A Britishness to celebrate and emulate
Reflection — By Adam Higgitt on February 21, 2010 7:00 am
Global artefact: The Mold Cape
SOME 3,500 years ago, in a Wales devoid of kingdoms, cities or palaces, a civilisation enriched by mining copper from beneath the Great Orme fashioned a ceremonial gold cape of astonishing detail and beauty. What these people called themselves and who they were remains a mystery, as will the truth about why their cape was made for a child or slender woman instead of a statuesque tribal chief. Nevertheless, its very existence and careful reconstruction has upended much conventional wisdom about the state and development of human life in the Bronze Age British Isles. And last week, this amazing discovery and its implications were shared with an audience far beyond academia, museum goers and hobbyist historians.
The “Mold Cape”, together with 99 other objects of global historical significance, are the subjects of a new Radio 4 production. A History Of The World In 100 Objects is the centrepiece of a major collaboration between the BBC and the British Museum, and is airing in five 14-minute segments a week throughout the year. Each episode takes one object and explores its place in the development of mankind, from two million years ago to the present day. Rich in scholarship, Reithian in scope and almost suicidally ambitious, it is a rare, novel but completely absorbing attempt to tell the entire human story through the technologies we have developed and the things we have deemed precious.
This quest, which in its first few weeks has already ranged across Egypt, Tanzania, France, Arizona, Papua New Guinea, Judea, Honduras, Japan, Iraq, Pakistan, the Alps, Crete, Peru, Sudan and China - as well as prehistoric north Wales – provides a comprehensive answer to why Gordon Brown’s five-year old call for a set of British values has met with either bemused silence, or vapid assertions of “fairness” and “tolerance”. AHOTW embodies a cultural Britishness unencumbered by rueful introspection, and defined by its outwardness and ambition to understand the world from a universalist perspective. For better or for worse – as some of the British Museums more controversial exhibits attest – this is a Britishness that speaks of a constant engagement, entanglement and exploration of the world beyond its shores. While that prompted conflict with and domination of other peoples, it kindled a centuries-old process of absorption, study and documentation of the many different encountered cultures. The British altered the world they once bestrode, but were themselves profoundly altered by the experience.
The British Museum was famously the world’s first national public museum, and among its earliest collection were ethnographic studies of indigenous peoples. Today, it has rivals boasting impressive curatorial depth and range, and the BBC has been joined by foreign public broadcasters prepared to attempt such a venture. So while AHOTW may not be uniquely British, it is perhaps distinctively so; a collaborative project only a few other national cultural institutions have the breadth and confidence to attempt. But as what it means to be part of a British political union loosens – and perhaps ultimately unravels – is there a future for this sort of grand enterprise? And if so, will the people of Wales continue to be able to enjoy and be enriched by it?
That is not to suggest the institutions themselves are at risk. The British Museum is likely to continue in recognisable form deep into any notional post-British age. Retaining its name would be apt, if politically unacceptable, but at around seven million objects its collection and the vast expertise built up around it will surely endure. The BBC also seems to have a future as a publicly funded broadcaster, even though the nature of broadcasting is rapidly changing and it is far from impossible to imagine the Corporation’s range of activities scaled back.
Secondly, neither institution – nor others like them – will necessarily become greatly less accessible. Bloomsbury, home of the British Museum, will remain exactly the same distance from Wales as it always has, and while the continuing role of the BBC in Wales may be in doubt under some scenarios, it too will doubtless continue to play some part in cultural life here. Nevertheless as Welsh autonomy increases, perhaps to the point where its formal union with the nations of Britain is ended, it is worth questioning if our home-grown institutions can and should be capable of a project as large and ambitious as AHOTW.
The two issues here are of capacity and purpose. The National Museum Wales and its eight sites cares for over five million objects, and welcomes over 1.3 million visitors per annum. With these numbers rising, the focus increasingly is on international work, with a major touring art exhibition in the US, and numerous other overseas tie-ups. There is little doubt that Wales’s national museums possesses the capacity to deliver exhibitions and learning programmes that are up there with the very best. The quality of our national museums, meanwhile, has helped to ensure that objects from Wales, and the national collection, will be well featured in AHOTW, with NMW itself an official partner of the project. The Mold Cape may be part of the British Museum’s collection, but other objects are likely to feature in coming weeks.
However, it is in the area of purpose that the questions arise. NMW’s avowed mission is to “tell Wales about the world and the world about Wales”. In the latter, it undoubtedly succeeds. Nearly two-thirds of all visitors to the National Slate Museum in Llanberis are from the rest of the UK, while one in six to the superb Big Pit in Blaenafon are from overseas. From current exhibitions about the experiences of post-war Italian immigrants, to retelling the Crusades from a Welsh perspective, the number of opportunities to delve deep into every aspect of Welsh history are replete. There are also some very strong attempts to fulfil the other part of the remit – telling Wales about the world – but inevitably NMW cannot compete with the likes of the British Museum. Despite also some previous tie-ups with the BBC in particular, and some ambitious exploitation of new media, there are presently no plans to develop the sort of collaboration currently amazing audiences on Radio 4 and topping the podcast charts.
But this is to dwell on one national institution, and expect of it that for which it is not resourced and is not – despite that vision statement – remitted to do. The issue is less whether National Museum Wales can or should step directly into the shoes of the British Museum, but whether Wales’s cultural policy-makers as a whole now need to begin to anticipate a future in which their nation is not building, but is built. We need to keep telling our story, to ourselves and to others. But perhaps we need also to look to a time when the vast cultural riches and expertise so readily available to us now are no longer ours by right.
Tags: BBC, British Museum, constitutional reform, National Museum Wales
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
45 Comments
But if we don’t tell our story, then who will?
Case in point: The British Museum, up until very very recently, was all Egyptian, Roman, Greek… with the odd Dinosaur. Not that they didn’t have “native” artefacts, (such as the Battersea shield etc) but they weren’t “worthy of display” – just rubbish grubby little bits of tat.
It’s changing now (mostly due to advances in archaeology, and an acceptance that a people who made the Mold cape, Great Torcs etc actually might have been worth something afterall)
But then, take into account history. Not displayed history. Taught history, in school. When I was in school (in the 80s) we were taught the following, in almost this order: The Romans. The Anglo Saxons. The Normans. The Anglo Saxons. Henry VIII. The Age of Steam. WWI and WWII. Great, a rounded education! Except… I didn’t learn anything about ME. About US. We were conspicuous by our absence. I hadn’t even HEARD of Owain Glyndwr until about ten years ago. Boudica? Caractacus? Morgan Hen? Brychan Brycheiniog? Macsen Wledig? The Gododdin? etc etc . Just like my language, my history was taken away from me (by some pen-pushers decree) before I was even born.
Well, I want it back. I want museums of Wales to be filled with the history of our country, the good and the bad. Our industrial, medieval, Romano, Celtic. That’s not to say we can’t have visiting Mummy collections, or works of Van Gogh, or suchlike. But if we don’t display and tell our story, not just to our OWN people but to the world, then it will vanish. And I’m damned if I’m going to let that happen. My kids will learn about the history of our country FIRST, before they are bombarded for two years with the ins-and-outs of some fat bloke with six wives.
The word “British” seems to have several meanings, and it’s always worth identifying which is meant:
1) relating to pre-Roman insular Celts
2) relating to 17th, 18th, and 19th century colonization and imperialism
3) as a misnomer meaning “English”, often used out of ignorance, insecurity, or political posturing
4) as a statement of unionism, most frequently of the Northern Irish variety
5) as a self-identifier by people who are not of English, Welsh, Scottish, or Irish descent, but whose home is in those countries
In the phrase “British Museum”, it is the second sense: it could just as well be called the “Imperial Museum”. It’s full of things that have been brought back from the pink bits. It happens to be in England, but it’s not the English Museum. The staff don’t wear orange sashes either.
It’s also not that much of a concern that neighbouring countries also have strong museums. This is common in Continental Europe. The Slovak National Museum in Bratislava is one of the finest national museums of any small country, and its serious and ambitious scope is not in any way impaired upon by the fact that you can get to Vienna (which has several longer-established museums) in just an hour.
The regional parts of our National Museum are indeed very fine. The weakness, compared to countries such as Slovakia, is in the core institution in Cardiff: it’s small, narrow in scope, and trying to be everything to everyone all at once. There needs to be some substantial expansion and differentiation of the various collections on sites within the city. The competition is not the British Museum, but other small European countries’ national museums.
The story of British history is very poorly told in museums and textbooks.
I would love to see the National museum in Cardiff told the story of these isles.
Instead we get a load of nonsense about Romans, Saxons and Celts shaping our past. No recognition about the achievements of the original inhabitants of these islands, that according to the DNA evidence most of us are descended from.
Instead in Wales we get politically motivated histories that despite all the evidence insist that the Welsh are a Celtic people.
@Michael: “No recognition about the achievements of the original inhabitants of these islands”.
Mainly because little is known about it! It is changing slowly, but “native” history and archaeology is still the poor relation to the classical world. And yeah, the term “Celt” is a Victorian fantasy, all but meaningless in any context outside the Indo-European linguistic.
I tend to look at it in a classical context though. Take Egypt: are their museums overflowing with Ming pottery or French Revolution memorabilia? No, they are overflowing with Egyptian history, Egyptian art, Egyptian artifacts. And they get people from all over the world going specifically for that reason, for that story. Is the National Museum of Rome a testament to the history of the Native North American Indian? No, it’s overflowing with Roman history, Italian art. That’s the whole point of a National Museum, to tell the story of the nation. And ours is as rich and interesting as any other European nation. OK, maybe not in glittering jewels and marble, but in social history, literature, the struggle keep and define our identity. All very relevent, not just to our own country, but to every other country struggling under Globalisation and free-movement of peoples.
If you build a tower without a foundation, every future layer you put on it will make it unstable, and it will topple over. But a tower with a strong foundation means that you can keep putting future layers on top ad infinitum, and it will remain stable and strong. History is that foundation.
The following is a transcript of the programme:-
The isolated location of the burial site, near the village of Mold, not far from the north coast of Wales, meant that the wider world could easily have continued in ignorance of its existence. That this didn’t happen, owes everything to the curiosity of a local vicar, Reverend C.B. Clough, who wrote an account of the find that aroused the interest of the Society of Antiquaries, hundreds of miles away in London.
Not a description of Mold that I recognise and sadly London centric for a series celebrating world culture.
As always, some good contributions.
