Greek helmets galore

[caiusbeerquitius]

Furthermore, find spots and archaeological context are really of little consequence when discussing ancient Greek helmets,

Depends on the question. If one is not interested in things like social context, exact dating etc. but only in relative typology you are certainly right. For my taste that´s too narrow-minded, though. :roll:

Only an art-dealer can say something like this.

Yup. A profession none of us should support since it´s those people that are mainly responisble for the destruction of what we all are interested in, IMO.

[Cincinnatus]

I was an archaeologist before I was an art dealer. My point is that one can not fault the object for the circumstances of its discovery and to argue, as some archaeologists often do, that an object has lost all historical value once it has been divorced from its archaeological context is just lazy scholarship. It is more challenging than that. Archaeological context is very important, yes, but the object still has a lot to tell us on its own, and burying our heads in the sand because the object was not excavated by one of the annointed few, serves no one. Greek vases, for instance, can tell us who painted and potted them and where and when they were made regardless of which Etruscan tomb they were found in.

Randall

[caiusbeerquitius]

You are certainly correct there. Nonetheless an object with proper context is so much more valuable. Also, the objects are usually better off in public than in private hands, accesswise, and in regard of protection of objects. Also, mostly the objects were originally stolen. So it´s not only academic reasoning, in a way it is also a social and an ethical question...

´nuff said, on my side, though.

[The Oracle]

Archaeological context is very important, yes, but the object still has a lot to tell us on its own, and burying our heads in the sand because the object was not excavated by one of the annointed few, serves no one. Randall

Nonetheless, this is correct, and my opinion, too. But the circumstances are difficult, Randy. I prepared a very big publication of selected material from the Guttmann-collection, but monday evening I was unequivocally told that I would get only in trouble with that because all of the material came from the art market. My work wouldn't be printed in periodicals I favored and I would be shunned, Randy, think about that. You americans are more flexible in this case, I think. Furthermore, the helmets are immensely interested but in modern day archaeology there's more wanted than simple typology and manufacture-technics, which isn't possible without provenance.

Additionally, the danger of forgeries is immense. Randy, there's at least one forged helmet on your website!

[Cincinnatus]

Ah, yes, more pieces identified as forgeries from thousands of miles away.

Incidentally, Jörg, I will run up against the exact same brick wall trying to publish my work here in the States. The public must be shielded from any and all antiquities that were not excavated by a card carrying member of the Archaeological Institute of America (which, ironically, I am). Oh well, these things will outlast all of us anyway and a new set of criteria will be instituted in the future.

[MeinPanzer]

I was an archaeologist before I was an art dealer. My point is that one can not fault the object for the circumstances of its discovery and to argue, as some archaeologists often do, that an object has lost all historical value once it has been divorced from its archaeological context is just lazy scholarship. It is more challenging than that. Archaeological context is very important, yes, but the object still has a lot to tell us on its own, and burying our heads in the sand because the object was not excavated by one of the annointed few, serves no one. Greek vases, for instance, can tell us who painted and potted them and where and when they were made regardless of which Etruscan tomb they were found in.

Randall

The primary problem with artefacts from the art market which are unprovenanced is that they can only be "parasitic." A helmet from an art collection which has a provenance no more specific than "probably from south Italy" cannot tell us anything about helmets from south Italy, since the only solid way to identify it, and thus to use it as a source of information, is by comparison with other artefacts. It thus "leeches" off of our knowledge rather than contributing to it.

I largely agree that an absolute rejection of art market artefacts is not totally useful, but I think in the case of helmets, what information we gain from them is largely useful only in its own right - that is, it tells us about that helmet, but it cannot be fit into the bigger picture of archaeological scholarship.

[Cincinnatus]

That's fair, and I agree.

Furthermore, archaeologists and source countries must do a better job at identifying sites that are being pillaged, and beating the tombaroli to the prize, rather than digging for ten years at a site that yields comparatively little.

Randall

[MeinPanzer]

To elaborate a bit further, I think your criticism of the academic approach to art market artefacts is a bit off. I know of several examples where art market items have been incorporated into academic studies successfully. To offer one example, an unprovenanced Hellenistic funerary stele featuring the representation of a horseman appeared on the art market and was published a few years ago in an academic journal. Just last year Pierre Juhel wrote an article (the one I mentioned earlier in this thread) in which he discussed the find of a helmet almost identical to that depicted on the stele from upper Macedonia, and with careful analysis he compared it to another example of a stele from Dyme which was practically identical in decoration. The similarity was striking enough that it could very easily be accepted as coming from the same workshop, and so it could be easily dated and located geographically based on its decoration, and then the representation of the horseman could be anchored chronologically and geographically as well.

