Posts: 2,903
Threads: 18
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation:
15
I take your point and your analogy with ancient painting, and agree with you up to a point - however you seem to be defining 'archaeology' in a narrow sense, restricting it to the study of 'provenance' and 'context'.
Yet the Oxford Dictionary defines archaeology as:
1. Ancient History generally; the systematic description or study of antiquities.
2.The scientific study of the remains and monuments of the pre-historic period
No mention there of 'provenance' or 'context' ! Indeed, Jorg's study would fall slap-bang into both those definitions as an 'archaeological study', would it not ? For that matter, so would studies of ancient painting.
Quote:That's fine, but that's not an archaeological thesis, that's an art historical or some other thesis. It's hardly censorship that an entire work on unprovenanced items is rejected for archaeological study because by their very nature unprovenanced items cannot contribute in any significant way to the furthering of our knowledge of archaeology, because in archaeology context is everything. It's an inappropriate subject for archaeology - so it can be published somewhere else.
I thought we were in agreement that Jorg's work/thesis would be of great use to field archaeologists (i.e. those who do the actual digging), indeed "invaluable".( see previous posts). You seem here to be saying it is 'inappropriate' simply because the study lacks provenance/context. You also suggest that "unprovenanced items cannot contribute...because...context is everything". Yet earlier you gave an example of how study of unprovenanced items proved useful ! Surely the example I gave in my last post of how a study such as Jorg's would benefit archaeology/archaeologists demonstrates how it would 'further our knowledge of archaeology'. If "Archaeology" refuses to publish a 'scientific study of remains', a 'systematic description' of the Greek helmets in the Guttman collection ( or any other 'unprovenanced' study for that matter), then "Archaeologists" will become increasingly ignorant of their own subject.It is 'censorship' of valid archaeological material, which ought to be published in an "official archaeological publication" in order that it may most easily be brought to the attention of archaeologists, to whom it will be of most use. (and who presumably haven't much time for Art catalogues or publications of other disciplines). It is "Archaeology" that is in danger of 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater' !
Quote:Well, why does it have to be officially published by archaeologists? If it can be published elsewhere, it will be just as freely available as if it were published in an official journal or by an archaeological press.
Because:
1. It IS archaeology by definition, not art history or something else!
2. "freely available" doesn't necessarily mean it will come to the attention of those who will make most use of the material - archaeologists, who would certainly benefit from being able to, for example, recognise the shape of one of the seven pieces making up a Hellenistic Attic helmet....
Quote:The reason why it shouldn't be published is because of what I said above - such artefacts are "parasitic," and do not contribute to furthering our knowledge.
This is demonstrably incorrect, as the example you gave earlier proves. There is far more to "the study of remains" than mere provenance/context. As I said earlier, you don't need 'provenance' to produce a thesis on the metallurgy of Greek Helmets, or a systematic study of construction methods of Greek Helmets and both of these are by definition archaeology. Neither hypothetical study could reasonably be done without recourse to unprovenanced artifacts, and both would add to the corpus of archaeological knowledge, and be of inestimable value in future excavations/discoveries, thereby furthering our archaeological knowledge.
You are right that a thesis on ancient painting as art for art's sake, or as part of the History of Art, would be of limited value to archaeologists and hence not be appropriate to publish in an archaeological journal, but in the case of Jorg's study we are talking about something of direct relevance to archaeology/archaeologists, and to distinguish it on grounds of an artificial distinction of 'provenance' when provenance is not directly relevant to his study IS censorship.
Taking the view that only 'provenanced' items/studies are worthy of publication in archaeological journals is to take a narrow, blinkered view and draw an artificial distinction/line, as Kineas said....and one which will certainly not "contribute to furthering our knowledge".
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Posts: 726
Threads: 38
Joined: May 2008
Reputation:
0
Ruben--perhaps I am cynical. And please--I have great respect for archaeologists who do honest work,and I very much enjoy your posts, as you are one of the best informed posters on this forum. No personal slight intended.
But I have to concur with Paul's comments--even if it hurts me to say so  .