Al, I don’t think Wales’s museums should stop telling Wales’s story at all. But I do wonder if they should be resourced to do more. You are right about other national museums, and James you may be right about where the “competition” is. Ultimately, the British Museum and its extraordinary array of cultural treasures will remain accessible to us – though perhaps not quite as accessible as it is.
Ieu – other than the description of Mold as a “village”, which I don’t think it has been for at least 500 years, I don’t really see the problem with the statement. The point the programme was making was that the cape might never have been found, because of its location in a field, not because it was near Mold.
Is it me or do others have problems with defining history in terms of “us” and “our story”?
I was in the British Museum three weeks ago, and it is clear that far too many of its exhibits were either stolen or ‘purchased’ following imperialist or non-imperialist intervention, mainly in the 19th century. If this is ‘universalism’ then it gives us a good idea of the weaknesses and contradictions of the concept itself. Short of declaring independence and then promptly invading a number of 3rd world countries for the greater good of mankind, there is no way Wales could – or should – compete.
It would be no bad thing if the British Museum were to be broken up and the loot sent home. It is part of the colonial legacy.
I viewed the Mold Cape during my visit. The text in the Museum states that it was ‘originally found’ in Mold, which is a way, I suppose, of saying that it is now found in Russell Square and the environs. It really ought to be repatriated to Cardiff or (indeed!) Mold.
“far too many of its exhibits were either stolen or ‘purchased’ following imperialist or non-imperialist intervention”
Perhaps. But many of the objects were found in places and at times when they were being neglected, ignored or destroyed. The early British collectors, while also imperialists, catalogued and preserved these treasures. Their successors, who are not imperialists, now keeps and displays them to anyone who visits free-of-charge.
“If this is ‘universalism’ then it gives us a good idea of the weaknesses and contradictions of the concept itself.”
During a recent visit my 10-year old son was amazed to learn than aboriginal Americans descend from Asians who were able to cross a land corridor between the two continents exposed during the last ice age, and which then disappeared for ever following the thaw. He learned this by learning the background to the Clovis spear point (to whom will you return this, given that clusters of such objects have been found and are on display throughout north America?). He also learned that the Jomon people, in what is today’s Japan, invented cookery – a technology that gave humans a decisive edge over other animals by vastly widening the range of foods available to them. He could have learned all this by going to Arizona and Japan to see those object “in situ” but the chances are that he would have simply learned about the development of humans on the British Isles if something like the BM did not exist. Now he has an altogether wider perspective on how he came to be where he is today. This gives us a good idea of the strength of the concept.
“The text in the Museum states that it was ‘originally found’ in Mold, which is a way, I suppose, of saying that it is now found in Russell Square and the environs.”
Or it could more innocently be a reference to the fact that the cape was broken up into many pieces upon discovery, and it has taken the BM over 100 years to find and put it back together. How dare these ghastly imperialists expend vast time and effort reconstructing something that should have been left in rough fragments all over north Wales!
“It really ought to be repatriated to Cardiff or (indeed!) Mold.”
Since it is an object that pre-dates the idea of Wales and Cardiff by millennia it is no more out of place in London than Cardiff. This is an object that belongs to the world – putting it in the biggest city on its “home” continent makes perfect sense. It only wouldn’t to someone intent of finding malign purpose in the actions of its curators.
“Instead in Wales we get politically motivated histories that despite all the evidence insist that the Welsh are a Celtic people.”
Celt is a term used to describe any of the European peoples who spoke, or speak, a Celtic language. Wales has been a majority Celtic-speaking part of Europe from the Bronze Age until very recently.
There is no mention by your correspondents of The National Museum Wales current exhibition, “Origins: in Search of Early Wales”. It has an absorbing and extensive review of our history from the Stone Age to the Medieval Ages and is a great improvement on earlier displays. Take a look!
Hitherto the great weakness of NMW has been its lack of projection outside Wales. The current tour of the USA by 50 odd pictures from the Margaret and Gwendoline Davies sisters bequest, now at the Corcoran Gallery in Washington, is hopefully the first of many attempts to raise the level of awareness outside Wales.
Stephen Oppenheimer wrote …
Everything you know about British and Irish ancestry is wrong. Our ancestors were Basques, not Celts. The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands.
http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/2006/10/mythsofbritishancestry/ the full text can be read …. Stephen Oppenheimer. “The Origins of the British: a genetic detective story” Constable, London, 2006.).
The truth, it is in the genes, not nationalist labels of convenience.
John, it’s not about genes, never has been. Cymru, Kernow, Cumbria etc has always been about CULTURE. The Anglo-Saxon “invasion” was an invasion of culture, just as the Norman one was. The south-east of Britain adopted this new culture (whether though force, apartheid, or plain old economics) and tried to export it to the rest of Britain, who didn’t want it, because they quite liked their own, very ancient one thank you very much. (To be fair, the South East was the most heavily Romanised, so after the withdrawal of Rome they really didn’t have a native culture to go back to, they’d lost it)
The genetic argument, for and against, is irrelevant. It’s about place, language and history. Not skin colour or R1B type.
Adam Higgitt wrote -
“Since it is an object that pre-dates the idea of Wales and Cardiff by millennia it is no more out of place in London than Cardiff. This is an object that belongs to the world – putting it in the biggest city on its “home” continent makes perfect sense. It only wouldn’t to someone intent of finding malign purpose in the actions of its curators.”
The object also predates the idea of the UK and London by millennia and it is out of place in London as it is from a people that inhabited a completely different part of the British isles. The argument is that London, as the UK capital city serves as a central repository for such items with the attendant rationale that being held there makes it available for many people to see.
As such I see no reason why Cardiff as the capital of Wales and a place where many people could see it shouldn’t hold this object. Alongside for example the bones found in Paviland cave which are normally kept at Oxford University.
Regarding malign purpose curators and museum owners are notoriously jealous of their artefacts which goes some way to explaining why Oxford University preferred to keep the bones of Paviland in a box for many decades rather than release them for exhibition in Wales.
If the Mold cape does “belong to the world” then we are both foolish and timid, considereing that it was found in Wales, if we don’t seek to be the ones who grant the world access to it and so reap the benefits currently gained by London.
“The Celts were not wiped out by the Anglo-Saxons, in fact neither had much impact on the genetic stock of these islands.”
Given that we know that every single European alive today is a direct descendant of every single European that lived in or before the 8th century, I’d say everybody’s had an impact on the genetic stock of everybody else.
http://itotd.com/articles/226/most-recent-common-ancestors/
Cap M
The Mold Cape is out of place and out of time wherever you put it, save for in the hands of a lost, mysterious nomadic bronze age civilisation who made no distinction whatsoever between what we now call Wales and England, and who probably had no concept of a thing called a city, or even a town. Its only truly natural home in the 21st century is in the field where it lay for over 3,000 years undiscovered, along with the skeletal remains of the last person to wear it, and which were immediately discarded and lost.
Since no-one is advocated reburying it, it is fair to ask what should be done with it. You could of course bring it back to a purpose-built display on or near the site of its discovery, and this may well yield additional tourist income. But, as important an artefact as we find it, it is not Stonehenge. The net result of relocating it near Mold would simply be to deprive many hundreds of thousands of people from seeing it, while marginally improving the income of the area. And for what? The pleasure of knowing that an object found on what is now Welsh soil is back on Welsh soil. That’s the very definition of a pyrrhic victory.
And this of course ignore one crucial fact. The BM did not simply expropriate the object. They learned about it from a local vicar’s account, found the many pieces (it was broken up by the workmen who found it and shared out) and pieced it back together over decades. So, actually, if anyone has a claim to ownership to it, I’d say it was the people and the organisation that put in the hard yards in turning it from a few scattered bits of gold into the object we see above. Given that, and given that in no sense of the word is this object Welsh, why should it be located to Cardiff?
Chris
Thanks for the tip – I’ll look it up when I’m next in Cardiff.
By that reasoning, why isn’t King Tutankhamen and his family on display in the British Museum full time? If it wasn’t for British archaeologists digging him up he’d be slowly desiccating under the sand somewhere.
Fact is, if the British Museum wasn’t draining all the resources (and academics) from the rest of the island, the Mold Cape could probably been put together and conserved by some museum in North Wales.
Bad analogy, Al. For it to work, builders would have had to have dumped King Tut’s Mummy, broken his casket into dozens of pieces and scattered them all over the place.
Fact is, if the BM hadn’t reconstructed the cape it probably would never have been put back together.
Hmmm… still not comfortable with the “finders keepers loosers weepers” analogy. Does that give the BM carte-blanche? If the Mona Lisa started to fall apart and needed to be sent there for conservation work would they get to keep it, on account that it wouldn’t exist if it wasn’t for the hard work of the BM? I’m sure that if the BM hadn’t pieced together the cape it would have sat in a shoebox until someone from Wales pieced it together.
And I’m not convinced about the maximum impact argument either. How many Welsh people have visited Cardiff Museum vs how many Welsh people have visited the British Museum? Do we have figures? Bet you’ll say that’s irrelevant.
What is it about displaying the cape in Cardiff rather than London that makes it a pyrrhic victory?
Yes, less people would see it in Cardiff, but many of those that did see it woud be visiting the museum specifically or in a large part to see Cape, rather than as is the case in London where it is just one of many artifacts of international importance.
And if making it accessible for people to see is the criterion it should be moved to Paris a city visited by nearly twice (27 million v 15 million) the number of foreign tourists than London. And as the cape is unique in western Europe it would be just as much at home there as it would be in London or Cardiff.
An artifact such as the Mold Cape housed at our National Museum in Cardiff offers fantastic opportunities and advantages and money for the city and Wales far in excess of what the cape will ever bring to London by remaining there.
It is an iconic piece and could be as valuable an image for the promotion of Wales as the Guggenheim museum is to the Basque country. This is not about sentimentality over an object returning to the land whence it came. It is about bringing money into Wales for the people of Wales.
Granted the British Museum has put a lot of effort into restoring it but it has used UK money to do it so we have made a contribution to its resoration. I suggest that London has it for five more years and then it should be transferred here permanently.
The artifact was found in Wales, a component nation of the United kingdom with its own National Museum in its capital city. Why on earth should the cape be kept in London?
Al
It’s not a “finders keepers losers weepers” argument. That presupposes that the BM merely expropriated the object. In fact, they acquired it legitimately and reconstructed it – something no-one else did. Would you say that a team of people who restored an old steam engine should be forced to give it back to the place where it used to operate if they had taken a wreck and refurbished it? Doubt it. And they would be doing it for their own pleasure and private use. The BM is making this object available for the whole world, free of charge.
