Tweet
BRITISH MUSEUM: WE ARE VERY AWARE THAT ANCIENT TURKEY IS NONSENSICAL FROM A HISTORICAL POINT OF VIEW
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=4CD7C330-7B8D-11E2-AE98F6327207157C
Wednesday, February 20, 21:36
The British Museum has responded to the letter of the Forum of Armenian
Associations of Europe (FAAE), where the forum protests against the
use of Ancient Turkey name for the museum's room 54 and suggests
renaming the room into Urartu, Ancient Armenia.
In its response to FAAE, the Museum's keeper Jonathan N. Tubb says:
"The name of this room was determined within a wider re- signage
project designed to encompass the whole museum. The design team aimed
to make the Museum's signage as simple and accessible as possible
and avoid terms that would not be immediately apparent to non-English
speakers; as many of our visitors come here from abroad. Room 54 did
cause some problems as there was a strong feeling among non-curatorial
staff that its previous name (Ancient Anatolia) did not immediately
convey what was in the room. Our curators however, are very aware
that Ancient Turkey is nonsensical from a historical point of view
and so the naming of this room was the subject of much debate, and
continues as such.
Your suggestion that the entire room be re-named Urartu, Ancient
Armenia's problematic as the objects within room 54 cover a very
wide range of time periods and cultures from the Neolithic to the
Iron Age. Only thirty-five per cent of the total display consists of
Urartian artifacts, and therefore your suggestion would also be a
misrepresentation of the total contents of the room. The strongest
link between the objects displayed in room 54 is their geographical
association with the area of the modern Republic of Turkey. Of the
total of 142 objects in the gallery, 113 were found in locations
within the boundaries of modern Turkey. Fifteen objects were found
in Iraq but originated within the boundaries of modern Turkey. One
Urartian artifact is from a location within the modern Republic of
Armenia and five are from modern Iran; all are clearly labeled as
such. Eight objects from the Urartian collection shown in case 6
do not have a certain provenance but, being Urartian, have as much
likelihood of coming from the geographical area of modern Iran or
Turkey as from modern Armenia.
Your concern appears to be primarily the concealment of Armenian
culture through the use of modern geographical terminology. You cited
the example of Armenian carpets being displayed as Turkish art and
state that the Urartian display is part of this phenomenon. As I said
earlier, the use of current geographical terms by the British Museum
is designed solely for clarity.
When borders or country titles change we will change accordingly.
The use of the title' Ancient' before the word Turkey is key in
conveying to our visitors that the objects they see are not cultural
Turkish. In writing the labels for the galley we have used the
following period/culture terms in order to emphasize the range of
cultures represented within the space: Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age,
Middle Bronze Age, Greek-6th century BC, Halaf, Hittite, Iron Age,
Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Hittite, Old Assyrian, Old Hittite, Phrygian,
Carian, Lydian, Post Old Assyrian colony and Urartian.
I would stress that we do not claim these ancient cultures are
in any way Turkish and would also suggest they are not Armenian
either. Even though the Urartian artifacts, do have a strong link to
the geographical region of Ancient Armenia they pre-date the rule of
Armenian kings (the Orontid dynasty) in that area; an aspect that is
discussed on the information panel next to the Urartian display case.
The issue of a title for room 54 is very complex and we are glad
to receive your comments on this subject. I hope this letter can
assure you that the current title was not decided upon lightly and
continues to be a subject of discussion. We do understand that the
term' Ancient Turkey' is nonsensical and also that Armenian identity
is important. The problem remains however that our visitors use modern
geographical references to decide which parts of the collection they
wish to see and the labels used need to reflect this in the most
simplest and accessible way possible. We are currently considering
the on-going issues associated with this gallery, which includes its
title if as a result of these discussions there is any change to the
name we will inform you of this as a matter of priority.
I should like to point out also that we have a very good and close
relationship with our Armenian colleagues. We recently had the pleasure
of meeting the Armenian Minister of Culture and Armenian Ambassador to
London here at the British Museum to discuss potential collaborative
projects including possible exhibitions here on ancient Armenia."
