Comments on: Archival Incidents, or What is it with Pictures? http://www.froginawell.net/japan/2008/05/archival-incidents/ The Japan History Group Blog Wed, 03 Mar 2010 03:08:31 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Jonathan Dresner http://www.froginawell.net/japan/2008/05/archival-incidents/comment-page-1/#comment-132856 Jonathan Dresner Wed, 14 May 2008 17:50:33 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/japan/?p=380#comment-132856 I really didn't mean to imply that there was any nefarious intent to the error, though I can see how the context may have given that impression. Merely that these sorts of errors seem to be shockingly common and that we are not terribly well equipped to deal with them. I really didn’t mean to imply that there was any nefarious intent to the error, though I can see how the context may have given that impression. Merely that these sorts of errors seem to be shockingly common and that we are not terribly well equipped to deal with them.

]]> By: peacay http://www.froginawell.net/japan/2008/05/archival-incidents/comment-page-1/#comment-132775 peacay Wed, 14 May 2008 09:47:35 +0000 http://www.froginawell.net/japan/?p=380#comment-132775 One thing in Princeton's defense, which they plainly advise, is that the set of prints was given to them as a pre-formed collection from an old student. So one can criticise Princeton for not providing individual commentary on each print perhaps, but the inclusion of an outlier map (to be diplomatic about it) wasn't obviously intentional on their part. I'm not saying there wasn't necessarily carelessness or that it was not properly researched - those situations may also be true - but this is one instance where I can imagine a fairly innocent chain of events/decisions contributing to the map turning up in the Xinhai Revolution collection. I think I'll drop them a line anyway. Thanks again Jonathan. One thing in Princeton’s defense, which they plainly advise, is that the set of prints was given to them as a pre-formed collection from an old student.

So one can criticise Princeton for not providing individual commentary on each print perhaps, but the inclusion of an outlier map (to be diplomatic about it) wasn’t obviously intentional on their part.

I’m not saying there wasn’t necessarily carelessness or that it was not properly researched – those situations may also be true – but this is one instance where I can imagine a fairly innocent chain of events/decisions contributing to the map turning up in the Xinhai Revolution collection. I think I’ll drop them a line anyway. Thanks again Jonathan.

]]>