And I’m still bemused about why on earth you imagine that Cardiff has a stronger claim to this object than London, or why the number of Welsh people who have access to the two institutions is any kind of measure.
Cap M
Displaying it in Mold would be a pyrrhic victory. Displaying it in Cardiff has no more logic than displaying it in London, since it’s not a Welsh object in any meaningful sense of the word except what the people around the patch of land it laid upon decided to call their place thousands of years later. They also called that patch of land Britain before and during that time. So it’s in its capital city, if that’s important to you.
I’m open to displaying it wherever it’ll be most viewed. The most visited museum in the world in the Louvre. The second is the BM. Given the BM put in the hard yards on it, they continue to have a strong claim.
“It is about bringing money into Wales for the people of Wales”
No it’s not. If it was, you’d bulldoze the National Museum Wales and build a roller-coaster.
The Cape was found and recorded by Rev Clough, but then the builder who dug it up took it and sold it to the British Museum. So yeah, they paid for it, but did it belong to Mr Langford, or to the nation? Who was he to sell it?
That is different to say, Stephenson’s Rocket, the owners of who donated it to the Science Museum because… well, because they owned it. Not the same thing at all.
Who says it belongs to the nation? What nation? The nation of Wales is a pipsqueak by comparison to the antiquity of this object. It’s a modern bit of marketing; a passing fad.*
If we were talking about an object that was gathering dust in a warehouse somewhere you might – might – have a point. But it’s not. It’s in one of the world’s truly great and most visited museums. It’s a featured object in one of the most ambitious collaborative projects and exhibitions ever mounted. It’s being presented in all its glory to an audience far, far beyond Wales or the UK – that’s why we’re talking about it. It’s getting star treatment. Demanding it be moved to Wales on the grounds that it might make a few quid for some hoteliers and hot dog sellers, and because you imagine a nation – any nation – has a claim to it not only looks small-minded – it looks self-defeating.
Not to mention implausible.
* All that applies to every other nation on the planet, incidentally
well then, that also applies to every object that is found, declared Treasure, and bought “FOR THE NATION”. Patiently ridiculous. Anglo-Saxon hoard? Why not have it in the Smithsonian? What right do any English museum have to it? It’s a market economy, if they can pay for it, let them have it. I’m sure more people would see it in the Smithsonian than at the BM. It’s only history, the English won’t mind…..
I notice though, that the Treasure Act only applies to things found in England, Wales, and Northern Ireland. The Scots get to keep what is dug up out of Scottish soil. Why is that? Sounds bloody imperialistic to me.
actually, I apologise. Treasure in Scotland in automatically acquired “for the Crown” by Bona vacantia. So they don’t have a say in it either.
Do you know what? What I care about is where an object of great importance will get the best treatment.
No-one has even contested the claim that it isn’t getting that where it is at the moment.
yeah, granted. I know some (Welsh) people who work at the BM. They got jobs there “because that’s where the goodies are”. The same people (very often) caring for stuff at the BM could do it in Cardiff, if “that’s where the goodies are”. We could keep Welsh history and Welsh talent in Wales.
I have no particular beef with the BM, but just the assumption (or reality) that every object of importance found on these islands automatically ends up there. Thank god the good people of Staffordshire are fighting to keep the Anglo-Saxon hoard up there, and I wish them all the luck in the world in doing so. Why bother? Why is it important to them? Why are the Mummies important to Egypt? Why are the Elgin Marbles important to Greece?
Fair enough. It’s true that the reductio ad absurdum of what I’m saying is that every object in the world ends up in New York. Clearly, there should be a spread and where a piece has local significance – which I think has to be more than just being found somewhere – it should be considered favourably. In that sense, Mold makes a lot more sense than Cardiff, but I just think it would be such a waste if that were to happen because it would become an object of niche interest, a local peculiarity instead of a global artefact. Great actors need impressive theatres. The Mold Cape needs the equivalent of Broadway.
reply to Adam Higgitt
It’s hard to see a logic in this London is where it should be approach other than the “we are not worthy” one.
You contradict yourself by ruling out Cardiff because the object is not of the nation of Wales but ruling in London even though the object is similarly not of the nation of the UK or England
Wales could make the object available to the whole world ,the difference in number of those that would actually see it in London or Cardiff would be tiny compared to the numbers who will see it’s image online or elsewhere.
I’ll choose not reply to your hot dogs and roller coaster comments in an attempt to keep the discussion sensible.
Then you have this huge blind spot – “because you imagine a nation – any nation – has a claim to it not only looks small-minded – it looks self-defeating.” For – any nation- read Wales but definately not UK or England.
The British Museum does not have a monopoly on excellence of presentation or caring for antiquities.
You say what you care about is where an object of great importance will get the best treatment. Then if that is true you should support it’s transfer to Cardiff. Here it will not just be an object of great importance but a national icon and presented to the world as such.
It’s hard to see a logic in this London is where it should be approach other than the “we are not worthy” one.
Not London – the BM. I’ve explained why (because it’s being showcased better than anywhere else)
You contradict yourself by ruling out Cardiff because the object is not of the nation of Wales but ruling in London even though the object is similarly not of the nation of the UK or England
I don’t rule in London on grounds of nationhood.