In addition (here's my cynicism again) I can't see why a helmet that was looted from Greece by an "official" expedition in a time when field notes were fairly haphazard and local workers were used for the "dirty parts" (say, 1850-1939) is actually, morally or physically different from a helmet that was purchased from an antiquities dealer in the same period. What about helmets in museums that came from private purchase? Are we dismissing the entire Walters Collection, for example? The Royal Ontario Museum collection?
And why? Why find philosophical reasons (and hollow ones, I assert) to limit the sets and sub-sets of study on grounds that are opaque to the informed amateur?
Provenance maters. I agree--where it is available and unimpeachable. But it is merely "good to have" and hardly essential to the study of artifacts in contexts that matter to many of us--social, military, technical, even artistic.
Archaeology, as a science, is not well enough conducted to have such ludicrous standards. You an I both know that most digs are conducted to further existing theories rather than to accept whatever comes from the ground--they are funded in many cases by the same donors who, themselves, feed the art market; we know that in the past thirty years, hundreds if not thousands of digs that failed to find "major artifacts" have opened, dug ground, and closed and will NEVER be published (reducing them to the level of looting expeditions). We know that site surveys are a vanishing art--need I go on?
I'm not cynical--I'm a realist when it comes to human behavior. Let us decry the art thieves for what they are. Let's ridicule them. But when we need to use their work--let's use them. To the betterment of human knowledge, which is the only worthwhile goal.
And now I'll climb off my soap box and return to my reproduction of a Boeotian shield...
Qui plus fait, miex vault.
Posts: 16
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2009
Reputation:
0
Quote:In addition (here's my cynicism again) I can't see why a helmet that was looted from Greece by an "official" expedition in a time when field notes were fairly haphazard and local workers were used for the "dirty parts" (say, 1850-1939) is actually, morally or physically different from a helmet that was purchased from an antiquities dealer in the same period. What about helmets in museums that came from private purchase? Are we dismissing the entire Walters Collection, for example? The Royal Ontario Museum collection?
Good point, and lets not forget that museums are in fact a type of collector as well, they both buy and sell antiquities (both of which are done very discreetly nowadays) and display only a small fraction of their collections. And private collectors often take very good care of their pieces (since they paid for them) and are very eager to have them studied and published, and at the end of the day often donate them to musuems anyway.
Furthermore state museums in source countries like Greece, Italy, Turkey, and Egypt are stuffed with unprovenanced antiquities as well - objects whose findspots were never recorded or lost. But I digress again.
Randall
R. Hixenbaugh
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Posts: 3,607
Threads: 226
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
5
Relativistic arguing doesn´t at all further any cause. If someone else does something wrong it doesn´t automatically justify your own mistakes. Nor does it make your own mistakes less grave. Relativistic arguing is only there for those who have no other arguments or for those who are not able to argue at all.
Christian K.
No reconstruendum => No reconstruction.
Ut desint vires, tamen est laudanda voluntas.
Posts: 1,028
Threads: 20
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:I take your point and your analogy with ancient painting, and agree with you up to a point - however you seem to be defining 'archaeology' in a narrow sense, restricting it to the study of 'provenance' and 'context'.
Yet the Oxford Dictionary defines archaeology as:
1. Ancient History generally; the systematic description or study of antiquities.
2.The scientific study of the remains and monuments of the pre-historic period
No mention there of 'provenance' or 'context' ! Indeed, Jorg's study would fall slap-bang into both those definitions as an 'archaeological study', would it not ? For that matter, so would studies of ancient painting.
No, but it's couched in the "scientific" part. But even so, a semantic argument in this case would be pointless. Regardless of what the dictionary definition of archaeology is, I am merely writing about what archaeology is today.
