Greek helmets galore

[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'.