10-15-2009, 08:58 PM
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:
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
