henry Troup - H.Troup@BNR.CA (Canada) - BNR owns but does not share my opinions
>	"It's a good thing we don't get all the government we pay for."

cjl

Newsgroups: alt.folklore.computers