The Axel Guttmann Collection is on the Net!!

[mcbishop]

Published in a loose sense, perhaps, but scarcely to an archaeological standard. This is in fact one of the big criticisms that can be levelled against Robinson's book - there are few measured drawings of the the main artefacts and this tradition of not providing measured drawings of 'artistic' artefacts stretches long back in European and British scholarship. One photo of a breastplate may be pretty, but it is not very informative.<br>
<br>
Museum curators and archaeologists are less inclined to indulge in petty jealousies against collectors than they are to worry about where all this illicit booty is coming from and whether, by indulging in it, they are encouraging unrecorded destruction. People in war-ravaged lands are understandably desperate to sieze any opportunity to make a living (there is *no* coincidence in the fact that the Balkans have become a motherlode of equipment finds in the 90s) and there are real ethical questions involved in acquiring such material - how much archaeological information is lost when it is hoiked out? If they are simple river finds, then all well and good, that is a long and fine tradition that has produced the bulk of our helmet finds. But the other unknown proportion (and not all of them are riverine in origin)? It sure as hell worries me and I am not envious of collectors (never seen the attraction myself: the most valuable Roman find I ever held in my hand was a leaf, still green, from the bottom of a well).<br>
<br>
Mike Bishop <p></p><i></i>

[caiusbeerquitius]

Dan, I do not think that archaeologists or historians today think of artefacts being "theirs". I'd rather agree with Mike Bishop. Who actually has the objects is not really interesting, as long as they can be published and be viewed by the publicity, i.e. everyone who wants to see them. And yes, usually unrecorded destruction is what mainly leads to the discovery of such objects which then go to the international market between booty-dealers and posessors. And thus, in the end the people that pay loads of money for the artifacts are responsible for the plundering and destruction of archaeological sites. If they would not pay, there were no need to plunder. Thus, noone of them can tell me that he loves history, because he is the reason of it's destruction.<br>
But anyway, my critique was with Guttmann's son, because he destroys a large collection that WAS viewable for publicity, and sends all the items into the four winds, wherever they may land. The thought of envy or jealousy usually rather appears among children, not professional and educated grown-ups, I'd say.<br>
<br>
Finding a leaf still green must really have been a great moment! <p></p><i></i>

[Caius Fabius]

So, it is okay to be a collector, as long as you show other people your stuff?<br>
People can love "history" in many different ways, but to say that a collector of ancient artifacts doesn't love history, because he pays for other people's "junk" and "trash" seem a bit harsh. Much of this stuff is found by people who would otherwise discard it or otherwise dispose of it if collectors didn't set a value onm it. The main problem is that th eitems cannot be tied to a location, both geographically and in the context of the find.<br>
I have been to plenty of museums that don't have the space to display the items they already have, and sell of less that perfect items. I enjoy buying them! I have also seen a lot more items from areas where the removal of minefields and explosive ordinance is going on, with the main purpose being to allow people to have a normal life. This mine removal can turn up small hords of items or even individual items as a byproduct of the mission. The other source is farmer's fields and building constructions, where the item will be moved and especially in plowed fields, the context of the find is already disturbed.<br>
I feel that the historical artifact that is never seen is worthless to the historian or the collector. The artifact that is never properly published is almost worthless, especially to the historian.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<p></p><i></i>

[caiusbeerquitius]

No, I did not say that. IMO it is just better to have a large private collection that is viewable than thousand small individual pieces scattered throughout the world and not bein or only partially viewable.<br>
The large majority of artifacts derive not from occasional findings and were not previously other's people's "junk" and "trash". They are stolen from archaeological sites. During that process usually the arceological context is destroyed by destroying the stratigraphic evidence.<br>
If museums are selling their "II.-class objects" it is their own decision. I do not think that that is a smart idea to pump up the museum's financial status, but it is common in some areas. A museum is not only a place that is there to show people the objects it has, but to preserve the artifacts as well. We cannot decide today which artifacts might become precious in future, as we do not know what archaeological methods there will be developed in future. Maybe some of the items that seem "worthless" today are vital evidence in 150 years. If the museums start selling them today.... well just think it for yourself to an end.<br>
From this thought derive those large magazines Daniel Peterson is claiming about. But in fact everybody usually can go there and work on the material if he has some sort of academic degree. If people do not have such, it is quite understandable that they are not allowed to work with these objects, as weird theories or ideas would fall back onto those who would have let these people do the work. So anyone who wants to do such work should go to a evening-school or internet university or similar to get his MA, then he would be able to do this work. Caius, your arguments regarding the origin of artifacts are what you usually get to hear from collectors. I guess they are common because they relieve a bad consciousness. Believe me, I have been on a lot of excavation sites and excavations that were utterly destroyed by people walking around with a metal detector and a pick-axe & shovel during the night calling themselves "hobby archaeologists". With the time you start to hate these people, really. A counter method used meanwhile is to throw hundred of thousands of bottle caps onto the areas. That works. <p></p><i></i>

[richsc]

Let's take one for instance from the Guttman collection. Finally, I got my book Romisch Helms by junkelmann yesterday, and the enlarged photo of that tinned bronze helmet is amazing, even down to scratches. But how did a helmet survive in that condition (OK, I don't read German, so maybe it's in the text)? I would think that the story for how that happened is as important as the helmet itself. If it has been yanked from context by looters, that will never be known. <p>Richard Campbell, <b>Legio XX</b><br><br>
<br>
</p><i></i>

[Caius Fabius]

As a degreed historian, I get both sides of the argument, and I am sure that neither side is wholly right. Even with a degree and credentials, not all museum collections are "open", and certainly not all collectors are the demons of historians.<br>
Looting of sites is a bad thing, but most museums today have loads of "looted" artifacts in their collections, especially in those who deal with ancient collections. The treasure hunters may ruin the 'context' (“stratigraphic evidenceâ€ÂÂ

[Pop Alexandra]

I'd love to see them live, but I'll take what I get.
________________________
Alexandra from Artys Transit