Last weekend we headed into London to visit the London Museum which was having a Charles Dickens/Victorian exhibit. Since we just finished up learning about the Victorians and the kids read a few books written by Dickens we thought we would go see it. We haven't been to this museum before so we had a look around at the other exhibits as well.
Outside of the Museum, not one of the prettier museums in London but the inside makes up for it:)
Museum starts with prehistoric times to present day...lots of fossils
Lots of stone age tools using flint
Princess watching the video on how to turn a flint stone into an arrow head. This really interests her. We have lots of flint around here and Princess makes a point of bringing it home:)
My husband noticed something very interesting with the weapons. The weapons made of bronze, while older in age appeared in far, far better shape then weapons made in iron which were from a later period. We have been researching the possible reasons for this. Anyone know? Our theories are at the next picture.
Bronze forms a coating of oxidation on the outside preventing further corrosion. Iron on the other hand rust and then flakes off so it can continue the corrosion process. So why did people switch to iron when bronze doesn't corrode as badly...it has to do with resources. Bronze melts at a low temperature and is easily worked into forms but is an alloy of copper and tin, which are rarely found in the same location. So if anything interrupts the trade for the two minerals they couldn't make the weapons or other items out of bronze. Iron ore is more plentiful; in fact, you could "harvest" iron ore out of peat bogs and it would regenerate in about 20 years. However, iron is significantly harder to work into form, but the tradeoff of having a ready supply was worth the extra effort for a metal that would corrode quicker.
The old London wall found within the grounds of the London Museum. Built during the time of the Romans.
Trying to figure out a Roman scale and how it works.
Throughout the museum there were lots of computer stations for the kids to look at...it gave me time to read more about the exhibits, which is a win win as far as I am concerned. For some reason my kids would rather see the exhibits on a computer screen and learn about them that way then peer thru a museum exhibit...please someone tell this is not just my kids and perfectly normal and they will grow out of it:)!
I am unable to show pictures of the Dickens exhibit as photographs were not allowed, however outside they had this Victorian dress on exhibit. Can you imagine walking around in this, let alone sitting or going to the bathroom:)!
There were many other exhibits. After 4 hours the kids were beginning to get restless so we headed outdoors. Near by is St Paul Cathedral and we thought we would take a look. However once we arrived we were shocked to discover it costs 35 pounds for a family of 4 to view the cathedral (that is approx $55). Needless to say we didn't go inside. So I only have outside pictures of the cathedral to show you:) This is the cathedral that Princes Diana was married in for those of you who are fans of hers:)
Side of the building
Another successful trip into London. We still have so many museums and churches to visit before we head back to the states.