10-15-2009, 01:16 AM
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.
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.
Qui plus fait, miex vault.