So art market items can be of some value, but only as peripheral evidence. I see such artefacts as being like speculation - a little bit of it can add colour to a solid, archaeologically-based discussion, but you can't base a whole study on it.

Furthermore, archaeologists and source countries must do a better job at identifying sites that are being pillaged, and beating the tombaroli to the prize, rather than digging for ten years at a site that yields comparatively little.

Randall

I think you and I both know that this is a misplaced criticism. If archaeologists had the resources to do so, they would be at every site that has been pillaged the instant they could, and moreover they would organize protection so that no sites would be looted in the first place - as with everything, this is a matter of money. But money aside, this is a dangerous attitude to take. If archaeology's primary focus becomes beating tomb raiders at their own game, then archaeology would really be no better than treasure hunting, and we'd be back to the late 19th century. Excavations at sites "that yield comparatively little" provide us with just as much information as flashy finds, only their worth isn't measured in golden treasures. If we didn't have those excavations, we would know very little about, for instance, the living conditions of the lower classes in the ancient world.

[Kineas]

Hi. I'm a novelist, not a professional historian, archaeologist, or art dealer.

However, because I grew up with Archaeology--my uncle, all his friends, and most of his extended social circle--and have known archaeologists in a wide variety of cultural contexts... I have to say that much of what I'm hearing here is--um--funny. To say the least...

I mean no offense! But archaeologists from the 1850s to THE PRESENT DAY have lied about artifacts, lied about sites, failed to adequately survey, failed to document, failed to dig, dug in the wrong season--mis-tagged, deliberately or by genuine error. They sell artifacts to finance digs, they tag items from their own illegal holes to their legitimate sites... I've seldom known a senior archaeologist who hasn't admitted to one of these behaviors. The recent discovery of the mis-cataloging of, as I understand it, the entire collection of early textiles at Anne Arbor (Univ. of Mich) shows how easily this can happen with the kind of disastrous consequence for which art dealers are often blamed.

I'm no fan of the art-dealers. They're worse. But each helmet--every artifact--can really only be approached on its own, once it comes out of the ground. New techniques--and perhaps new approaches, like experimental archaeology--might help. I suspect this discussion would be aided by talking to people who BUILD these helmets... but that's merely an opinion.

I will comment that while the Olympische Forschungen series is like a bible to me (as a reenactor and novelist), Kunze's views on how greaves were made would have benefited enormously from contact with some modern working craftsmen who made greaves...

I note that Oracle suggests that items in private collections are suspect; it amuses me, as my friends with large private collections suggest that many helmets in museums are either forgeries or have more putty to them than bronze. I don't agree with either party (nor do I actually know enough to prove or disprove)--but I do feel as a reenactor trying to recreate these items that more than a hundred years of bad-faith dealing by both professional academics and art dealers should make reenactors very, very careful of accepting any individual artifact that is not solidly backed by contemporary illustrative evidence.

And finally (rant mode off) I find that even with a cheap Deepeeka Corinthian, the addition of a chin strap means that my helmet will always sit on the back of my head--just like the pictures. As we have dozens of vase illustrations showing straw hats dangling from their chin straps, one might expect the same. And--I don't think I'm breaking new ground, Oracle, if I suggest that art-historians have always suspected that there were dramatic changes in Greek vase art in...hmmm...550-500 BC. I suspect that an assertion that the depiction of a hoplites wearing helmets on the backs of their heads as an artistic convention, vice an artistic interest in depicting the actual rather than the ideal, around 530 BC would not fall on fertile ground. Athenian artists develop an interest in depicting a great many things around 530...

Sorry--my finger slipped and I think I hit the "irony" mode by mistake.

I am very sorry if your publication is delayed or canceled for this rather foolish-sounding reason--I, for one, was already salivating at the prospect. But the Classical-Archaeological/Philological academic world is riddled with infighting and other foolish and artificial divisions that detract enormously from the value that academe could be providing to an educated but non-professional audience.

