|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » £2.3m for a Roman helmet |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Edited Oct 09, 2010, 18:29
Oct 09, 2010, 09:20
|
|
I'm not suggesting for one second that the Roman one is a fake...but it's "restoration" is a remarkable piece of technological wizardry... It is a fake Mr R. I don't mean a fake in the sense of an object made yesterday to resemble an antique, but a fake in so much as what we see now is a recent restoration of what it may once have looked like - not necessarily what it did look like. The original fragments of the helmet now appear to be buried beneath modern materials, held and patched together with modern adhesives and fillers. Whoever bought the helmet has more money than sense, and for it to ever receive serious attention the whole thing would need to be taken apart (assuming reversible materials have been used) and any recently applied surface 'patina' removed (assuming that too is reversible). Compare this travesty of restoration with the Sutton Hoo Helmet in the British Museum which has been correctly restored, conserved and left to speak for itself. Quoting from the link above, "The new restoration [of the Sutton Hoo Helmet] relied entirely on the evidence of the fragments themselves and not on preconceived ideas - the aim of all modern archaeological conservation. It took the conservator a year of painstaking study and experimentation with more than 500 fragments." There's an excellent feature by Barendina Smedley on the 'restoration' of the Crosby Garrett Helmet here - http://fugitiveink.wordpress.com/2010/10/07/heritage-under-the-hammer-the-crosby-garrett-helmet-revisited/ |
|
juamei 2013 posts |
Oct 09, 2010, 09:32
|
|
Howburn Digger wrote: The finder was under NO obligation to report it to PAS. He did them a favour. This wasn't treasure trove. It was nothing to do with PAS. NOTHING. They dont have a look in. If the finder spoke to them three months later it was a kindness on his part. I think this is the crux of the matter. He should have been under a legal obligation to report such a nationally important find. He shouldn't have had the legal right to not report it for three months. I don't blame him, he was just looking out for himself and the law is on his side unfortunately. |
|
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Oct 09, 2010, 10:43
Oct 09, 2010, 09:40
|
|
Actually, on reflection, I've had more than enough years of hearing detectorists and others saying good luck to grabbers and it's all innocent so I think I won't rise to any more bait here. But if anyone's interested my friend Paul Barford is worth listening to. His latest piece is very long but masterful IMO. http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/10/archaeological-asset-stripping-in_09.html |
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Oct 09, 2010, 09:59
|
|
juamei wrote: Howburn Digger wrote: The finder was under NO obligation to report it to PAS. He did them a favour. This wasn't treasure trove. It was nothing to do with PAS. NOTHING. They dont have a look in. If the finder spoke to them three months later it was a kindness on his part. I think this is the crux of the matter. He should have been under a legal obligation to report such a nationally important find. He shouldn't have had the legal right to not report it for three months. I don't blame him, he was just looking out for himself and the law is on his side unfortunately. I will look at/listen to the Paul Barford link later (posted by NS). I've been following this discussion, initially with some surprise that an artifact from the roman occupation managed to generate such passion. The explanation of the difference between 'restoration' and 'conservation' was illuminating so it seems the purchaser has paid a lot of money for something that has actually be devalued in the selling process ... its astonishing that a price can be put on such objects. The finder and landowner must feel like they've won the lottery; the local museum and nation has lost out (again). I can only say that discussions such as this one do serve as means of educating the less well informed (such as myself) but you cannot legislate for human nature and who knows ... perhaps the profit from the sale has turned the finder's life around, paid off his mortgage and given security to his family. Let's hope so. |
|
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Oct 09, 2010, 10:18
|
|
"I don't blame him, he was just looking out for himself and the law is on his side unfortunately." Yes Jamie but these people were offered a social contract 13 years ago - "we'll let you carry on doing here what's criminal everywhere else but in return please voluntarily tell us what you find". If they won't even do that, which most won't, we've been taken for complete mugs. PS this bloke also thumbed his nose at us by failing to call in archaeos to do the excavation and just ripped it all out like an Iraqui looter. He knew that was wrong as the Code tells him what to do. Anyone that does that with Treasure has their reward reduced. As this wasn't Treasure he didn't stand to lose a penny by acting in that way - so he carried on. This man does NOT need wishing good luck or general rejoicing that he can pay his mortgage off. |
|
|
Resonox 604 posts |
Oct 09, 2010, 10:48
|
|
Howburn Digger wrote: Good job Christies restored it. Romans helmets appear to have been very shabbily constructed and not looked after. So did Christies restore it or have it restored?..I ask because I don't think Christies have a restoration dept. I wonder what the mask looked like prior to restoration? Story goes it was in a myriad of pieces...so this restoration work as I said before is nothing short of genius..... As reconstructive processes are recorded step by step(used to be sketched then photographs took over now it is video),whether it is human or artefact...I am assuming that a record of the restoration is available either for education purposes or to be sold as a DVD and/or book. |
