Classical Numismatics Discussion
  Welcome Guest. Please login or register. All Items Purchased From Forum Ancient Coins Are Guaranteed Authentic For Eternity!!! Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Expert Authentication - Accurate Descriptions - Reasonable Prices - Coins From Under $10 To Museum Quality Rarities Welcome Guest. Please login or register. Internet challenged? We Are Happy To Take Your Order Over The Phone 252-646-1958 Explore Our Website And Find Joy In The History, Numismatics, Art, Mythology, And Geography Of Coins!!! Support Our Efforts To Serve The Classical Numismatics Community - Shop At Forum Ancient Coins

New & Reduced


Author Topic: The Crosby Garrett helmet.  (Read 16411 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Will Hooton

  • Comitia Curiata II
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
  • SUSPIRIUM PUELLAM GULIELMUS THRAEX!
The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« on: September 12, 2010, 05:45:49 am »
This Roman cavalry parade helmet, dated to the 1st-2nd cent. AD, was unearthed by a detectorist near the parish of Crosby Garrett in Cumbria.

So far so good.

There is somewhat of a scandal surrounding the helmet, which has NOT been declared a national treasure by the PAS, simply because it is not composed of precious metals! Hence it is jointly owned by the finder and landowner, and is going to the next Christies auction.

Personally, I would like to see this remain in a museum on our shores, and not disappear into some private collection abroad. I hope the BM are willing to flex some financial muscle to acquire this unique and wonderful discovery.

Additionally, I think the PAS needs to redefine what constitutes treasure, with out going over to Scotland's extreme where even the discovery of a grotty follis is declared treasure.

Come on the BM! Put that £25 mil donation you got to good use!!

http://www.detectorist.co.uk/phpBB2/printview.php?t=43103&start=0

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #1 on: September 12, 2010, 04:36:38 pm »
Someone needs to change their definition of 'treasure'!
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline PeterD

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
  • omnium curiositatum explorator
    • Historia
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #2 on: September 12, 2010, 06:31:54 pm »
The PAS simply records finds, it doesn't dictate what is treasure or what is not. That is defined in the law called "The Treasure Act". So a change in the law would be required to change the status of single finds that contain no precious metal.

Unfortunately the BM does not have unlimited resources. It relies on state handouts and profits on merchantising. Admission to the museum is free. In the present economic climate, the state is unlikely to cough up. True it is getting a 25 million donation, but that is intended to create new galleries. It might launch an appeal for cash as it has in the past (one reason for a temporary export ban is to give time to raise the cash).
Peter, London

Historia: A collection of coins with their historical context https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia

Offline cicerokid

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1051
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2010, 11:16:56 am »

This piece deserves to be a centre peice of a new gallery, thus maybe the BM can create a new gallery around it,  the money then can used to buy the primary exhibit.

Maybe a "heritage bill " is required and the word treasure down graded or dropped.

I hope it creates a stink if it goes abroad and dissapears into a private collection but might not even get a mention.


Cicerokid
Timeo Danaos afferentem coronas

Offline Syltorian

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 365
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2010, 12:22:03 pm »
It appears the Tullie House Museum in Cumbria is making a bid for it. Best of luck to them! I do hope this piece goes on display.

If Tullie House don't get it, maybe temporary export ban can yet give someone else the chance to save it for public display, as PeterD says. I remember this happening about two years ago with an old English musical work, now at the BL, as well as the oldest British heraldic roll - both of which were acquired by the BL, I believe. Neither contain any "precious materials" to my knowledge. The heraldic roll apparently received a bar after being sold by Sotheby's. So there may be hope



Offline cliff_marsland

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 838
    • My gallery
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2010, 01:46:31 pm »
What's wrong with a private owner?  I have no kick against a museum owning it if they're the highest bidder.  This is one of the rare cases of one of those antiquities schemes (and I mean scheme - and this is one of the more benign schemes) working - the owner has the right to do with it what he chooses to do, not some antiquities gestapo.  He should be able to use it as a football, if he so chooses, although that would be a travesty.

Legislation usually has unintended side-effects.  I think extra legislation just to save one item would be a bad idea, and the politicians could just as easily include coins and make it worse for we collectors.