Quote:I thought we were in agreement that Jorg's work/thesis would be of great use to field archaeologists (i.e. those who do the actual digging), indeed "invaluable".( see previous posts). You seem here to be saying it is 'inappropriate' simply because the study lacks provenance/context. You also suggest that "unprovenanced items cannot contribute...because...context is everything". Yet earlier you gave an example of how study of unprovenanced items proved useful ! Surely the example I gave in my last post of how a study such as Jorg's would benefit archaeology/archaeologists demonstrates how it would 'further our knowledge of archaeology'. If "Archaeology" refuses to publish a 'scientific study of remains', a 'systematic description' of the Greek helmets in the Guttman collection ( or any other 'unprovenanced' study for that matter), then "Archaeologists" will become increasingly ignorant of their own subject.It is 'censorship' of valid archaeological material, which ought to be published in an "official archaeological publication" in order that it may most easily be brought to the attention of archaeologists, to whom it will be of most use. (and who presumably haven't much time for Art catalogues or publications of other disciplines). It is "Archaeology" that is in danger of 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater' !
That statement was poorly made, and I should qualify it. What I meant was that a large study of unprovenanced items, in which the unprovenanced items are the basis of the study, is not appropriate for archaeology. As I stated before, unprovenanced items can be very useful to archaeologists when used as supporting evidence, which is why the current system of publication works fine - the material is out there, published in non-archaeological sources and available for the archaeologist to draw on with caution. (In contrast to your assertion, I've found that when it benefits them, archaeologists have plenty of time for publications of other disciplines.) It is like art history, as I posted before: a field separate from archaeology, but overlapping. Art historians can drawn on archaeological work for their discussions, and vice versa.
Quote:Because:
1. It IS archaeology by definition, not art history or something else!
2. "freely available" doesn't necessarily mean it will come to the attention of those who will make most use of the material - archaeologists, who would certainly benefit from being able to, for example, recognise the shape of one of the seven pieces making up a Hellenistic Attic helmet....
Archaeologists are well aware of the art market and do read non-archaeological publications, which is evidenced by the fact that they do use art market items from time to time in "official" studies. Auction catalogues and the like are available, and that's all that's necessary - if an archaeologist feels the need to access information on such items, it is no more difficult to obtain than most archaeological journals.
Quote:This is demonstrably incorrect, as the example you gave earlier proves. There is far more to "the study of remains" than mere provenance/context. As I said earlier, you don't need 'provenance' to produce a thesis on the metallurgy of Greek Helmets, or a systematic study of construction methods of Greek Helmets and both of these are by definition archaeology. Neither hypothetical study could reasonably be done without recourse to unprovenanced artifacts, and both would add to the corpus of archaeological knowledge, and be of inestimable value in future excavations/discoveries, thereby furthering our archaeological knowledge.
You are right that a thesis on ancient painting as art for art's sake, or as part of the History of Art, would be of limited value to archaeologists and hence not be appropriate to publish in an archaeological journal, but in the case of Jorg's study we are talking about something of direct relevance to archaeology/archaeologists, and to distinguish it on grounds of an artificial distinction of 'provenance' when provenance is not directly relevant to his study IS censorship.
Taking the view that only 'provenanced' items/studies are worthy of publication in archaeological journals is to take a narrow, blinkered view and draw an artificial distinction/line, as Kineas said....and one which will certainly not "contribute to furthering our knowledge".
Such artefacts may be of use to Jorg's study, but then he would have to carefully incorporate them into the existing corpus of evidence, which I would not see as problematic for an archaeological publication. However, if he were to publish only unprovenanced items - and, if I'm wrong here, then please correct me Jorg, but this is the impression I got - it's more problematic, because as a publication it is not directly archaeological in nature, as there is no scientific basis for its context (to drawn on your dictionary definition). It could be X, or it could not be, but we have absolutely no way of verifing its context and thus being able to incorporate it into the corpus of evidence at large.
Quote:n addition (here's my cynicism again) I can't see why a helmet that was looted from Greece by an "official" expedition in a time when field notes were fairly haphazard and local workers were used for the "dirty parts" (say, 1850-1939) is actually, morally or physically different from a helmet that was purchased from an antiquities dealer in the same period. What about helmets in museums that came from private purchase? Are we dismissing the entire Walters Collection, for example? The Royal Ontario Museum collection?
Such items should be dealt with with the same circumspection, as they are just as "unprovenanced." However, keep in mind here that I am just commenting on wholly unprovenanced items in this case; those items that do appear on the art market that have some sort of provenance (even if it is questionable) are of more value, but again they must be handled with the utmost caution (like artefacts from early archaeological excavations).
Quote:Archaeology, as a science, is not well enough conducted to have such ludicrous standards. You an I both know that most digs are conducted to further existing theories rather than to accept whatever comes from the ground--they are funded in many cases by the same donors who, themselves, feed the art market; we know that in the past thirty years, hundreds if not thousands of digs that failed to find "major artifacts" have opened, dug ground, and closed and will NEVER be published (reducing them to the level of looting expeditions). We know that site surveys are a vanishing art--need I go on?
Without such standards, though, such a study would not be scientific, because being able to link different artefacts together in study requires a context with which to do so. I would just say that, again, our views seem to differ. There is at least an attempt to move away from excavating to affirm a priori assumptions, and rather simply to draw on what the excavations tell us, and surveying seems alive and well - and only strengthening with the use of new technology (such as satellite imaging).
Ruben
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Posts: 726
Threads: 38
Joined: May 2008
Reputation:
0
Ruben--may you be correct! Purist that I may be, this hobby would be duller if people didn't keep pulling new stuff from the ground.
Qui plus fait, miex vault.
Posts: 61
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2009
Reputation:
0
This is what I call a heated discussion!
I was told that three days after the opening of the helmet-exhibition in Berlin 1988 (I'm sure you all know the catalogue) Guttmann stood in the office of the museum-direction and said: "You killed me. I thought I had with 30 helmets the largest collection of ancient helmets in the world." After this, he bought like a maniac (an example: the attached apulo-corinthian helmet was at the time of the exhibition in private property in Switzerland, but was at the latest in 1993 in his collection) and, if I believe my source (the ex-museum-director who argued long time with Guttmann) even financed lootings. When he died in 2001 his collection contained around 1100 inventory numbers. Assuming that the ex-director is right, Guttmann's lavish publications (I'm sure you all know them) are extremely sarcastic, because in the introduction of one volume is said: "These books doesn't earn money but are pure gifts to archaeology".
It is as it is, Guttmann is dead, his collection was dissolved, because the Berlin-museums refused to take it. Up until now, as you can see on the XXXXX (mod edited)-website, his pieces are featured prominently in auction-houses and make top-prices. It is as good as excluded that his pieces are forgeries because his friend and curator is a specialist in manufacture-technics.
My intention was simply, not to let fall this nevertheless remarkable collection into oblivion. You can even say that I wanted to continue his own publication-series. My plan was first to present the helmets of the types I've chosen which are known from museums and describe my theories based on them, and then, in a second step present the Guttmann-pieces and insert them in my system established with the known examples.
But I have to totally agree with Ruben's opinion. They are "parasites" and a sole presentation of the Guttmann-pieces is not very scientific. I wouldn't have thought about describing new types solely based on Guttmann-helmets. I just wanted to expand the range of known examples. Their manufacture and decoration can be detailed described, but in the end they have to be only an addition.
Much of the known helmets from museums have only a provenance like "south Italy", yes, but they're coming mostly from old excavations, around 1850s. We have to accept that and work with that, but future archaeology isn't possible with this modus operandi, so the provenance IS over all important.
But justifies this fact the vanishing of so many extraordinary helmets ex Guttmann? A difficult question!
It has to be said, additionally, that every scientific notion of a piece out of the art market increases their value for a collector. So, the piece will be sold to a even higher price than acquired with and will be offered with an still higher price. Similar objects are sought and sold. Do you get my point? A scientific notion of an art-market-piece will strenghten the art-market.
As a result, a publication of Guttmann-material is extremely problematic!
But justifies this the vanishing of so many extraordinary helmets ex Guttmann?
