“There are instances where display items are intentionally damaged, and such cases are treated with great severity, including involving the police,” Lihi Laszlo from the museum told the BBC. “In this case, however, this was not the situation. The jar was accidentally damaged by a young child visiting the museum, and the response will be accordingly.”
They really do get it. They saw it as a risk and accepted it and when the risk manifested itself, they took it in stride and even invited the family back for a guided tour.
While I appreciate that approach and think it is a great policy… For things like this I feel like the original should be displayed, but protected and a replica be available for patrons to touch and approach closely. Especially something so rare to find in such good condition. Just make it clear that the replica is a replica specifically so they can touch it and get a good look without risking damage.
Hiding things behind glass isn’t the best experience, but extremely rare artifacts also need to be protected. Replicas, properly disclosed with an explanation why, are a good compromise.
deleted by creator
They really do get it. They saw it as a risk and accepted it and when the risk manifested itself, they took it in stride and even invited the family back for a guided tour.
While I appreciate that approach and think it is a great policy… For things like this I feel like the original should be displayed, but protected and a replica be available for patrons to touch and approach closely. Especially something so rare to find in such good condition. Just make it clear that the replica is a replica specifically so they can touch it and get a good look without risking damage.
Hiding things behind glass isn’t the best experience, but extremely rare artifacts also need to be protected. Replicas, properly disclosed with an explanation why, are a good compromise.