Wales could make the object available to the whole world, the difference in number of those that would actually see it in London or Cardiff would be tiny compared to the numbers who will see it’s image online or elsewhere.
But where? Cardiff? Why Cardiff? What’s that got to do with the tribe that inhabited north Wales 3,500 years ago and who fashioned this object?
I’ll choose not reply to your hot dogs and roller coaster comments in an attempt to keep the discussion sensible.
You said it was about making money. I respectfully disagree.
Then you have this huge blind spot – “because you imagine a nation – any nation – has a claim to it not only looks small-minded – it looks self-defeating.” For – any nation- read Wales but definitely not UK or England.
No, that’s not what I say. I say the BM is doing an outstanding job of showcasing this object. Do you disagree?
The British Museum does not have a monopoly on excellence of presentation or caring for antiquities.
I agree. It’s doing a fairly outstanding job on this one, though. Which makes me wonder why you wish to punish excellence.
You say what you care about is where an object of great importance will get the best treatment. Then if that is true you should support it’s transfer to Cardiff. Here it will not just be an object of great importance but a national icon and presented to the world as such.
Since I have spent the better part of this evening disputing the very notion that this object is of any nation, you can hardly expect me to support the suggestion that it is a “national icon”.
***
We seem to be getting down to short and terse answers. I don’t want to end the argument like that, because you seem like an intelligent person who has advanced your case with consistency and courtesy. I understand and respect what you say, but I just don’t agree with it. You may feel the same way, but either way we may have to agree to disagree.
It’s clear you think the BM is the best location for the cape for reasons such as its care and presentation. However you have been clouding the issue by saying the cape has nothing to do with Wales which as I have pointed out means that it has nothing to do with England or the UK either.
If it just about a location that is able to care for it then why would the National Museum of Wales be any less able than the British Museum?
If it is about a location that is able to present it to visitors why would being the star attraction in the NMW be less good than it being one of hundreds of stars in the BM?
The Mold cape is not of any nation as it predates all existing nations in the UK. However it is kept in a museum in a nation. The nation in which that museum lies will never present it as an icon of that nation.
If the cape where kept in Wales it would be presented as a national icon (of Wales) and as a result more people would become aware of it globally than will do so if it stays in the BM in London.
And money is important. I’m sure you can imagine the scope of tourism promtions, Inward investment efforts, cultural applications, promotion of Wales internationally that could and would make use of the Mold cape being in Cardiff. We should be looking out for our interests instead of giving it up for poor liitle London.
sorry, have to put in one last comment
“It’s doing a fairly outstanding job on this one, though. Which makes me wonder why you wish to punish excellence.”
But why is it a center of excellence? Because all the world-class people in their fields go there. Archaeologists. Metallurgists. Geneticists. Botanists. Ceramic experts. etc etc. And why do all the world-class people in their fields go there? Because that’s where the artefacts are! And why are all the artefacts there? Because of the world-class people? Not originally, it’s purpose was to display artefacts from the British Empire. But because the artefacts were there, the world-class people went there… round in circles…
It’s not about punishing the BM. If it is a center of excellence with an excellent track-record in conservation and presentation then long may that continue. But we can do that in Cardiff too. And Aberystwyth. And Mold.
This entire debate about where the treasures of mankind currently in the care of the British Museum should properly be housed has gone on for quite sometime without anyone mentioning the main cause of dispute – the Parthenon marbles.
It is still possible that the AHOTW series will bring in the marbles in the next few weeks, at which point all hell is liikely to break loose because the BM will presumably insist on their line being upheld by the BBC narrative. I think all commentators and readers should be familiar with the issue. Anyone not aware can go here:
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/45552,news-comment,news-politics,greece-has-won-the-debate-over-elgin-marbles
for a typically robust presentation of the case for restoration by controversialist Christopher Hitchens.
Like the marbles, the Mold Cape ought to be regarded (and is, as its place in the series demonstrates) as a treasure of all mankind because of the insight it provides to the cultural sophistication of our bronze age ancestors. The question that needs to be asked is where it is best that these treasures be cared for and displayed? Certainly the BM has used its almost unrivalled experience and skills to perform a magnificent restoration of the Cape and is capable of presenting it in a content of bronze age treasures from throughout Northern Europe. The key for me is not who such treasures belong to – in my opinion they belong to no-one since anyone who had any realistic claim died millenia ago – but where they can be most properly appreciated and understood by the people who want to find out about them. In the case of the Pathenon marbles there is no question in my mind that they should be in the Acropolis museum in Athens (whether they are formally returned on simply loaned is irrelevant). So far as the Mold Cape is concerned, there is no realistic prospect at present of contriving such a place, although there’s little reason not to have them loaned to the NMoW if it wished to stage an exhibition.
Even if Britain were to become no more than a geographical expression the BM would have to continue – if only because there is no outstanding candidate to be the obvious place to return many of the treasures. The BM’s reputation is rightly deserved and it does great work in explaining and showcasing humanities history. However without going too far into the detail of the legality of the original acquisitions it should also show greater flexibility (and it’s up to Parliament to amend the law to permit the trustees to do so), in sharing these treasures, with appropriate safeguards to ensure they aren’t harmed, with the places they came from and where they can be most appropriately understood.
you have been clouding the issue by saying the cape has nothing to do with Wales which as I have pointed out means that it has nothing to do with England or the UK either.