[Paullus Scipio]

Well put, Kineas......I'd give a 'laus' if I could

I too take a sceptical view of those who assert 'official' archaeology as somehow holier-than-thou......as you point out, some among them are as full of chicanery as any tomb-robber/treasure-hunter. But, hey, since both groups comprise human beings, warts and all, that should be no surprise, eh ?

I too am most disappointed at what seems to be an officious humbug atitude in German archaeology, preventing the publication of works such as Jorg's. What else have we missed because of this censorship ? I am in favour of the growth/publication of all knowledge, and let the reader assess it's value or otherwise.....

Jorg, have you considered alternative ways to 'get your work out', especially now that it is complete? Publication in an English-speaking forum perhaps ? Private circulation of your work, so at least it is not 'lost' to those interested ?

It is intended to set up here on RAT, a "Greek helmet Database", (once various problems are overcome) with the ultimate, but simple, aim of illustrating, hopefully by photos, all the Greek helmets known - from museums, private collections, auction houses or any other source ( and if a particular item is a suspected forgery, it will still be illustrated, but the 'forgery' tag noted.) A commentary/study on Greek/Hellenistic helmets from the Guttman collection would have been/would be an invaluable aid.......

[MeinPanzer]

Hi. I'm a novelist, not a professional historian, archaeologist, or art dealer.

However, because I grew up with Archaeology--my uncle, all his friends, and most of his extended social circle--and have known archaeologists in a wide variety of cultural contexts... I have to say that much of what I'm hearing here is--um--funny. To say the least...

I mean no offense! But archaeologists from the 1850s to THE PRESENT DAY have lied about artifacts, lied about sites, failed to adequately survey, failed to document, failed to dig, dug in the wrong season--mis-tagged, deliberately or by genuine error. They sell artifacts to finance digs, they tag items from their own illegal holes to their legitimate sites... I've seldom known a senior archaeologist who hasn't admitted to one of these behaviors. The recent discovery of the mis-cataloging of, as I understand it, the entire collection of early textiles at Anne Arbor (Univ. of Mich) shows how easily this can happen with the kind of disastrous consequence for which art dealers are often blamed.

I'm no fan of the art-dealers. They're worse. But each helmet--every artifact--can really only be approached on its own, once it comes out of the ground. New techniques--and perhaps new approaches, like experimental archaeology--might help. I suspect this discussion would be aided by talking to people who BUILD these helmets... but that's merely an opinion.

I will comment that while the Olympische Forschungen series is like a bible to me (as a reenactor and novelist), Kunze's views on how greaves were made would have benefited enormously from contact with some modern working craftsmen who made greaves...

I note that Oracle suggests that items in private collections are suspect; it amuses me, as my friends with large private collections suggest that many helmets in museums are either forgeries or have more putty to them than bronze. I don't agree with either party (nor do I actually know enough to prove or disprove)--but I do feel as a reenactor trying to recreate these items that more than a hundred years of bad-faith dealing by both professional academics and art dealers should make reenactors very, very careful of accepting any individual artifact that is not solidly backed by contemporary illustrative evidence.

Of course there are problems with archaeology, and not all archaeologists are saints. But the fact is that the majority of artefacts unearthed by archaeologist are observed and documented one way or another, while only the small minority of art market items are. When all the problems of archaeology are taken into account, these are still well-trained professionals who are expected to document their findings, and to paint it as if "every artifact can really only be approached on its own once it comes out of the ground" is ridiculous - that is altogether throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

I too am most disappointed at what seems to be an officious humbug atitude in German archaeology, preventing the publication of works such as Jorg's. What else have we missed because of this censorship ? I am in favour of the growth/publication of all knowledge, and let the reader assess it's value or otherwise.....

This is hardly "officious humbug attitude," I have to say. I would like to see Jorg's publication as much as the rest, but (if I understand it correctly) his proposal is for a study based primarily on unprovenanced art market helmets. That is the territory of an auction catalogue, but not of an official archaeological publication, because unprovenanced items can't be fit into the big picture of archaeology, and as I stated before, they are all but worthless unless studied unto themselves. The attitude here, that academia wrongly shuns everything the art market produces, is off base, since, as I posted before, there are examples where such items are published and considered in official archaeological publications. The problem is in basing an entire study on them - that is not the basis for a thesis.

