>However: a personnal experience regarding display of artifacts vs. >reproduction: As I showed an interested researcher around our off-site >storage area, he continually asked "You mean that's the REAL one?" He >stared in awe at the (real) Enola Gay and was amazed when I answered his >question that the Wright Flyer in the Mall museum was (you guessed) the >REAL Wright Flyer. Paul Silberman's posting raises an important point about authenticity, exhibitions, and conservation. When is the *real thing* no longer the *real thing*? Quantities of the wooden structure and cloth were removed from the Wright Flyer during its conservation, which were sold at the Air & Space Museum in one-inch squares. I do not know the actual amount removed and the intent of this posting is not to question the integrity of conservators but to introduce the question of how much conservation can be done before an artifact is no longer authentic. Could I cut the Wright Flyer in half, reconstruct the other halves, and have two *real* Wright Flyers? This question is of utmost importance for conservation and museum exhibitions. The point is being repeatedly made in Egypt concerning the Sphinx. There is an enormous amount of work being done on the monument. The north side is a cement/cubist nightmare and there was even the suggestion at the First International Conference on the Conservation of the Sphinx of attaching a new nose. If work continues in this vein, would the Sphinx remain the Sphinx? Sure, the bedrock is still authentic but could you really tell tourists that they are seeing *the* Sphinx or should you tell them that they are seeing our interpretation of how the Sphinx looked? The situation gets even thornier because the Sphinx was repeatedly restored in ancient times, so to which period should it be restored? Thus, the question of authenticity in exhibits can be more complex than just wondering whether people care if it is authentic or not. Robert M. Ehrenreich National Academy of Science <[log in to unmask]>