Yes, and I agree.
If it just about a location that is able to care for it then why would the National Museum of Wales be any less able than the British Museum?
But why should the NMW have it?
If it is about a location that is able to present it to visitors why would being the star attraction in the NMW be less good than it being one of hundreds of stars in the BM?
But why should the NMW have it?
The nation in which that museum lies will never present it as an icon of that nation.
This is all to the good. They will instead present as part of the great current of the human story. I thought you were trying to persuade me of your point of view, not convince me of my own!
If the cape where kept in Wales it would be presented as a national icon (of Wales) and as a result more people would become aware of it globally than will do so if it stays in the BM in London.
Obviously, this is not true. We’re only talking about it because of the exceptional way the BM has presented the object to the world. NMW told me they have no plans for any broadcaster collaborations. The BM has it featured in one of Radio 4′s biggest broadcasts of the year.
We should be looking out for our interests instead of giving it up for poor liitle London.
Except that the object is not “yours” to exploit in that way any more than any other object in the BM is yours. It is in the custody of the institution that single-handedly restored it. You cannot simply help yourself to objects you like the look of. Sorry.
CapM
The question you do not seem to want to answer is why Cardiff?
Adam has clearly stated why he thinks the BM is doing a great job. Your argument that it would bring in more visitors, could be made by any other city, such as Chester or Liverpool.
I think Dave C makes for me what is the key question, and one I made at 7.58 last night, namely:
“Where it is best that these treasures be cared for and displayed?”
I am having a great deal of trouble understanding the rationale for moving it from the BM where, to my mind at least, the above criteria seems to be being met in spades. Therefore, to make the case for moving it, a better answer than “the NMW would also do a good job of presenting it” or “it would make money for Wales” and certainly “because it could be presented as a national icon” has to be given. You have to be able to establish that the care and display of the object would improve by moving it to Cardiff. The suggestion that it would bring more visitors is one I simply do not accept, given that it is a featured piece in the second most visited museum on the planet, and being presented as part of a major BBC programme. So the suggestion that it would gain more prominence among the other objects is also one I reject.
I have no doubt that the NMW would do an excellent job of presenting the cape and, as Dave says, I’m sure a loan could be arranged if necessary. But Cardiff, nor anywhere else, has a presumptive claim on it. The place that has the presumptive claim on it is the BM, since it alone restored it and brought it to the world’s attention. Until or unless someone can come up with the case that its care and presentation will be improved by moving it elsewhere I see no reason to contemplate take it our of the BM.
My reply last night was removed because it was deemed to be “aggressive in tone”. I do not agree, it was certainly not written in anger. The use of capitals was as I stated at the start of the post just to differentiate between the points and counterpoints (italics having already been used). The post went something like this
CapM
If it just about a location that is able to care for it then why would the National Museum of Wales be any less able than the British Museum?
AH
But why should the NMW have it?
CapM
Neither of us are claiming one or the other is better so that makes it a draw regarding care for the Cape.
CapM
If it is about a location that is able to present it to visitors why would being the star attraction in the NMW be less good than it being one of hundreds of stars in the BM?
AH
But why should the NMW have it?
CapM
The reason is in the question – at the NMW it would have permanent star billing in the BM it is one of hundreds jostling for position.
CapM
The nation in which that museum lies will never present it as an icon of that nation.
AH
This is all to the good. They will instead present as part of the great current of the human story. I thought you were trying to persuade me of your point of view, not convince me of my own!
CapM
There is nothing stopping the cape being included in any grand UK or international project on human history if it is kept in Cardiff. Being a national icon would be in addition not an either or.
CapM
If the cape where kept in Wales it would be presented as a national icon (of Wales) and as a result more people would become aware of it globally than will do so if it stays in the BM in London.
AH
Obviously, this is not true. We’re only talking about it because of the exceptional way the BM has presented the object to the world. NMW told me they have no plans for any broadcaster collaborations. The BM has it featured in one of Radio 4’s biggest broadcasts of the year.
CapM
I don’t think a 14 minute slot on radio four does the cape justice myself. After it’s 14 minute of fame it will have to once again compete for visitor attention with a hundred and more internationally important objects in the BM.
CapM
We should be looking out for our interests instead of giving it up for poor liitle London.
AH
Except that the object is not “yours” to exploit in that way any more than any other object in the BM is yours. It is in the custody of the institution that single-handedly restored it. You cannot simply help yourself to objects you like the look of. Sorry.
CapM
In my post last night I pointed out that this is a strawman, perhaps the moderator assumed that I was angry about it and assumed that my reference to the Mold cape not being part of a“Pick n Mix” was made aggressively. Nowhere have I suggested that I think I the NMW has claim to random objects held at the BM or any other museum. As far as I am concerned my posts have been specific to the Mold cape.
The staff of the BM restored the cape but they did so with UK money and UK experts. Either their main reason was they did it for the good of mankind or they did it for the good of BM. If the former there is no case apart from care /security/ presentation why it shouldn’t be kept in another UK museum the obvious option being the national museum of the UK nation the object was found in.
If the later then of course they want to keep hold of it, but it about possession and the benefits that brings the museum rather than any highly principled reasons.