If a museum happens to be the winner, cool.  If not, oh well.

If I had found it, it would probably be fairly dirty, because I would rather it just sit there instead of reporting it, and I'd hide it away somewhere.  Principle is more important than money sometimes.  I would profit far more by reporting it, but like the Mastercard commercials; sticking it to the antiquities gestapo - priceless.-

It's a magnificent piece, by the way.

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2010, 05:46:20 pm »
An object like that should be on public display, and should definitely not be allowed out of the country.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

gavignano

  • Guest
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2010, 10:41:08 pm »
oh my. Should be a museum piece. Hope one is high bidder. The detertorist found it, but its beauty will shine best on a public display.

Offline commodus

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Deceased Member
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 3291
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #8 on: September 14, 2010, 01:36:47 am »
An object like that should be on public display, and should definitely not be allowed out of the country.

With all due respect, that's what the Greeks are saying, albeit retroactively, about the Elgin Marbles -- and what they and the Italians and the Cypriots and the Jordanians and some others are saying about coins.

I'm 100% in agreement with cliff.




Eric Brock (1966 - 2011)

Offline Philoromaos

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 550
  • NVNC EST BIBENDVM
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #9 on: September 14, 2010, 02:56:26 am »
Quote from: commodus on September 14, 2010, 01:36:47 am
An object like that should be on public display, and should definitely not be allowed out of the country.

With all due respect, that's what the Greeks are saying, albeit retroactively, about the Elgin Marbles -- and what they and the Italians and the Cypriots and the Jordanians and some others are saying about coins.

I'm 100% in agreement with cliff.






I disagree. This is a unique item and should be on display in a museum and an English one at that. Coins are for the most part not unique and there are plenty for museums and collectors alike to own.

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #10 on: September 14, 2010, 03:09:50 am »
When it comes to a unique object like the Elgin Marbles, I totally agree with the Greeks.

There's a good article here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/sep/13/roman-helmet-metal-detector-cumbria .

Barford has a rant here. His views sound more ideologically driven the more I see of them.

http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2010/09/crosby-garrett-helmet-leaves-country.html
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline Will Hooton

  • Comitia Curiata II
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
  • SUSPIRIUM PUELLAM GULIELMUS THRAEX!
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2010, 04:31:53 am »
Quote from: commodus on September 14, 2010, 01:36:47 am
An object like that should be on public display, and should definitely not be allowed out of the country.

With all due respect, that's what the Greeks are saying, albeit retroactively, about the Elgin Marbles -- and what they and the Italians and the Cypriots and the Jordanians and some others are saying about coins.

I'm 100% in agreement with cliff.


I am in 0% agreement with Cliff, because there are several important distinctions to be made here.

This case has absolutely nothing to do with either the Elgin marbles or Italian/Cypriot/Jordanian export bans. Let's not compare oranges with apples!

The Elgin marbles are not in the private collection of wealthy oil sheikh, stashed away for only a select few to see, they are preserved in one of the most prestigous museums in the world, free for anyone to see, including the Greeks. Elgin saved the marbles. London has earned the right to display them.

Coins are not unique artifacts. There are millions and millions of them. That they should become state property is nothing short of megalomania.

Offline Philoromaos

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 550
  • NVNC EST BIBENDVM
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #12 on: September 14, 2010, 04:38:14 am »
Quote from: commodus on September 14, 2010, 01:36:47 am
An object like that should be on public display, and should definitely not be allowed out of the country.

With all due respect, that's what the Greeks are saying, albeit retroactively, about the Elgin Marbles -- and what they and the Italians and the Cypriots and the Jordanians and some others are saying about coins.

I'm 100% in agreement with cliff.


I am in 0% agreement with Cliff, because there are several important distinctions to be made here.

This case has absolutely nothing to do with either the Elgin marbles or Italian/Cypriot/Jordanian export bans. Let's not compare oranges with apples!

The Elgin marbles are not in the private collection of wealthy oil sheikh, stashed away for only a select few to see, they are preserved in one of the most prestigous museums in the world, free for anyone to see, including the Greeks. Elgin saved the marbles. London has earned the right to display them.