In that vein, Jorg, have you approached any auction houses or other art market publishers with an eye to publishing your work?

[Paullus Scipio]

Ruben wrote:

This is hardly "officious humbug attitude," I have to say. I would like to see Jorg's publication as much as the rest, but (if I understand it correctly) his proposal is for a study based primarily on unprovenanced art market helmets. That is the territory of an auction catalogue, but not of an official archaeological publication, because unprovenanced items can't be fit into the big picture of archaeology, and as I stated before, they are all but worthless unless studied unto themselves. The attitude here, that academia wrongly shuns everything the art market produces, is off base, since, as I posted before, there are examples where such items are published and considered in official archaeological publications. The problem is in basing an entire study on them - that is not the basis for a thesis.

Well, perhaps 'officious humbug atitude' is emotive, but it is censorship of a sort, and that is a subject I feel strongly about. As you point out, even without provenance, they can be "studied unto themselves"....and our knowledge of the subject thereby increased. There is no reason that within the limitation of lack of provenance, a thesis should not produced on such a subject. As has been pointed out, where a helmet is found and the context might be valuable, but lack of it does not affect the study of other valid subjects, such as metallurgy, construction methods, art and many other things which can be learned purely from the artifact itself, regardless of origin.

Assuming Jorg's study is a 'serious' one, to dismiss it, sight unseen, as "the territory of an auction catalogue" is indicative of the very atitude being complained of here as "officious humbug". Why shouldn't a study of Greek helmets as artifacts per se, or the construction methods of them for example ( regardless of lack of provenance) be published in an "official" archaeological publication ? One can see the obvious advantage to archaeologists in the field of knowing construction methods of helmets and thereby being able to correctly identify fragments found, or the value of recognising types ( and I have seen myself field archaeologists and academics 'misidentify' fragments of armour and weapons as something else). This in turn assists with dating etc. Publication of a study such as Jorg's in an "official archaeological publication" where it will come to the attention of "official archaeologists" is arguably invaluable.

Therefore, on this occasion, I would have to disagree with you, Ruben, that study of a collection such as the former Guttman "is not the basis for a thesis".

If it be the case that Jorg is being 'warned off'/ threatened because his work might be seen as somehow 'recognising' the "Art/Private Collectors Market/Tomb robbers", or because of 'academic snobbery', then that is demonstrably wrong. Neither should have a place in the 'Academic World'.

[Kineas]

Well said, Xenophon!

I wrote a much longer post, and I have deleted it, as I would only offend without educating. Suffice it to say--Ruben, the line you defend does not--to me--exist. Archaeology has dirty hands. As a discipline, it has always been ready to serve the needs of political masters and cultural bias. From the standpoint of historiography, archaeology has a poor record--very poor. As the technology to "see" into the ground improves, I'm one of those people who hopes that all digging is stopped and forbidden--and all the artifacts studies where they ought to have been left--in situ, and in the ground--except in rare cases and rescue. Soon enough, 3D imaging will allow us to "see" the helmet inside the tomb. Perhaps we won't see the painting on the wall. So be it--we'd probably only ruin it, anyway. Let's leave it there until we have the technology to map sites and digitize them--so nothing more is lost by the amateurish efforts of grave-looters--whether paid by a university or a collector.

[Paullus Scipio]

Kineas wrote:

Perhaps we won't see the painting on the wall. So be it--we'd probably only ruin it, anyway. Let's leave it there until we have the technology to map sites and digitize them--so nothing more is lost by the amateurish efforts of grave-looters--whether paid by a university or a collector.

Yes, preservation is a thorny subject too.....I have visited Pompeii/Herculaneum many times over the last 35 years, and the deterioration wrought by time and weather, over-visiting and even vandalisation and robbery is enough to bring tears to the eyes. On my first visit as a young man, I yearned for there to be funds available to excavate properly the two-thirds or more of each that lay untouched.......now I am very glad that it awaits a less crude and invasive form of discovery in the future, since exposure brings rapid ruin !!

[MeinPanzer]

Ruben wrote:

This is hardly "officious humbug attitude," I have to say. I would like to see Jorg's publication as much as the rest, but (if I understand it correctly) his proposal is for a study based primarily on unprovenanced art market helmets. That is the territory of an auction catalogue, but not of an official archaeological publication, because unprovenanced items can't be fit into the big picture of archaeology, and as I stated before, they are all but worthless unless studied unto themselves. The attitude here, that academia wrongly shuns everything the art market produces, is off base, since, as I posted before, there are examples where such items are published and considered in official archaeological publications. The problem is in basing an entire study on them - that is not the basis for a thesis.

