This week I wrote a paper for my technology class on the Lycurgus cup, a fourth century Roman cage cup. This cup is quite special as it is the only complete example of a figural cage cup, and also the only complete example of dichroic glass (it changes colours depending on where the light comes from– how neat is that?!)
For the paper we have to discuss the artifact, the technology associated with its production, and of course, the context and history of that artifact.
Well, this was the short section of the paper. The cup is first attested to in the mid 19th century in France, shortly afterwards it was bought by the Rothschild family, in the late 1950s Lord Rothschild brought the cup back into public light for it to be examined, and a short while later the cup became part of the collection in the British Museum.
This is all we have for its provenience and its provenance. While we can date the cup to within a reasonable time period and can speculate its country of origin, we have no real idea of whether it was looted in antiquity or in the 1600s, but I would say it was most definitely looted, at some point.
Which brings us to the questions of: Should these looted items receive so much publicity, or is that encouraging modern-day looting? Does it matter for the purpose of academic study if it was looted in the 1800s, or is that so long ago that we don't really care anymore? And on the same note, should I be writing about it in my paper, or should I have focused on another cage cup (fascinating glass artifacts!) with better provenance?
I don't know if I have outright stated this before, but this cultural heritage and ethics in archaeology class has had a meaningful impact on the way I see things, and I think it's safe to say that I'm not the only one affected. I know yesterday at our Gradate Proseminar there were at least two of us who were ready to get into a discussion about the ideas being talked about (theories) in terms of cultural heritage and ethics.
Last year, I could've written the exact same paper and just thought "What a bummer, I don't have that much to write about for the context because it's unknown" and that would have been it. Now, I know better (or at least I think I do...).
 |
| Lycurgus cup in both colours, greenish and reddish |
Well, this was the short section of the paper. The cup is first attested to in the mid 19th century in France, shortly afterwards it was bought by the Rothschild family, in the late 1950s Lord Rothschild brought the cup back into public light for it to be examined, and a short while later the cup became part of the collection in the British Museum.
This is all we have for its provenience and its provenance. While we can date the cup to within a reasonable time period and can speculate its country of origin, we have no real idea of whether it was looted in antiquity or in the 1600s, but I would say it was most definitely looted, at some point.
Which brings us to the questions of: Should these looted items receive so much publicity, or is that encouraging modern-day looting? Does it matter for the purpose of academic study if it was looted in the 1800s, or is that so long ago that we don't really care anymore? And on the same note, should I be writing about it in my paper, or should I have focused on another cage cup (fascinating glass artifacts!) with better provenance?
I don't know if I have outright stated this before, but this cultural heritage and ethics in archaeology class has had a meaningful impact on the way I see things, and I think it's safe to say that I'm not the only one affected. I know yesterday at our Gradate Proseminar there were at least two of us who were ready to get into a discussion about the ideas being talked about (theories) in terms of cultural heritage and ethics.
Last year, I could've written the exact same paper and just thought "What a bummer, I don't have that much to write about for the context because it's unknown" and that would have been it. Now, I know better (or at least I think I do...).
Can you know a little more by knowing who it had belonged to in France? The first known possessor? Was he a collector? Traveller? Courtier? Just wondering... But I'm sure people have tried to solve the mystery?
ReplyDelete