03-12-2016, 11:05 PM
One of the reasons I own a handful of antiquities is because I know that I can bring back at least a little bit of each of their history, and that through sharing them with people and forums like you, and my University Museum, I can spread more information about them than if they were stuck in somebody's art collection, or solely in the cupboards of a museum because they aren't good enough for display. This kopis fragment was described as of an Iberian Falcata before I won the lot, and as we know of only 3 other examples, I didn't much like the possibility that it would remain under that attribution only to be seen by and handed down to a handful of people.
The kopis arrived yesterday. Despite the very cold welcome to this forum, I'm obviously still up for sharing anything anyone would like to know; pictures, videos, measurements, etc.
I also recently recovered a fragment of a South Italian (more probably a Samnite) bronze cuirass, and a Samnite belt, if anyone is interested. They were sold as a lot titled "Eight Ancient Bronze Fragments" from the estate of John Wolfe St. Alban, who I think is a great example of how the private market of antiquities can be cancerous (he kept no documentation, hence the name of the lot). The cuirass fragments are small (the edge of the plate, roughly 2 inches across) but include lots of details about their construction, such as the hinges, the loops for tying, the rare wave decoration sometimes seen, and how different layers/the edge of the plate was reinforced. The belt fragments include a part on either end of the belt, including where the hooks hooked into, with different tightness adjustments, where the leather backing was tied onto, where the hooks were pinned onto and the remaining iron rivets, and an unusual hinged loop that would've sat right between the two hooks, which I've never seen before. I don't know its purpose, and I've never seen another example with something similar; it's going to the University Museum soon.
To add to the discussion, I think it's true that so long as there are buyers interested, there will be some illegal activity promoted at some level. That's why I think it's the buyer's responsibility to research its provenance and ensure it abides by the 1970 UNESCO agreement, so that nothing new can enter the market.
I also think items should be steadily siphoned out of the private market and into museum and the hands of academics. JoshoB's solution is [removed by moderator]just wrong; How could you a) possibly think that the destruction of antiquities is the right solution to keep looters from destroying the historical context of antiquities, and b) think that putting them in the hands of museums and academics wouldn't take them out of circulation? It's shocking to me that a professional archaeologist would support that, and think that not only would that permanently stop the influx of antiquities into the market (destroying items does not, in fact, destroy buyers, their interest, or their means of sale), but also think that museum professionals and academics would somehow contribute to the circulation of items in the private market.
The kopis arrived yesterday. Despite the very cold welcome to this forum, I'm obviously still up for sharing anything anyone would like to know; pictures, videos, measurements, etc.
I also recently recovered a fragment of a South Italian (more probably a Samnite) bronze cuirass, and a Samnite belt, if anyone is interested. They were sold as a lot titled "Eight Ancient Bronze Fragments" from the estate of John Wolfe St. Alban, who I think is a great example of how the private market of antiquities can be cancerous (he kept no documentation, hence the name of the lot). The cuirass fragments are small (the edge of the plate, roughly 2 inches across) but include lots of details about their construction, such as the hinges, the loops for tying, the rare wave decoration sometimes seen, and how different layers/the edge of the plate was reinforced. The belt fragments include a part on either end of the belt, including where the hooks hooked into, with different tightness adjustments, where the leather backing was tied onto, where the hooks were pinned onto and the remaining iron rivets, and an unusual hinged loop that would've sat right between the two hooks, which I've never seen before. I don't know its purpose, and I've never seen another example with something similar; it's going to the University Museum soon.
To add to the discussion, I think it's true that so long as there are buyers interested, there will be some illegal activity promoted at some level. That's why I think it's the buyer's responsibility to research its provenance and ensure it abides by the 1970 UNESCO agreement, so that nothing new can enter the market.
I also think items should be steadily siphoned out of the private market and into museum and the hands of academics. JoshoB's solution is [removed by moderator]just wrong; How could you a) possibly think that the destruction of antiquities is the right solution to keep looters from destroying the historical context of antiquities, and b) think that putting them in the hands of museums and academics wouldn't take them out of circulation? It's shocking to me that a professional archaeologist would support that, and think that not only would that permanently stop the influx of antiquities into the market (destroying items does not, in fact, destroy buyers, their interest, or their means of sale), but also think that museum professionals and academics would somehow contribute to the circulation of items in the private market.
