The Crosby Garrett helmet

[mcbishop]

In which case my drawer full of finds will stay exactly where they are - I'm really fed up of the cynicism displayed. Sour grapes?

Difficult to see where the cynicism is, but there is certainly a lot of understandable caution in the face of the media blitz (and lack of firm information) that is, was, and presumably will be the Crosby Garrett helmet. To suggest that other collectors or detectorists may experience 'sour grapes' is perhaps a little far-fetched ;-) )

the finder was NOT an unemployed graduate in his twenties and channel 4 news film footage starting 'this is where it all began' is a load of toffee

That information is not in the public domain so we cannot assess its veracity, nor is it really fair to criticise the C4 news team without knowing the full facts (who told them that was the field?!); the media are certainly capable of being numpties along with the best of us, but some do at least try to get things right.

By the way, you are still not signing your posts - you will find the rules for posting here - and I attempted to reply to your recent PM out of courtesy only to find you had replies turned off.

Mike Bishop

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Sorry, I called you Duncan ...... :oops:

[D B Campbell]

Sorry, I called you Duncan ...... :oops:

No offense taken. :wink:

(btw Did you sort out your horsey photos?)

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Sorry, I called you Duncan ...... :oops:

No offense taken. :wink:

(btw Did you sort out your horsey photos?)

Yes, it was a brain fart! I think I had great plans when I started downloading, but lost the plot with the time it was taking.....then forgot about it.... :? roll:

[D B Campbell]

Yes, brain fart!

I've been called many things, but none as appropriate as that! :lol:

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

Now, I saw that coming, but still failed to take corrective action..... :roll: :lol:

[Timogen]

My profuse apologies regarding the reply function - I had no idea it could be off or on! As for the name offence - I was sharing information, on here only, which I thought would enlighten you and dispel some of the suspicion and misgivings some people have spoken of. C4 should have got their facts right - the landowner, whose name you will no doubt you now know, only has sheep - those Limousin bullocks shown on news were his neighbours. The truth will out, and soon I hope, for I am weary of labouring to assuage the misconceptions. I concede defeat.

[john m roberts]

Be on the lookout for some numbnuts down at the pub with two million quid in his pocket. Should be easy to spot.

[Cunicula]

Since this was done by a reputable conservator, so far as I understand

Do you? Who?

Why can't you just acknowledge the painstaking restoration work for the amazing achievement it is!

Because I know what proper archaeological conservation and analysis is, and if creating this pastiche from all those bits has involved reshaping the metal, and no data is forthcoming to add to our knowledge of these helmets, the technology of this one or the circumstances of its deposition, or even recording the nature and extent of its "restoration", then proper archaeological conservation and analysis it certainly isn't.

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/1 ... te-to.html

[mcbishop]

Since this was done by a reputable conservator, so far as I understand

Do you? Who?

No, he'd almost certainly have used a sonic screwdriver, rather than a mallet, a tub of polyfilla, and some HMG... ;-) )

Because I know what proper archaeological conservation and analysis is, and if creating this pastiche from all those bits has involved reshaping the metal, and no data is forthcoming to add to our knowledge of these helmets, the technology of this one or the circumstances of its deposition, or even recording the nature and extent of its "restoration", then proper archaeological conservation and analysis it certainly isn't.
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/1 ... te-to.html

Sadly there is a long history of bashing Roman helmets back into shape after they have been dug up (there is even a substantial section in one of the Xanten reports that deals with this). Some have bothered to analyse them first, but most find it verrryyy difficult to resist the urge to restore the object back to its 'original' state (overlooking the whole taphonomy issue which means that for some the 'original' state is precisely the bashed-about state in which it is excavated). Personally I have always found this as disturbing as the modern trend for 'poodling' artefacts, even though I understand the reasons for both activities.

None of the conservators with whom I have ever worked would do that sort of thing (I hope!), but one can see why the art-historical (and financial) exigencies of the task in hand would have led to the final result. Doesn't make it right, but I think we have already established there are lessons to be learned at many levels from this whole sorry tale.

Mike Bishop

[jkaler48]

So has History and knowledge been lost or diminished for the reason of profit or will information be forthcoming at some later date when the Gods of commerce have been appeased.

[mcbishop]

So has History and knowledge been lost or diminished for the reason of profit or will information be forthcoming at some later date when the Gods of commerce have been appeased.

That, detective, is the right question.

Mike Bishop

[Caballo]

Unless I've completely lost the plot (entirely likely) , there was a "just excavated pic" of the helmet which seems to have dropped off the thread. Did anyone take a copy?

I wanted to look at what system / holes etc had been used to attach the top part of the mask to the back plate e.g. hinge or holes such as the Varusschlacht mask. The pics I took from under the helmet seem inconclusive despite two possible holes in the second pic ....and I'm puzzled. The strap attachment at the bottom I can understand. How was it attached at the top?

[Gaius Julius Caesar]

I see one in Peronis first post first page, but not sure if that's the one your thinking of. I seem to recall another of it in its fragments.

[mcbishop]

I wanted to look at what system / holes etc had been used to attach the top part of the mask to the back plate e.g. hinge or holes such as the Varusschlacht mask. The pics I took from under the helmet seem inconclusive despite two possible holes in the second pic ....and I'm puzzled. The strap attachment at the bottom I can understand. How was it attached at the top?

According to the original lot description (conveniently quoted :

A ROMAN BRONZE CAVALRY PARADE HELMET CIRCA LATE 1ST-2ND CENTURY A.D.
Composed of two sections, helmet and mask; the tinned bronze face-mask with idealised youthful features, the openwork eyes with irises formed of delicate perforated rings, the upper and lower lids with incised lashes, the eyebrows arching from the bridge of the nose to the hairline with incised herringbone detail, the nostrils pierced, the fleshy lips slightly parted, with filtrum indicated, the face framed by three rows of tight corkscrew curls, the individual strands finely incised, the lower edge with remains of iron rivets on either side, probably for attachment of a strap for fastening to the helmet; the bronze helmet in the form of a Phrygian-style cap, with curved tip, surmounted by a solid-cast griffin, on an integral base, seated on its haunches, with finely incised details of the fur and mane, an attachment loop on the back of the neck, his wings outstretched with incised feather detail, his right paw raised and resting on the rim of a fluted amphora, an oval recess below with pierced loop at the tip, the back edge of the cap delineated by a raised ridge, curling inwards at the corners, terminating in incised button finals and decorated with pairs of vertical lines bordered by tongues, a row of hair curls emerging from underneath, the back and sides of the cap decorated with five rosettes, with groups of punched dots at the tips of the petals, with narrow flaring neck-guard, pierced in the centre and left corner, the perimeter decorated with incised diagonal dashes and tongues, with original hinge for attachment to the face-mask, mounted 16 in. (40.7 cm.) high

) there was a hinge.

Mike Bishop
edited by moderator according to forum rule #4