The decline and/or rise of the historical museum

[BjornP]

I love a good museum. It doesn't take much to get me interested in anything old. I'd rather see things being used than in glass cabinets though. There's something a bit sad about seeing something like a vintage car or warplane mothballed in a museum never to be driven or flown ever again.
A Spitfire sat in a hanger is never going to inspire the same feeling of awe as one flying past at 350mph, 100ft above your head.

I sort of agree, but at some stage that machine needs to be in a museum and someone else build a replica Spitfire that can do aerial stunts. A Spitfire that actually fought in WW2, that killed the enemy pilots that bombed Britain,.. I don't think that ought to be used as showpieces. It's history is more than just the metal, the bolts, the machine, it's the men who fought in it. A replica does the same thing if all you want is to be inspired. Also, a historical artifact obviously can survive longer if it's not used... So again: Replicas.

[BjornP]

the sign's quoting a primary source who was there.

Isham G. Harris.

The Governor of Tennessee, serving as a volunteer aide-de-camp on General Johnston's staff at Shiloh.

Thanks, couldn't read it clearly enough.

[Smitty-48]

the sign's quoting a primary source who was there.

Isham G. Harris.

The Governor of Tennessee, serving as a volunteer aide-de-camp on General Johnston's staff at Shiloh.

Thanks, couldn't read it clearly enough.

Me neither, but I know the story well. Shiloh Church, the point of no return in the Civil War.

[Speaker to Animals]

When the museum opens up the back to the public it is pretty cool. I found a meteorite once and was curious what kind it was. A lady at the Chicago Museum of Science and Industry invited me to bring it in. She took us back into their labs, shaved a piece off it, and showed us their process for identification.

The fake immersive interaction doesn't interest me.

It does seem to me that archeologists and historians have a lot of untapped free labor where people might want to volunteer and help out with digs and doing lab work. Maybe they are just thinking about it completely wrong. Instead of a museum where people go to look at artifacts, maybe become an institution where people can get involved in history and archeology. Who here doesn't want to spend a weekend digging dinosaur bones if you have the time to spend on it?

Some archaeologists, mostly those at bigger museums, don't want volunteers to some extent because of the risk of theft, but mostly simply because volunteers might inadvertently destroy something. Other museums, and other archaeologists are fine with it, though, as long as the volunteers have understood their instructions. As a way to introduce people to how museums work behind the scenes and beyond what's exhibited, it's a great way to both educate and involve people in history, I agree.

In South Carolina (that's where you currently live, right?) I found this:

https://www.islandpacket.com/news/state ... 60574.html

Outdated by now, but it seems your archaeologists can be flexible, as well. Also:

https://discoversouthcarolina.com/artic ... -dig-sites

What you can do:Charles Towne Landing has an active volunteer program for anyone interested in archaeology. There are archaeology programs and excavations are open to visitors.

Of note: The findings have helped the park recreate a portion of the 17th century palisade and earthen fortifications. Charles Towne Landing is now planning a large-scale excavation to provide research needed to recreate the palisade wall built by the Charles Towne residents during the early years of the settlement.

https://southcarolinaparks.com/products/10003566

Dig into history at Charles Towne Landing State Historic Site. Discover how archaeologists see beyond written records and learn about past cultures based on artifacts left behind by visiting with our archaeologist and professionals from historically significant sites. Join us for “Piecing Together the Past with Archaeology” for a firsthand look at Charles Towne Landing’s archaeological resources and discover the history revealed below the surface.

DETAILS
October 19, 2019, 11:00 AM - 4:00 PM

When it comes to stuff like lab work or registering the provenance of historical artifacts that's not something for volunteers who only show up one weekend. Uncovering provenance of artifacts can sometimes take days, or weeks depending on where it's from and if you need outside professional insight or not. But while volunteers shouldn't be in overall charge of the registration, they could assist in finding, for example, the archival data required to give context to a historical artifact's provenance. That could shave time off the process. But in order for that to work optimally, the volunteer would need to coordinate when they can work with the registrar. And that's when volunteer work may start to look a little too much like regular work. As most Danish museum volunteers are pensioners, there's a physical limit to how many hours one can expect them to take on. Not sure about the average age of museum volunteers in the US, though.

Volunteers at our museum together with the now retired museum's old curator did however rebuild, and were trained in maintaining an old, nearly collapsed Dutch windmill near my place of work in the 80's. Today the museum pays for upkeep and materials, but since it was the volunteers themselves that took the initiative to get the old mill up and running again (it produces flour that we sell at our museum), it's also the volunteers that formally own the mill, do minor repairs, and do tours. I think two of them have jobs, but the rest are all retired. No one there under 60. though.