Coins are not unique artifacts. There are millions and millions of them. That they should become state property is nothing short of megalomania.


Well said! My thoughts exactly!

Offline Enodia

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2597
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #13 on: September 14, 2010, 05:17:55 am »
Quote
This case has absolutely nothing to do with either the Elgin marbles or Italian/Cypriot/Jordanian export bans. Let's not compare oranges with apples!


and yet we are still comparing apples to oranges.

it is correct that this has nothing to do with the Elgin marbles at all, in that this was a private item found in the dirt, NOT a national treasure removed from a public building.
and as far as coins go, there are plenty of them which are in fact unique. are they to be denied to private collectors too?

so how does this play out now?

personally i can't see how we can decry the MOU and related documents with one breath and claim exemption for this helmet in another.
i don't agree with Cliff 100%, but i do see his point. i would hope that this beautiful artefact will find its' way into a public collection where it can be enjoyed by as many people as possible, but if it ends up in private hands so be it.
you can't have it both ways for the same price.

~ Peter

Offline Will Hooton

  • Comitia Curiata II
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
  • SUSPIRIUM PUELLAM GULIELMUS THRAEX!
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #14 on: September 14, 2010, 05:46:59 am »
I am not saying that the state should block Christie's from auctioning the helmet. I said I would prefer to see it publicly displayed here. The Law is as it is. As it is, it's perfectly legal for the helmet to go up for grabs.

It's not ideal, but I feel the definition of what constitutes a "treasure" needs to be expanded to include items such as this.

Quote
and as far as coins go, there are plenty of them which are in fact unique. are they to be denied to private collectors too?

so how does this play out now?

So if you are comparing artifacts with coins, you are saying we should sell all our cultural patrimony lock, stock and barrel? No, I don't believe collectors should be denied the opportunity to own unique numismatic objects, because 'uniqueness' does not apply equally to coins as it does significant antiquities.


Quote
it is correct that this has nothing to do with the Elgin marbles at all, in that this was a private item found in the dirt, NOT a national treasure removed from a public building.

I don't want this thread to be an Elgin marbles thread. We had one of those before and it was locked. I am therefore refusing to discuss them any further, because I see absolutely no parallels between these two cases.

Offline simmurray

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #15 on: September 14, 2010, 04:41:55 pm »
ok my pennies worth - first point I would say the Elgin marbles discussion is redundant because you could argue that all artifacts and works of art (including paintings) should be returned to their country of origin but lets be realistic it ain't going to happen.  I expect all museums and art galleries to be full of foreign artifacts long after my days are numbered.  If the BM returned them, they would then set a precendence to return everything not found in the UK.

Now to the helmet thats up for auction; I think its a sad state of affairs when a country implements a treasure act which is so flawed that pieces of treasure such as this are missed - its not an argument if this helmet should stay in the UK or not but why our treasure act seems to be have been written by a 4 year old in crayon

Steve

Offline mix_val

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1266
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #16 on: September 14, 2010, 05:24:00 pm »
Extraordinary piece!  It does belong in a museum but it will probably cost too much for a museum to afford.  I just hope that the new owner(s) takes care of it before it eventually gets donated to a museum. 
Bob Crutchley
My gallery of the coins of Severus Alexander and his family
https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=16147

Offline Robert_Brenchley

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 7307
  • Honi soit qui mal y pense.
    • My gallery
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #17 on: September 14, 2010, 05:25:52 pm »
I don't oppose the idea of an MOU outright; that would be as ideological as Barford's rant. I think cases shoulld be taken on their merits. If an object is unique, or almost so, and is of particular significance, then it should remain within, or be returned to, the country where it was found. The enormous majority of coins, with very rare excepetions like the Ashmolean's Domitianus, are not individually of such significance, so the MOU shouldn't apply to them. Neither should it apply, say, to all objects of 'Greek' origin. Many of them will have been made outside Greece, many will have been taken elsewhere by the ancient Greeks themselves. The Domitianus will not have been minted in the UK, but it was found here, and nobody has suggested it should not remain. Local people donated a very large sum of money recently, so that the Staffordshire Hoard could go to local museums. The same should apply to the helmet.
Robert Brenchley

My gallery: https://www.forumancientcoins.com/gallery/index.php?cat=10405
Fiat justitia ruat caelum

Offline PeterD

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1483
  • omnium curiositatum explorator
    • Historia
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #18 on: September 14, 2010, 06:04:21 pm »
Bear in mind that if this object had been subject to the Treasure Act then any museum wishing to acquire it, including the BM, would have had to have paid the full market value to the finder and land owner. In theory this should be the same as it will go for at auction, though of course with all the publicity and interest from museums no doubt the price will be much higher.

