Objects on display in the Louvre by date of creation [OC]Submitted by df_iris t3_yjbd04 in dataisbeautiful
TheFinestPotatoes t1_iumybwg wrote
Reply to comment by IvanIsOnReddit in Objects on display in the Louvre by date of creation [OC] by df_iris
They don’t call it the Dark Ages for nothing
685327593 t1_iun07hh wrote
Would be interesting to compare the Louvre (a European museum) to The National Museum of China. The profile might be quite different given the highs and lows of Chinese history compared to European history.
South_Data2898 t1_iupey98 wrote
There might be more Chinese historical objects at the National Palace Museum in Taiwan.
China went through a pretty hardcore "no fuck you dad" phase around the mid 20th century and destroyed a lot of stuff.
coldcynic t1_iunmw2o wrote
No self-respecting historian has called them that in decades.
KmartQuality t1_iunn28t wrote
This isn't r/askhistorians
coldcynic t1_iunnbdo wrote
And how is that a reason to promote long-disproved notions?
MasterFubar t1_iuo06fr wrote
Then explain the gap. Are you saying no self-respecting historian works at the Louvre?
coldcynic t1_iuo0zr9 wrote
Very few historians, for a start. Custodians and art historians are a different category.
The gap reflects what's on display rather than what's held by the museum. The display is shaped by the pop history tastes of the public. Not to mention the Louvre simply specialises in the periods more known to the average tourist. Also, if you actually look at the graph, the late Roman period is the true nadir, followed by the period after Justinian's conquests. If this were an objective representstion of history, the contemporary Islamic and Chinese displays would have to be enormous.
MasterFubar t1_iuo2w6x wrote
The deepest part of the graph is in the 400s, when Rome was sacked, that's when the Dark Ages started. There's a very clear gap in this graph, from the year 200 to 1200. You can't say that this is simply because the average tourist isn't interested in this period. Just look at how many books, films and video games have medieval themes.
Another clear gap is at the Bronze Age collapse, around 1000 BCE. Historians have several different explanations for this collapse, none of them very satisfactory. It is a fact that civilizations collapse from time to time and historians don't have any consistent theory to explain why.
coldcynic t1_iuo48vh wrote
And that's why it doesn't really correlate. In the late 400s, East Rome and the Sassanids were doing just fine, not to mention the "Barbarian" kingdoms. And when you integrate periods, the gap around 476 smooths out. No-one even knew it when Rome fell, it was just a period of increased turmoil and slow institutional decline which was repeatedly slowed down and reversed. At any rate, we're talking about calling the Middle Ages the Dark Ages. The Medieval period wasn't even properly started when we see the lowest portions of the graph.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments