Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

coldcynic t1_iuo0zr9 wrote

Reply to comment by MasterFubar in Objects on display in the Louvre by date of creation [OC] by df_iris

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.

13

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.

0

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.

6