Talk:Conservation issues of Pompeii and Herculaneum
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Stabiae and the Villa Poppaea
Seeing as both Stabiae and the Villa Poppaea are part of the Vesuvius National Park, are under the control of the same governing body of Pompeii and Herculaneum, and suffer from similar problems, I would love to expand this article to include them. However, I have very little knowledge on these sites and even less on the conservation aspects of them, so if anyone could help me out, it would be much appreciated! Lord Pheasant 23:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Move
Wouldn't a more appropriate title be Conservation Issues of Pomeii and Herculaneum? Atropos 06:14, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Probably, but I'd hold out on changing it untill information from Stabiae and the villa poppaea is added so we don't have to do it twice. --Lord Pheasant 22:30, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
Hey - do you have any references for the information you've posted on thie conservation page? I'm trying to write an essay on this very subject and if you had any references you really could save my life. Cheers
[edit] Early Excavations
This article reports the widely circulated myth of the destructiveness of the early excavations. In truth, the early archeology was incredibly precise, to the point where Rocco Gioacchino de Alcubierre and his team recorded absolutely every artifact's original location, with precise dating and mapping of the early sites. The myth of their destructiveness was circulated by a notable scholar who was disgruntled because he was not allowed into the site. For example, the infamous bronze letters were not pried off of some structure, but found scattered across the whole city. While it is true that de Alcubierre was primarily sent to gather items, his work created the precise methodology of modern archeology, and slander of his notable achievements should not be reprinted as fact.
To correct this monumental error would require the total revision of the section, so I post my reasons here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.32.67.206 (talk) 22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC).
[edit] loss of quality and clarity from flash photography
As soon as I read the claim in this article that "Flash photography also causes a slow decline in the quality and clarity of paintings", the bullshit detectors started going off. A typical photo-flash has millisecond, or less, duration. You would need tens of thousands, or more, per day to equal even a single second of 'normal' illumination. A quick check at google shows that at least one person has asked the same thing:
and he quotes an argument, from someone who appears to do conversation work, the position is indeed without merit:
http://palimpsest.stanford.edu/byform/mailing-lists/cdl/1996/0724.html
So I'm asking someone to document the claims being made in this article. mdf 16:01, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