Many will remember the Saxon gold Coenwulf coin found some time ago. This wasn't covered by the Treasure Act either because it was only a single coin. It was initially sold to a US dealer (if I remember correctly) but after some wheeler-dealing was resold to the BM. Any negotiations are probably best done in the shadows to avoid inflating the price of the item.
Peter, London

Historia: A collection of coins with their historical context https://www.forumancientcoins.com/historia

Offline simmurray

  • Consul
  • ***
  • Posts: 305
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #19 on: September 14, 2010, 06:10:29 pm »
Bear in mind that if this object had been subject to the Treasure Act then any museum wishing to acquire it, including the BM, would have had to have paid the full market value to the finder and land owner. In theory this should be the same as it will go for at auction, though of course with all the publicity and interest from museums no doubt the price will be much higher.

Many will remember the Saxon gold Coenwulf coin found some time ago. This wasn't covered by the Treasure Act either because it was only a single coin. It was initially sold to a US dealer (if I remember correctly) but after some wheeler-dealing was resold to the BM. Any negotiations are probably best done in the shadows to avoid inflating the price of the item.

I consider many of the items that do fall under the treasure act to be under-estimated in price and items that go to the major auction houses to be over estimated by a mile - I am very interested in the final price of this helmet to see if it does meet the £300k its estimated at

Steve

Offline commodus

  • Tribunus Plebis Perpetuus
  • Deceased Member
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 3291
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #20 on: September 14, 2010, 06:53:22 pm »
In an ideal world it SHOULD be in a museum and SHOULD be in Britain.
Ours is not, however, an ideal world.
I respectfully suggest that a comparison of this case with others is not only not apples and oranges, but rather a case of "sauce for the goose should be sauce for the gander."
The MOUs are not all about coins; indeed, coins are actually an incidental component of the whole of each MOU, the bulk of which are about artifacts of all sorts. We don't think of the coin component as incidental because it affects us most directly as collectors. I oppose the MOUs in all their aspects and believe -- this is my personal opinion only -- that artifacts are often better off in private hands than in public ones and that arguing for an export ban on one sort of artifact while opposing it for others is hypocritical.
In any case, it isn't going to be up to any of us, so any arguments either way are purely hypothetical.
I hope no one takes offense as none is meant. It is purely a matter of differing opinions and as none of our input has been solicited by the powers that be, I am sure we can agree to disagree as friends with a common passion for the past.
Eric Brock (1966 - 2011)

Offline LordBest

  • Procurator Caesaris
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 2046
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #21 on: September 15, 2010, 12:35:58 pm »
In my opinion this is the second finest surviving Roman cavalry parade helmet, and that is down to personal taste. This is not something of which there are dozens of others floating about (not in this condition at any rate), it really is a national treasure. It should be on public display, regardless of who owns it. It should also be made available to any scholar insane enough to attempt to update the literature on Roman armour*. I doubt either of these conditions would be met by private ownership so I'm going to hope a museum buys it.
                                                                                LordBest. 8)

*The last major attempt to catalogue all types was done in 1975. I'll check if the Crosby Garrett is a new type or not in the morning. If I remember...

Edit: There areno Phyrgian cap style cavalry helmets in "The Armour of Imperial Rome" by Robinson, and I'm not aware of any other examples in the English literature.

