Greek helmets galore

[MeinPanzer]

I take your point and your analogy with ancient painting, and agree with you up to a point - however you seem to be defining 'archaeology' in a narrow sense, restricting it to the study of 'provenance' and 'context'.

Yet the Oxford Dictionary defines archaeology as:
1. Ancient History generally; the systematic description or study of antiquities.
2.The scientific study of the remains and monuments of the pre-historic period

No mention there of 'provenance' or 'context' ! Indeed, Jorg's study would fall slap-bang into both those definitions as an 'archaeological study', would it not ? For that matter, so would studies of ancient painting.

No, but it's couched in the "scientific" part. But even so, a semantic argument in this case would be pointless. Regardless of what the dictionary definition of archaeology is, I am merely writing about what archaeology is today.

I thought we were in agreement that Jorg's work/thesis would be of great use to field archaeologists (i.e. those who do the actual digging), indeed "invaluable".( see previous posts). You seem here to be saying it is 'inappropriate' simply because the study lacks provenance/context. You also suggest that "unprovenanced items cannot contribute...because...context is everything". Yet earlier you gave an example of how study of unprovenanced items proved useful ! Surely the example I gave in my last post of how a study such as Jorg's would benefit archaeology/archaeologists demonstrates how it would 'further our knowledge of archaeology'. If "Archaeology" refuses to publish a 'scientific study of remains', a 'systematic description' of the Greek helmets in the Guttman collection ( or any other 'unprovenanced' study for that matter), then "Archaeologists" will become increasingly ignorant of their own subject.It is 'censorship' of valid archaeological material, which ought to be published in an "official archaeological publication" in order that it may most easily be brought to the attention of archaeologists, to whom it will be of most use. (and who presumably haven't much time for Art catalogues or publications of other disciplines). It is "Archaeology" that is in danger of 'throwing out the baby with the bathwater' !

That statement was poorly made, and I should qualify it. What I meant was that a large study of unprovenanced items, in which the unprovenanced items are the basis of the study, is not appropriate for archaeology. As I stated before, unprovenanced items can be very useful to archaeologists when used as supporting evidence, which is why the current system of publication works fine - the material is out there, published in non-archaeological sources and available for the archaeologist to draw on with caution. (In contrast to your assertion, I've found that when it benefits them, archaeologists have plenty of time for publications of other disciplines.) It is like art history, as I posted before: a field separate from archaeology, but overlapping. Art historians can drawn on archaeological work for their discussions, and vice versa.

Because:
1. It IS archaeology by definition, not art history or something else!
2. "freely available" doesn't necessarily mean it will come to the attention of those who will make most use of the material - archaeologists, who would certainly benefit from being able to, for example, recognise the shape of one of the seven pieces making up a Hellenistic Attic helmet....

Archaeologists are well aware of the art market and do read non-archaeological publications, which is evidenced by the fact that they do use art market items from time to time in "official" studies. Auction catalogues and the like are available, and that's all that's necessary - if an archaeologist feels the need to access information on such items, it is no more difficult to obtain than most archaeological journals.

This is demonstrably incorrect, as the example you gave earlier proves. There is far more to "the study of remains" than mere provenance/context. As I said earlier, you don't need 'provenance' to produce a thesis on the metallurgy of Greek Helmets, or a systematic study of construction methods of Greek Helmets and both of these are by definition archaeology. Neither hypothetical study could reasonably be done without recourse to unprovenanced artifacts, and both would add to the corpus of archaeological knowledge, and be of inestimable value in future excavations/discoveries, thereby furthering our archaeological knowledge.
You are right that a thesis on ancient painting as art for art's sake, or as part of the History of Art, would be of limited value to archaeologists and hence not be appropriate to publish in an archaeological journal, but in the case of Jorg's study we are talking about something of direct relevance to archaeology/archaeologists, and to distinguish it on grounds of an artificial distinction of 'provenance' when provenance is not directly relevant to his study IS censorship.
Taking the view that only 'provenanced' items/studies are worthy of publication in archaeological journals is to take a narrow, blinkered view and draw an artificial distinction/line, as Kineas said....and one which will certainly not "contribute to furthering our knowledge".

Such artefacts may be of use to Jorg's study, but then he would have to carefully incorporate them into the existing corpus of evidence, which I would not see as problematic for an archaeological publication. However, if he were to publish only unprovenanced items - and, if I'm wrong here, then please correct me Jorg, but this is the impression I got - it's more problematic, because as a publication it is not directly archaeological in nature, as there is no scientific basis for its context (to drawn on your dictionary definition). It could be X, or it could not be, but we have absolutely no way of verifing its context and thus being able to incorporate it into the corpus of evidence at large.

n addition (here's my cynicism again) I can't see why a helmet that was looted from Greece by an "official" expedition in a time when field notes were fairly haphazard and local workers were used for the "dirty parts" (say, 1850-1939) is actually, morally or physically different from a helmet that was purchased from an antiquities dealer in the same period. What about helmets in museums that came from private purchase? Are we dismissing the entire Walters Collection, for example? The Royal Ontario Museum collection?

Such items should be dealt with with the same circumspection, as they are just as "unprovenanced." However, keep in mind here that I am just commenting on wholly unprovenanced items in this case; those items that do appear on the art market that have some sort of provenance (even if it is questionable) are of more value, but again they must be handled with the utmost caution (like artefacts from early archaeological excavations).

Archaeology, as a science, is not well enough conducted to have such ludicrous standards. You an I both know that most digs are conducted to further existing theories rather than to accept whatever comes from the ground--they are funded in many cases by the same donors who, themselves, feed the art market; we know that in the past thirty years, hundreds if not thousands of digs that failed to find "major artifacts" have opened, dug ground, and closed and will NEVER be published (reducing them to the level of looting expeditions). We know that site surveys are a vanishing art--need I go on?

Without such standards, though, such a study would not be scientific, because being able to link different artefacts together in study requires a context with which to do so. I would just say that, again, our views seem to differ. There is at least an attempt to move away from excavating to affirm a priori assumptions, and rather simply to draw on what the excavations tell us, and surveying seems alive and well - and only strengthening with the use of new technology (such as satellite imaging).