It will form part of an exhibition called bronze. It will be interesting if all the details of the find and the so-called conservation emerge as part of the show.
Sunday, 9 September 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Part of the Cycladic Corpus of Figures?
(2024) When you go to a museum to see an exhibition of ancient artifacts you expect them to be … ancient. You have been enticed into the sho...
-
Source: Sotheby's A marble head of Alexander the Great has been seized in New York (reported in " Judge Orders Return of Ancien... -
The Fire of Hephaistos exhibition included "seven bronzes ... that have been linked to the Bubon cache of imperial statues" (p. 1...
-
Courtesy of Christos Tsirogiannis There appears to be excitement about the display of 161 Cycladicising objects at New York's Metropolit...
4 comments:
Fantastic. The piece is now on display in the country where it was found, the finder and land owner have been compensated, the object has been professionally conserved, all at no cost to the public.
An excellent example of the principles of personal property rights and free market working to everyone's benefit.
Of course Mr. Gill would have preferred that the helmet be left in corroded fragments, the finder been put in jail, the landowner lose a parcel of his land, a museum be built on the spot at public expense, and the data on the piece be published in the distant future by an archaeologist.
Dr Gill, how could you?
(Though I agree about the proper publication. So how far off do you think that is for an object out of the ground already two years?).
I am not sure that you could say that the helmet was "professionally conserved" (I have read the report describing the restoration preparing the helmet for the sale).
It was 'reshaped' - so in what shape was it deposited in the ground? What, after over two years from its discovery do we know about its context of deposition? Where is the documentation, where is the publication of that documentation?
Or do we just assume that due to current policy, not only has a nationally important find been lost to a private collection, but also we have lost any chance of ever understanding its context because at no stage of the handling of it any kind of decent documentation was made?
If so, why are our colleagues remaining silent?
Post a Comment