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=4CD7C330-7B8D-11E2-AE98F6327207157C
Wednesday, February 20, 21:36
The British Museum has responded to the letter of the Forum of Armenian
Associations of Europe (FAAE), where the forum protests against the
use of Ancient Turkey name for the museum's room 54 and suggests
renaming the room into Urartu, Ancient Armenia.
In its response to FAAE, the Museum's keeper Jonathan N. Tubb says:
"The name of this room was determined within a wider re- signage
project designed to encompass the whole museum. The design team aimed
to make the Museum's signage as simple and accessible as possible
and avoid terms that would not be immediately apparent to non-English
speakers; as many of our visitors come here from abroad. Room 54 did
cause some problems as there was a strong feeling among non-curatorial
staff that its previous name (Ancient Anatolia) did not immediately
convey what was in the room. Our curators however, are very aware
that Ancient Turkey is nonsensical from a historical point of view
and so the naming of this room was the subject of much debate, and
continues as such.
Your suggestion that the entire room be re-named Urartu, Ancient
Armenia's problematic as the objects within room 54 cover a very
wide range of time periods and cultures from the Neolithic to the
Iron Age. Only thirty-five per cent of the total display consists of
Urartian artifacts, and therefore your suggestion would also be a
misrepresentation of the total contents of the room. The strongest
link between the objects displayed in room 54 is their geographical
association with the area of the modern Republic of Turkey. Of the
total of 142 objects in the gallery, 113 were found in locations
within the boundaries of modern Turkey. Fifteen objects were found
in Iraq but originated within the boundaries of modern Turkey. One
Urartian artifact is from a location within the modern Republic of
Armenia and five are from modern Iran; all are clearly labeled as
such. Eight objects from the Urartian collection shown in case 6
do not have a certain provenance but, being Urartian, have as much
likelihood of coming from the geographical area of modern Iran or
Turkey as from modern Armenia.
Your concern appears to be primarily the concealment of Armenian
culture through the use of modern geographical terminology. You cited
the example of Armenian carpets being displayed as Turkish art and
state that the Urartian display is part of this phenomenon. As I said
earlier, the use of current geographical terms by the British Museum
is designed solely for clarity.
When borders or country titles change we will change accordingly.
The use of the title' Ancient' before the word Turkey is key in
conveying to our visitors that the objects they see are not cultural
Turkish. In writing the labels for the galley we have used the
following period/culture terms in order to emphasize the range of
cultures represented within the space: Chalcolithic, Early Bronze Age,
Middle Bronze Age, Greek-6th century BC, Halaf, Hittite, Iron Age,
Neo-Assyrian, Neo-Hittite, Old Assyrian, Old Hittite, Phrygian,
Carian, Lydian, Post Old Assyrian colony and Urartian.
I would stress that we do not claim these ancient cultures are
in any way Turkish and would also suggest they are not Armenian
either. Even though the Urartian artifacts, do have a strong link to
the geographical region of Ancient Armenia they pre-date the rule of
Armenian kings (the Orontid dynasty) in that area; an aspect that is
discussed on the information panel next to the Urartian display case.
The issue of a title for room 54 is very complex and we are glad
to receive your comments on this subject. I hope this letter can
assure you that the current title was not decided upon lightly and
continues to be a subject of discussion. We do understand that the
term' Ancient Turkey' is nonsensical and also that Armenian identity
is important. The problem remains however that our visitors use modern
geographical references to decide which parts of the collection they
wish to see and the labels used need to reflect this in the most
simplest and accessible way possible. We are currently considering
the on-going issues associated with this gallery, which includes its
title if as a result of these discussions there is any change to the
name we will inform you of this as a matter of priority.
I should like to point out also that we have a very good and close
relationship with our Armenian colleagues. We recently had the pleasure
of meeting the Armenian Minister of Culture and Armenian Ambassador to
London here at the British Museum to discuss potential collaborative
projects including possible exhibitions here on ancient Armenia."
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress