|
The Modern Antiquarian Forum » £2.3m for a Roman helmet |
Log In to post a reply
|
|
|
|
| Topic View: Flat | Threaded | |
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Oct 10, 2010, 14:03
|
|
[quote="nigelswift"]Strictly speaking he did us a favour by finding it as it was unlikely to be otherwise. Actually old flower that betrays a complete misunderstanding of archaeology, conservation and the archaeological resource, a misunderstanding that you share with metal detectorists. No Nigel, it means I'm not getting paranoid like you are and totally missing the point. You've been told about a dozen times now (although I'm not counting) that what he did at the time was NOT against a criminal law. Moral law is a totally different thing altogether and where I totally agree with you but please keep to the facts. And you seem to be making it is quite clear that you have a pathological hatred again MD's, something I find disturbing when I'm sure there are plenty of users out there that do follow all the codes and behave perfectly well and ligit. 3. Deliberate, amateur, random grabbing for fun or profit is the antithesis of the careful principles developed to conserve the resource and collectively called Archaeology. The helmet was fine where it was for another few centuries. It has already been pointed out (sigh) that the helmet had been partly destroyed by the plough so how much more punishment would it have taken if it had remained in the ground (and as you pointed out to me a week or two back, stuff continues to rise) so soon there may have been nothing left for anyone to look at! Is that preferable? I would like to have seen this helmet in a museum as much as anybody but the fact is it isn't and pummeling into a guy who can't aswer back allowing you to make up anything you like about him based on what you have read in newspapers and what others have told you I believe shameful. You can of course respond to my points but I won't be replying further as it is pointless. I have suggested we should agree to disagree as all gentlemen should but you seem to have declined and thrown in accusations of me sharing beliefs with metal detectorists...another false accusation. |
|
|
Resonox 604 posts |
Oct 10, 2010, 14:18
|
|
Sanctuary wrote: pummeling into a guy who can't aswer back allowing you to make up anything you like about him based on what you have read in newspapers and what others have told you I believe shameful. You can of course respond to my points but I won't be replying further as it is pointless. Can I add to the debate Sanctuary?...The above statement cuts two ways...defending someone on the same principles of what has been read in papers or what others may have said, surely can't be a valid arguing point either. If recognised bodies are distancing themselves from "one of their own" for his behaviour...he should be stepping into the public fray to at least defend his reputation...but of course with almost 2.3 million in the bank...why bother? |
|
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Oct 10, 2010, 14:30
|
|
Well here's another belief you share with detectorists - it'll get destroyed by the plough if left. No, it was on permanent pasture on the fells and will be quite safe for ANOTHER 1000 years. (Detecting on undisturbed pasture is irresponsible, per the Code - have you read it? Thought not.) As you say: "(sigh)" ;) "and as you pointed out to me a week or two back, stuff continues to rise"[i] Not on pasture it don't. "(sigh)" ;) [i]"allowing you to make up anything you like about him" Well I've already asked you to specify what "accusations" I have made against him but you have yet to do so. It's easy enough if I have, isn't it? "(sigh)" ;) [i]"I have suggested we should agree to disagree as all gentlemen should " But I never said I was a gentleman! "(sigh)" ;) |
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Oct 10, 2010, 16:22
|
|
No Nigel, it means I'm not getting paranoid like you are and totally missing the point. I don't think Nigel is getting paranoid, Sanctuary; passionate yes, but then we're all passionate about something or other - you (and many others here) are passionate about Avebury and Silbury, I'm passionate about conservation. Sorry to mention it, but I've been in the conservation profession for forty years now and I know a rum job when I see one. Putting aside the legality and the moral issues surrounding the helmet, the way it's been 'restored' is a travesty and an insult to the many conservators and restorers all over the world who dedicate their lives to preserving, for a little while longer, places and things from the past. In the case of the Crosby Garrett Helmet I see none of those concerns. Indeed, from the day the helmet was dug from the ground (by someone untrained to do so) through the restoration process where it was 'reconstructed', until the moment the hammer came down at Christie's, one thing, and one thing only seems to have prevailed. Not the need to safeguard the archaeological record, not even the need to protect, through proper conservation, the object itself - no, the only need I can see here is for the finder, the restorer, the seller and perhaps even the buyer to gain financially from it. But that's the sort of world those people choose to live in. Fortunately, for most stoneheads however, other things are more important. |
|
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Oct 10, 2010, 17:45
Oct 10, 2010, 16:43
|
|
Littlestone wrote: Indeed, from the day the helmet was dug from the ground (by someone untrained to do so) through the restoration process where it was 'reconstructed', until the moment the hammer came down at Christie's, one thing, and one thing only seems to have prevailed. Not the need to safeguard the archaeological record, not even the need to protect, through proper conservation, the object itself - no, the only need I can see here is for the finder, the restorer, the seller and perhaps even the buyer to gain financially from it. But that's the sort of world those people choose to live in. Fortunately, for most stoneheads however, other things are more important. Very nicely said. Especially the last bit - "for most stoneheads however, other things are more important." If this chap had (legally) removed a stone from a circle and sold it for oodles at Christies even a gentleman like Mr Sanctuary might understand! |
|
tjj 3606 posts |
Edited Oct 11, 2010, 10:02
Oct 11, 2010, 08:27
|
|
nigelswift wrote: "for most stoneheads however, other things are more important." If this chap had (legally) removed a stone from a circle and sold it for oodles at Christies even a gentleman like Mr Sanctuary might understand! Although I had read most of the posts made during this discussion I'm afraid speed reading caused me miss the full impact of the article in the Guardian the link to which was posted by Rhiannon. Here it is again and it sums up succintly all that has been said here so worth re-reading. http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/oct/07/roman-helmet-sold-two-million I have only ever come across one person, posting briefly here, who was also a metal detectorist. Sanctuary on the other hand, has only ever been polite, courteous and good humoured to all so I hope he will continue to post and should be thanked for starting this very relevant topic. Referring to my own small contribution to the debate; without someone 'playing devil's advocate' there is no debate just a few people agreeing with each other. Intelligent debate is surely one the best learning mediums there is and should always be encouraged without becoming too combatative. |
|
|
Sanctuary 4670 posts |
Oct 11, 2010, 09:37
|
|
tjj wrote: nigelswift wrote: "for most stoneheads however, other things are more important." If this chap had (legally) removed a stone from a circle and sold it for oodles at Christies even a gentleman like Mr Sanctuary might understand! Although I had read most of the posts made during this discussion I'm afraid speed reading caused me miss the full impact of the article in the Guardian the link to which was posted by Rhiannon. Here it is again and it sums up succintly all that has been said here so worth re-reading. http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/oct/07/roman-helmet-sold-two-million I have only ever come across one person, posting briefly here, who was also a metal detectorist. Sanctuary on the other hand, has only ever been polite, courteous and good humoured to all so I hope he will continue to post and should be thanked for starting this very relevant topic. Referring to my own small contribution to the debate; without someone 'playing devil's advocate' there is no debate just a few people agreeing with each other. Intelligent debate is surely one the best learning mediums there is and should always be encouraged without becoming too combatative. Hi Tjj, just stepping in here to correct something which you may have implied (apologies If I read it wrongly) but I am NOT a metal detectorist, never have been. Thank you for your kind comments and apologies for stepping into this thread again as I said I wouldn't, but I'm still posting on other things and always intend to. Lifes too short!! |
|
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Oct 11, 2010, 10:22
|
|
Littlestone wrote: 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! A question: As you know, the finder eventually showed PAS the "hole" but David Gill (who knows a thing or two) posted an interesting article, including this: “What is not clear to me is how a firm connection can be made between a hole in the ground in Cumbria and the alleged findspot of the helmet. Is there any independent evidence that the soil traces on the helmet came from this site? Were any other bronze fragments found in the field?” http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/2010/10/find-spot-of-crosby-garrett-helmet.html I understand that no scientific investigation was or could have been done by the BM, but I was wondering if it would have been normal for the private restorers to have kept the soil traces (if there were any)? |
|
|
Littlestone 5386 posts |
Oct 11, 2010, 11:12
|
|
I understand that no scientific investigation was or could have been done by the BM, but I was wondering if it would have been normal for the private restorers to have kept the soil traces (if there were any)? It would depend entirely on the conservator or the restorer. Under normal, ie acceptable conservation practices, everything that comes into a studio or lab that's associated with an object would be kept, and this would form part of the conservation record. To give you some idea how that works, information is kept on cards (or on a computer) at each stage of the conservation process and that information eventually goes onto a central computer database (if the object is being treated in a museum or art gallery). In other words, in the case of the Crosby Garrett Helmet (assuming the correct procedures have been followed) you would be able tap in Crosby Garrett Helmet+soil traces and, if the record has been maintained properly and in detail, the answer would be immediately forthcoming. It's also worth mentioning that to conserve something like this would require two or three separate disciplines. At the British Museum for example there are not only dedicated conservation departments for metals, organic materials, stone etc but also a science lab. You might have a conservator unrolling delicate pieces of metal while regularly consulting with the curatorial staff before attempting to reassemble the object. Meanwhile, trace material would be in the science lab for analysis. All this takes a lot of time but at the end of the process you will have a properly conserved object with a detailed conservation/scientific record to accompany it. If the helmet has not been 'restored' along acceptable lines however then any traces of soil, organic matter and perhaps even very small fragments of the helmet itself may have just ended up in someone's waste bin. |
|
|
nigelswift 8112 posts |
Edited Oct 11, 2010, 12:41
Oct 11, 2010, 11:24
|
|
Hmmm, thanks. Personally, for my £2.25 million I'd want rather more proof of which hole it came from than has so far been made public.
|
| Pages: 8 – [ Previous | 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 8 | Next ] | Add a reply to this topic |
|
|
|
| The Modern Antiquarian Forum Index | |
