Paper 1: The Coudenberg Archaeological Site in Brussels: The Stakeholders Involved in the Renovation Process

Abstract

The last material evidence of the former Palace of Brussels, the Coudenberg archaeological site, is situated at the heart of the city, constitutes a remarkable part of its heritage, and has been listed as a legally protected monument. Following the redevelopment of the Royal Quarter in the eighteenth century, the successive archaeological discoveries of the last twenty-five years, and the progressive growth of the areas accessible to the public, the various components of the site have not all been preserved in the same condition. The work involved in developing such a complex has already necessitated considerable resources, and still requires more today. The owners, the City of Brussels and the Brussels-Capital Region, as well as the site’s managers, the not-for-profit association ‘Palais de Charles Quint’, are continuing their programme of developing, promoting, and preserving the remains in order to hand down this important historical evidence to future generations.     

Mapping Spain in the Sixteenth Century: The Escorial Atlas and Pedro de Esquivel’s Notebook

ABSTRACT

The twenty-one maps of Spain that comprise the Escorial atlas (El atlas de El Escorial) and the later notebook compiled by Pedro de Esquivel for another map of Spain have long been confused. Recently identified documents in the Royal Library, Stockholm, have allowed us to recognize the two works as completely separate and to shed new light on each. In this article we describe their respective histories, starting with the Escorial atlas, now known to have been commissioned by Emperor Charles V from the Sevillian cosmographer Alonso de Santa Cruz, who between c.1538 and 1545 produced an index map and 20 regional sheets drawn to the scale of 1:400 000. We then go on to show how, later in the century (between c.1552 and 1565), Pedro de Esquivel was using a version of the topographical methods described in Peter Apian’s Cosmographia to assemble data for the map of Spain commissioned by Philip II before and just after he became king in 1556. Esquivel died in 1565 before all the data had been collected, his map was never drawn, and his notebooks, with all his astronomical measurements and calculations of angles and distances, took a curious journey that ended in Stockholm in the archives of the Royal Library of Sweden.     

纸质文物的无损和微损分析技术及应用评价

纸质文物的保护、修复和鉴定工作需要对纸张和写印材料的构成、成分及年代进行分析。随着对纸质文物保护的重视程度不断提高,无损和微损分析技术相较于有损分析更加受到关注。本文梳理了用于纸质文物无损和微损分析的一系列相关技术,包括原子力显微镜分析、显微共聚焦拉曼光谱法、X射线光电子能谱法、光导纤维反射光谱法、太赫兹光谱法、微计算机断层扫描、表面解吸常压化学电离质谱法、飞行时间二次离子质谱法、热裂解气相色谱-质谱法、加速器质谱法、近红外光谱法结合化学计量学(主成分分析)或人工智能算法(卷积神经网络)等,并对其在纸质文物的原料鉴别、染料成分及年代分析等方面的应用发展进行了展望。纸质文物研究涉及多个学科,通过这些分析技术与实际工作的深入融合、学术交流的加强以及相关标准研究的推动,纸质文物保护、修复和鉴定工作的快速发展将得到有力的促进。     

Darwin’s missing links

The historical process underlying Darwin’s Origin of Species (Origin) did not play a significant role in the early editions of the book, in spite of the particular inductivist scientific methodology it espoused. Darwin’s masterpiece did not adequately provide his sources or the historical perspective many contemporary critics expected. Later editions yielded the ‘Historical Sketch’ lacking in the earlier editions, but only under critical pressure. Notwithstanding the sources he provided, Darwin presented the Origin as an ‘abstract’ in order to avoid giving sources; a compromise he acknowledged and undertook to set right in later editions, yet failed to provide throughout the six editions under his supervision. Darwin’s reluctance to publish the historical context of his theory and his sources, particularly sources which were also ‘precursors’, may be attributed as much to the matter of intellectual ownership as science, or even good literary practice. Of special concern to Darwin were issues of priority or originality over ‘descent with modification’ and especially over Natural Selection. Many later historians have argued that Darwin was unaware of the work of his precursors on Natural Selection. Darwin’s theory was an example of independent discovery, albeit along with such obscure precursors as Matthew or Wells, who were unknown to Darwin until after the publication of the Origin. Both Matthew and Wells had a medical education, like James Hutton or Erasmus Darwin earlier in the eighteenth century, or even (in part) Charles Darwin. Evolutionary theory, at least in Britain was a product largely of the medical evolutionists rather than the natural historians which ‘history’ has chosen to select for the focus of attention; and among the medical evolutionists the figure of John Hunter stands out as theorist, experimentalist and teacher: the medical evolutionists were predominantly the product of Hunter’s legacy or of the medical profession and particularly the Scottish Universities. Much recent Darwin scholarship has focused on the private Notebooks, to establish Darwin’s discovery of Natural Selection around 1837–1838 and demonstrate Darwin’s ignorance of his precursors; requiring an explicit acknowledgement by Darwin as the legitimate substantiation of any claim to prior influence. The precursors have been categorized as uniformly obscure or irrelevant to the science of evolution which may be defined exclusively as ‘Darwinian’. The inclination to acknowledge influences, however was not something Darwin was gratuitously given to doing, especially on matters of priority. The Notebooks are not Darwin’s private thoughts; from an early stage he considered them incipient public documents and later sought to protect them as proof of his originality. William C. Wells was not an obscure thinker, but a celebrated scientist whom Herschel, Darwin’s guide to scientific methodology, had recommended as providing a model of scientific method. Darwin discovered Wells through Herschel, and quickly acquired a copy of Wells’ recommended work, no later than 1831, and held it thereafter in his library at Down House. This book, the 1818 edition of Wells’ Two Essays contains a third essay, Wells’ account of Natural Selection. Later, in the Descent of Man (1871) Darwin acknowledged his separate discovery of the correlation of colour and disease immunity in man, also earlier recounted by Wells.