In a message dated 7/7/2007 9:37:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [log in to unmask] writes:
2a: One problem that has recently reared it's head is how to refer to pieces of exhibits that are replicas of real, historic artifacts. For example we currently have a real hunk of the Berlin Wall on display. It's very small and does not give any sense of what the wall was or how big it was. Near it is an exhibition element that is a recreated section, much bigger, with all the graffiti the original had. What do you call it? Although technically an "artifact" since it was man-made, there must be a distinction between it and the "real artifact" not only for our own purpose, but, more importantly, for the public.  As far as I know that discussion continues, but then I am an educator and do not read the literature for curator or collections managers.
Wouldn't the replica simply be referred to as a 'replica' [of a portion of the wall]? And aren't historic artifacts typically those which are 50+ years old and therefore the replica is modern, and not an artifact (yet)?
 
And not to confuse matters but, the original section of the wall is an artifact which is 'out of context'. This hunk came from...not an artifact but an above ground feature/structure...a wall. The entire wall was not an artifact in itself. The replica was NEVER a part of the wall.
 
Yikes.




See what's free at AOL.com.
========================================================= Important Subscriber Information:

The Museum-L FAQ file is located at http://www.finalchapter.com/museum-l-faq/ . You may obtain detailed information about the listserv commands by sending a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "help" (without the quotes).

If you decide to leave Museum-L, please send a one line e-mail message to [log in to unmask] . The body of the message should read "Signoff Museum-L" (without the quotes).