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Oct 09, 2010, 11:04
|
|
nigelswift wrote: "I don't blame him, he was just looking out for himself and the law is on his side unfortunately." Yes Jamie but these people were offered a social contract 13 years ago - "we'll let you carry on doing here what's criminal everywhere else but in return please voluntarily tell us what you find". If they won't even do that, which most won't, we've been taken for complete mugs. PS this bloke also thumbed his nose at us by failing to call in archaeos to do the excavation and just ripped it all out like an Iraqui looter. He knew that was wrong as the Code tells him what to do. Anyone that does that with Treasure has their reward reduced. As this wasn't Treasure he didn't stand to lose a penny by acting in that way - so he carried on. This man does NOT need wishing good luck or general rejoicing that he can pay his mortgage off. Do we actually know who this bloke is Nigel? Did he belong to a group/society, know anything about codes of practice etc etc? Or was he was just a chancer, someone who bought himself a MD and went out to have a bit of fun and got lucky which he may well be entitled to do. Lots of people must do that. It's obvious I know nothing about MD's at all but do they have to be 'registered' or belong to groups/societies to use a MD? If not then good luck to the bloke as he found something that will live with him forever and I'm sure has changed his life. If in his mindset he did nothing wrong then who are we to condemn him considering he discovered something we may never have found without the use of a MD. |
|
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Oct 09, 2010, 11:20
|
|
So did Christies restore it or have it restored?..I ask because I don't think Christies have a restoration dept. They don't, and as most, if not all, museums in this country no longer allow private conservation work to take place on their premises the helmet would have been sent to a freelance restorer. That could be anyone ranging from someone who has received the proper training to Joe Bloggs the silversmith down on the Finchley Road. If it's the former a proper conservation record will have been kept, and this will include before and after photos, type of materials used in its restoration (essential information for when/if the helmet is taken apart in the future) and anything else that's relevant. If Joe's done it however a conservation record might not have been kept at all. In other words, in the worst case scenario, this is a double whammy. Not only has the archaeological record been compromised there may also be no record of the helmet's restoration! |
|
|
Resonox 604 posts |
Oct 09, 2010, 11:25
|
|
Sanctuary wrote: nigelswift wrote: "I don't blame him, he was just looking out for himself and the law is on his side unfortunately." Yes Jamie but these people were offered a social contract 13 years ago - "we'll let you carry on doing here what's criminal everywhere else but in return please voluntarily tell us what you find". If they won't even do that, which most won't, we've been taken for complete mugs. PS this bloke also thumbed his nose at us by failing to call in archaeos to do the excavation and just ripped it all out like an Iraqui looter. He knew that was wrong as the Code tells him what to do. Anyone that does that with Treasure has their reward reduced. As this wasn't Treasure he didn't stand to lose a penny by acting in that way - so he carried on. This man does NOT need wishing good luck or general rejoicing that he can pay his mortgage off. Do we actually know who this bloke is Nigel? Did he belong to a group/society, know anything about codes of practice etc etc? Or was he was just a chancer, someone who bought himself a MD and went out to have a bit of fun and got lucky which he may well be entitled to do. Lots of people must do that. It's obvious I know nothing about MD's at all but do they have to be 'registered' or belong to groups/societies to use a MD? If not then good luck to the bloke as he found something that will live with him forever and I'm sure has changed his life. If in his mindset he did nothing wrong then who are we to condemn him considering he discovered something we may never have found without the use of a MD. Surely a first timer wouldn't have collected all the bits of the helmet for restoration without any prior knowledge.....most detectorists(not all I grant you) tend to just toss old random misshapen pieces of bronze away....even if they were to collect them the chances of getting such a pristine restoration are amazing...as was pointed out in a previous post, these helmets were usually poorly made and maintained and tossed down wells(I can't verify the factuality of that as I'm only quoting) |
|
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Oct 09, 2010, 11:30
|
|
Rhiannon wrote: I guess you're not reading the links very thoroughly (like me) because in the one I posted it says him and his father had been searching those fields for years. Probably if you've been doing anything for years, you will have read a few magazines or books or websites or met a few people interested in the same thing, so you've got a good chance of not being ignorant of the Issues. Yes that's true. Wonder if he gave his dad a cut!! |
| Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