Offline Will Hooton

  • Comitia Curiata II
  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1019
  • SUSPIRIUM PUELLAM GULIELMUS THRAEX!
Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet.
« Reply #22 on: October 06, 2010, 04:20:09 pm »
Well, tomorrow the Crosby Garrett helmet shall know it's fate. I can't resist adding this superb illustration by Peter Lorimer.


surfa

  • Guest
Interesting artifact / article
« Reply #23 on: October 07, 2010, 04:31:55 am »
What a beautiful Roman artifact and an interesting story



London, England (CNN) -- A detailed and well-preserved Roman parade helmet -- complete with fine facial features on its face mask, tight curly hair, and a griffin-topped cap -- will go up for auction Thursday, five months after it was found in northern England.

The helmet is estimated at £200,000 to £300,000 (about $316,000 to $475,000) but could go for much more when it goes on sale at Christie's auction house in London.

The Tullie House Museum in Carlisle, near where the helmet was found in May by a person with a metal detector, has launched a public fundraising appeal to try to procure the helmet as the centerpiece for a new Roman gallery.

Christie's called the Crosby Garrett helmet -- so named for the village where it was found, about 45 miles south of the Scottish border -- an "extraordinary example of Roman metalwork at its zenith" and said it dates to the late 1st to 2nd century A.D.

"The Crosby Garrett helmet sets itself apart by virtue of its beauty, workmanship, and completeness, particularly the face mask, which was found virtually intact," Christie's says. "In addition, the remarkable Phrygian-style peak surmounted by its elaborate bronze griffin crest appears unprecedented."

The helmet is made of two sections: the tall pointed helmet and the face mask. The latter has openwork eyes, which would have allowed the wearer to see during the cavalry sports events -- known as hippika gymnasia -- when it would have been used.

The face has incised eyelashes on the upper and lower lids, herringbone eyebrows, and pierced nostrils, all framed by three rows of corkscrew curls.

At the peak of the cap is a small griffin, seated with its wings outstretched, revealing the incised feather detail. Its right paw is raised and rests on the rim of a small amphora.

Colorful streamers may have been attached to the helmet when it was worn, Christie's says.

Arrian of Nicomedia, a Roman provincial governor under Hadrian, wrote the only surviving contemporary source of information on cavalry sports events, according to Christie's. He describes cavalrymen divided into two teams that took turns to attack and defend, and suggests that wearing the helmets was a mark of rank or excellence in horsemanship.

"Participants would also carry a light, elaborately painted shield, and wear an embroidered tunic and possibly thigh-guards and greaves, all of which would contribute to the impressive spectacle," Christie's says.

"These events may well have accompanied religious festivals celebrated by the Roman army and were probably also put on for the benefit of visiting officials. The displays would have been intended to demonstrate the outstanding equestrian skill and marksmanship of the Roman soldier and the wealth of the great empire he represented."

The helmet is one of only three that have been discovered in Britain complete with face masks, Christie's says. The first was found in 1796 and is now at the British Museum in London, and the other was found around 1905 and is at the Museum of Antiquities in Edinburgh, Scotland.

The helmet is being offered for sale along with other antiquities, including Egyptian pottery and Etruscan and Greek gold jewelry.

Tullie House Museum said a benefactor pledged £50,000 ($79,000) toward its fundraising appeal to bring the helmet back to the region, on condition the public matches the amount.

In all, the museum said it hopes to raise £80,000 ($127,000) in order to obtain financing for an auction bid from other organizations.

"Tullie House's archaeology collections are extensive with a particularly important collection of Roman Cumbria material, especially from Carlisle and the Hadrian's Wall area," it said. "In the development of its collections, Tullie House prioritizes artifacts that are judged to be of high importance to the local heritage and to ensure that items remain or are returned to Cumbria."

Carlisle was an important military center in Roman times, when it was known as Luguvalium. The first Roman fort in Carlisle was built in 72 and 73 A.D. during the initial conquest of northern Britain, at a strategic point overlooking the confluence of two rivers, and just west of the main north-south road, which was used regularly by troops, according to the museum.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/06/england.roman.helmet/index.html?hpt=T2

Offline mwilson603

  • Caesar
  • ****
  • Posts: 1234
Re: Interesting artifact / article
« Reply #24 on: October 07, 2010, 04:49:29 am »
H Surfa,
Story already discussed in https://www.forumancientcoins.com/board/index.php?topic=65738.0, but nice write up.  Any mod able to combine these 2 threads please?
regards
Mark

 

All coins are guaranteed for eternity