In fact, I thought about making a Guttmann-database similar to the roman-helmet-database (now anonymous, of course), because I doubt now a publication in the form I originally intented but doesn't want to delete all my concordances and collected images. If such a database will eventually be realised depends on the decision of the ex-curator of the collection (who haven't answered my e-mails yet, but sounded very friendly on the telephone) because he has the complete inventories and lots of images. All the images I could deliver to you are the ones from XXXX (mod edited) and several scans from books. And, who knows, maybe he has more informations on these helmets than we all have assumed? :wink:
Jörg
Posts: 61
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2009
Reputation:
0
It seems you have lost interest ...
Jörg
Posts: 2,903
Threads: 18
Joined: Apr 2007
Reputation:
15
Not at all !....as you know, it has always been our intention to set up a Greek helmet database ( see details under my avatar and my earlier post). Details supplied by you from the Guttman collection would make a fine foundation - anonymously or fully credited as you wish, for not being part of the 'formal' academic world, I don;t think anything you did here would impinge on your 'real' academic work..... D
"dulce et decorum est pro patria mori " - Horace
(It is a sweet and proper thing to die for ones country)
"No son-of-a-bitch ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country" - George C Scott as General George S. Patton
Paul McDonnell-Staff
Posts: 2,045
Threads: 116
Joined: Apr 2003
Reputation:
0
The thread digressed to something very different than it started out as and should have remained- indeed if it were to go back to helmets, doubtless interest would return; and ABSOLUTELY RAT would be most interested in actually having a Greek Helmet Database finally and if the academic world is disinterested for its reasons, we would be thrilled to make whatever you or anyone has to contribute available for anyone who is or may become interested in the subject.
See FABRICA ROMANORVM Recreations in the Marketplace for custom helmets, armour, swords and more!
Posts: 1,028
Threads: 20
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
0
To return to the original topic, here is something that I remembered I'd found. It's a pilos helmet from Amphipolis likely dating to the late 4th c. BC, and it has two holes for the attachment of cheek pieces:
http://www.antiquemilitaryhistory.com/i ... ipolis.JPG
Ruben
He had with him the selfsame rifle you see with him now, all mounted in german silver and the name that he\'d give it set with silver wire under the checkpiece in latin: Et In Arcadia Ego. Common enough for a man to name his gun. His is the first and only ever I seen with an inscription from the classics. - Cormac McCarthy, Blood Meridian
Posts: 8,090
Threads: 505
Joined: Jan 2005
Reputation:
0
Quote:I suggest you look without prejudice on some vase-paintings (eg from Euphronios) depicting warriors with upturned helmets and tell me: Wouldn't the pulled back helmet fall down backwards?
No. I have a corinthian which fits my head very nicely, and when I turn it up on my head it sits there fine just as depicted.
In fact, the way to put the helmet on, because it fits so well, is to place it on the head in that 'up' position, then 'turn' it down over the front of my head and face.
TARBICvS/Jim Bowers
A A A DESEDO DESEDO!
Posts: 2,913
Threads: 21
Joined: Jan 2008
Reputation:
1
Jim I have to whole heartedly agree with you about how a corinthian was put on, for in the other topic about making a corinthian I point out that I've made several in the past and this is the way that these helmets work ( that's if you want a good tidy fit as would have been in times gone by )
Brian Stobbs
Posts: 6,734
Threads: 489
Joined: Mar 2001
Reputation:
27
Quote:ABSOLUTELY RAT would be most interested in actually having a Greek Helmet Database finally
Seconded! The problems Paul alludes to are in fact fairly minor at the moment. There's a huge technical problem looming at the horizon for all our databases, but that shouldn't stop us. Once the data has been caught in tables and the pictures are organized, such databases can be relatively easily transferred to another system. Anyways... Please keep planning for a Greek helmet db!
Posts: 61
Threads: 1
Joined: Sep 2009
Reputation:
0
Here are two pics from the 2004 art-market-exhibition "... as time goes by", mentioned earlier in this thread.
Although the images are small you can clearly see an attic helmet, apparently a seven-piece-model!
Jörg
|