Well, perhaps 'officious humbug atitude' is emotive, but it is censorship of a sort, and that is a subject I feel strongly about.

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.

As you point out, even without provenance, they can be "studied unto themselves"....and our knowledge of the subject thereby increased. There is no reason that within the limitation of lack of provenance, a thesis should not produced on such a subject. As has been pointed out, where a helmet is found and the context might be valuable, but lack of it does not affect the study of other valid subjects, such as metallurgy, construction methods, art and many other things which can be learned purely from the artifact itself, regardless of origin.

But then we have this information, and no way to compare or contrast it to the extant archaeological information. We have this helmet, which our comparisons tell us should be 4th c. south Italian. We examine its construction, and then compare it to other south Italian helmets. In the end, we find that it is very similar to other south Italian helmets, and then we know that it's likely south Italian - but then again, it might not be, so we must be content with knowing that all we really know about it is based on comparison, which means that it can be of little value in furthering our knowledge of south Italian helmets. And when it concerns something like helmets, in which we have a fairly small field of actual provenanced examples to work with, an unprovenanced artefact can often hinder more than it can help, since so many helmets are unusual or have unique touches.

Assuming Jorg's study is a 'serious' one, to dismiss it, sight unseen, as "the territory of an auction catalogue" is indicative of the very atitude being complained of here as "officious humbug". Why shouldn't a study of Greek helmets as artifacts per se, or the construction methods of them for example ( regardless of lack of provenance) be published in an "official" archaeological publication ? One can see the obvious advantage to archaeologists in the field of knowing construction methods of helmets and thereby being able to correctly identify fragments found, or the value of recognising types ( and I have seen myself field archaeologists and academics 'misidentify' fragments of armour and weapons as something else). This in turn assists with dating etc. Publication of a study such as Jorg's in an "official archaeological publication" where it will come to the attention of "official archaeologists" is arguably invaluable.

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. 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. Don't get me wrong - I think that Jorg's study would be invaluable. But it wouldn't be archaeology, because archaeology involves working with a basis of material which can be reasonably assumed to possess a solid provenance.

I see this subject the same way that I see, for instance, the study of ancient painting. Archaeologists publish on ancient painting, providing new examples for scholars to discuss and providing them with a solid basis of context to work with which allows chronological, geographical, cultural, etc. bounds to be placed on any study. Art historians also publish on ancient painting, and they may freely discuss painting as a subject unto itself, with all their own methods, but they are focused on the material itself, and not necessarily its context. While the domains of the two disciplines overlap, they are two separate groups.

I wrote a much longer post, and I have deleted it, as I would only offend without educating. Suffice it to say--Ruben, the line you defend does not--to me--exist. Archaeology has dirty hands. As a discipline, it has always been ready to serve the needs of political masters and cultural bias. From the standpoint of historiography, archaeology has a poor record--very poor. As the technology to "see" into the ground improves, I'm one of those people who hopes that all digging is stopped and forbidden--and all the artifacts studies where they ought to have been left--in situ, and in the ground--except in rare cases and rescue. Soon enough, 3D imaging will allow us to "see" the helmet inside the tomb. Perhaps we won't see the painting on the wall. So be it--we'd probably only ruin it, anyway. Let's leave it there until we have the technology to map sites and digitize them--so nothing more is lost by the amateurish efforts of grave-looters--whether paid by a university or a collector.

Well, I don't think we can come to terms on this, since we seem to have radically different views of archaeology. All that I would say is that perhaps your view of archaeology has made you overly cynical of the whole discipline. And concerning the "ruining" of sites and artefacts, the past is the past, and all that can be done is to look to the future. While archaeologists constantly strive to improve their means and methods, no such improvement is visible in the art market. That's why these days only trial trenches are often dug, and portions of cities or cemeteries excavated - so that in the future, teams with more advanced technology can excavate and perhaps pick up on details missed by previous excavations. I would just reiterate what I stated before, which is that seeing archaeology as having "dirty hands" makes it very easy to throw the baby out with the bathwater.