Those are cool stories. Thanks. Charleston is about a four hour drive from here. I live in Western North Carolina. The South Carolina border is not far from here, though. My family roots go back to South Carolina from my grandfather back through to the second half of the 1600s when the colony kicked off.

I get your point about the risks, and I would be really, really hesitant to allow random people anywhere near rare artifacts they could destroy, but I think there is something to be said for training people to be historians and archeologists on the job like that. Just have a robust intake program to weed out people in background checks. Then cycle them through some training programs. Put them to work on the least risky things first and let them advance to more important work over time.

Also maybe let people break off and do some of their own work for the museums and universities on their own time. Here in the Southern Appalachian mountains, I bet you there are a ton of unexplored sites around that are recorded but that historians never had the time to look through.

[Montegriffo]

I love a good museum. It doesn't take much to get me interested in anything old. I'd rather see things being used than in glass cabinets though. There's something a bit sad about seeing something like a vintage car or warplane mothballed in a museum never to be driven or flown ever again.
A Spitfire sat in a hanger is never going to inspire the same feeling of awe as one flying past at 350mph, 100ft above your head.

I sort of agree, but at some stage that machine needs to be in a museum and someone else build a replica Spitfire that can do aerial stunts. A Spitfire that actually fought in WW2, that killed the enemy pilots that bombed Britain,.. I don't think that ought to be used as showpieces. It's history is more than just the metal, the bolts, the machine, it's the men who fought in it. A replica does the same thing if all you want is to be inspired. Also, a historical artifact obviously can survive longer if it's not used... So again: Replicas.

There are around 240 Spitfires around the world. Around 60 still flying, 70 in static displays and 110 either in storage or being actively restored.
There is currently no need to start making replicas.
The cost of building an accurate replica would exceed that of restoring one of the originals still existing.
The number of airworthy examples is going up not down. Around 20 years ago Britain only had 13 but there are now 30.
Those still flying require constant maintenance and replacement of parts, they are often more new than old. It's like the broom you've had for 40 years which has had 13 new handles and 9 new brushes.
The longer they can be kept flying the better. As many people can see them at airshows and displays as can see them in museums. Maybe more.
For me, it's like the difference between seeing an elephant in the wild or one in a zoo.

[Smitty-48]

The Spitfire is the most overrated fighter of World War Two

Turning performance was actually poor, also didn't roll well.

Basically a single role interceptor, it could climb, it could dive, that's about it,

People loved it for its looks, but the performance was actually meh.

[Speaker to Animals]

Your big problem is that flying them risks a lot. To keep them flying, you are basically replacing much of the aircraft over time to the point where it's not really the original. Aircraft hours add up fast and that means a lot of shit starts needing replacement to keep it flying. It's not really worth it if you care about having original Spitfires for British children a hundred years from now.

You are talking about aircraft that helped save your island from conquest. It's kind of important to preserve them.

[Smitty-48]

The Spitfire didn't save Britain, America did.

The legend of the Spitfire is mostly bullshit.

It wasn't actually all it is cracked up to be and it was quickly supplanted as an air superiority platform except in secondary theaters,

Hurricane did most of the work, Spitfire got all the credit.

[Montegriffo]

Your big problem is that flying them risks a lot. To keep them flying, you are basically replacing much of the aircraft over time to the point where it's not really the original. Aircraft hours add up fast and that means a lot of shit starts needing replacement to keep it flying. It's not really worth it if you care about having original Spitfires for British children a hundred years from now.

You are talking about aircraft that helped save your island from conquest. It's kind of important to preserve them.

Hence the fact that the majority of them are not flying.
Those still flying are no longer ''originals'' anyway, keep them in the air so that people can get the thrill of hearing the engines roar and watching them dive, roll and loop the loop.
It brings a lump to my throat every time I have the privilege of experiencing it.
I saw the Grace Spitfire many times when working on films at Bentwaters airbase.





ML407 had the first recorded kill on D-Day and served in the Irish airforce as a training aircraft after the war when it was converted to a 2 seater.
For around £1200 you can go up for a half-hour flight.

[Smitty-48]

This is why museums are lame, they propagate myths and then people like Monty drink the kool-aid

The Spitfire should be in the Museum of Most Overrated Planes.

The fawning over the Spitfire is pathetic.

The BF109 was better, the advantage the RAF had was more fuel and early warning.

Most of the British narrative in World War Two is bullshit, one big lie after the next.

If you're going to give the British credit for anything in the war, it's deception, they were the best liars.

The masters of phony baloney. The Germans were far too credulous, that's why they lost.