The prehistoric gold route ran from Ireland via Anglesey and North Wales cutting through England to come out somewhere in East Anglia if I recall correctly, with Mold lying directly on that route. Anglesey controlled the passage of gold from Ireland which is why it later became the centre of the Druid world up until 61 AD, or so the theory goes, so there is an historical as well as a geographical link with North Wales.
Having said that I don’t subscribe to the idea that any nation has a claim to it. There’s a difference between something that is an historic national treasure and something that is a prehistoric national treasure, no matter how iconic the latter may become. Prehistoric national treasures are only nominally “national”. In reality they are part of a global patrimony, and in this instance the cape is in a very real sense part of a shared European patrimony.
But even as a nominally Welsh national treasure and/or icon, surely a duplicate is as good as the real thing?
I mean, you only need the genuine article if you’re going to make a scientific study of it, and you only need to move it if the facilities necessary for such studies are located somewhere other than the museum where the item is housed.
CapM
This will be the last time I address your remarks as I honestly think we are going around in circles. I respect what you say, and the consistency with which you have said it, but I just don’t agree with many of your arguments. In turn, these are:
1. You say that the question of where the cape should be located is “a draw” (i.e nowhere in particular has a particular claim based on the origins of the object). I agree. In that case, we have to default to different criteria. I vote for the institution that reassembled the item and which is doing it justice in the way it is presenting it.
2. You say it would have “permanent star billing” in Cardiff and would generate income. As important an object as the cape is, I believe you overstate its popular appeal. I believe it will be brought to more people’s attention in the way the BM is doing it. At some point in the future, I see no reason why NMW could not borrow and exhibit the object, but on grounds of presentation and care I see no case for permanently moving it.
3. You say it could be presented as a national icon, as well as an item of global significance. I say that to present this as something Welsh would be an archaeological error.
4. You suggest that the cape’s billing in AHOTW amounts to 14 minutes on one radio broadcast. This is obviously wrong, and the fact of this discussion is testament to the widening of knowledge about the cape and its background. I do not believe that NMW – as excellent an institution as it is – could give the cape this sort of prominence.
5. You appear to believe that the question of the Cape’s location is somehow up for grabs, and that the decision is between Cardiff and London, with no presumption one way or the other. This is wrong. The item is on display in London and has a home there by default. In order to have it moved you have to make a positive case for it to be moved. Your arguments for national icon status and so on do not convince me. In the absence of other arguments you are, in effect, saying “I like the look of this item, so therefore it should be in the place I want it to be”. That is not a serious basis for a case for moving it. You keep saying things like “there is no reason why it shouldn’t be moved”, but you have presented few solid arguments as to why it should be moved.
That’s it from me on our two-way discussion. Thanks for participating and for helping to generate a good debate.
Adam
We have both put forward arguments to back up our differing opinions.
I don’t think I have misrepresented your arguments ( I hope I haven’t anyway) to boost my own.
However in your 3 -
“3. You say it could be presented as a national icon, as well as an item of global significance. I say that to present this as something Welsh would be an archaeological error.”
I have not said that the cape is something Welsh.
and in your 5 -
“you are, in effect, saying “I like the look of this item, so therefore it should be in the place I want it to be”.”
I have already addressed this once. I am only presenting a case for the artifact the Mold cape to be kept in Cardiff and this is because it was found Wales. If it had been dug up a few miles away across the border in Cheshire we would never have had his discussion.
The artefact can be viewed at Wrexham County Borough Museum, if information at http://www.wrexham.gov.uk/assets/pdfs/museum/treasures/moldcape_e.pdf is up to date.
Readers might like to know that the AHOTW tackled the Elgin/Parthernon Marbles on Tuesday, and broached the question of where they should be in a completely even-handed way.
Most of the broadcast was concerned with what the particular sculpture – Centaur fighting a Lapith – said about the development of Greek statecraft. As always, well worth 14 minutes of your life.
The Mold Cape is facinating! I have enjoyed reading about it! All of the ancient artifacts facinate me!
I tend to favor that objects found within a country should be displayed and cared for within that country. Though the investment by the British Museum can not be deminished in this instance, for though it was found in Wales it’s restoration was funded by the BM. Prehaps shared “ownership”?
As for the Parthernon Marbles and other antiquities, I tend to favor repatration if the home country has the facilities to house, display, and care for them with a degree of professionalism.
Repatriation of museum artefacts.
Be careful what you wish for or those lovely Impressionist pictures that form a part of the Davies Sister’s collection will be winging their way back to France and other parts of Northern Europe – can’t argue with the provenance there. It is the nature of Museums to collect things. Please do not blame them for the sins of their sometimes imperial fathers. I would suggest we accept the past and move on from where we are now. The Cape is in a safe place seen by millions. How local do you want? Perhaps it would be better in Mold. There are all sorts of things that we should treasure more that we have here already – probably less than 10% of what is in NMGW’s stores get a chance to be on display.
Incidentally, the Cape (jaw droppingly wonderful) was in Cardiff just a couple of years ago on tour as part of the BM’s policy to get its antiquities out and about more. I guess this costs quite a bit of money.
Incidentally, the Origin’s Gallery is superb – a great update on the old archaeology galleries and a fine addition to the Evolution of Wales showpiece which my kids actually prefer to the Natural History Museum in London. There is talk that it should move to St Fagan’s – I would prefer to see it in the centre of Cardiff but that is, of course, for my own convenience.
Very good points.