There's an awful lot of value in a particular book-as-object that you lose in a copy, especially in pre-Gutenburg manuscripts:
- What script was it written in?
- How was it bound?
- What shape and size is it?
- Huge roomy margins or small tiny margins?
- Is it actually a palimpsest with another text underneath?
- Who owned it?
- How old is it?
And so on. If someone just writes down the text and burns the book, you've preserved the text but thrown away an awful lot about the people that produced and used the book.
A 3D scan might preserve 100% of aspect A, but 0% of aspect B, in which case it's exactly as bad as no scan if what you care about is aspect B.
I mean that a lot of circumstances, having a picture/scan/copy only slightly diminishes the loss if the object is destroyed, and the existence of 3D scans etc shouldn't be confused with preservation of the original.
Obviously, take pictures and make 3D scans of everything! It's a great way to make unique objects available (to some extent) across the globe. But they're more aids to study than actual backups. Objects haven't been "saved" by being scanned; they're saved when they're actually preserved. A 3D scan of the Buddhas of Bamiyan would have only kinda sorta have ameliorated their loss.
Ah! gotcha. we were talking past each other. i was worried about the incidental damage from war and destruction by zealots, you're talking more about general preservation.
- What script was it written in?
- How was it bound?
- What shape and size is it?
- Huge roomy margins or small tiny margins?
- Is it actually a palimpsest with another text underneath?
- Who owned it?
- How old is it?
And so on. If someone just writes down the text and burns the book, you've preserved the text but thrown away an awful lot about the people that produced and used the book.
A 3D scan might preserve 100% of aspect A, but 0% of aspect B, in which case it's exactly as bad as no scan if what you care about is aspect B.