[Shane Allee]

I opened this can of worms a few years back to see what others thoughts were on the subject and it is something I’m interesting in hearing again. Recently I realized that my thoughts and feelings on this subject had changed, but I am still unsure of taking the step of owning an antique artifact. Before I didn’t want the responsibility associated with owning an antique, nor did I really feel that I had much of a reason too other than just something else in a collection. Now I have had the chance to handle a few, mostly Japanese and a saber or two, nothing that old really. More than anything though I am getting to a point where I wouldn’t mind having a piece or two as study pieces which I could broaden my knowledge of certain styles as well as be something I could possibly make a replica based upon.

Now that I have the desire to own and study an antique, I’m still left with a few problems. I have studied enough archaeology to know the amounts of information that can be lost once an object is removed from its context. Growing up I have been able to see first hand what treasure hunters and grave robbers can do. A couple years ago there was a seller or two from Germany selling seax blades cheap, thinking back it would be great to have one of these to study, but even know I don’t know if I would buy something like this because of the above reasons. There would be no way to know if it has been ethically or even for that matter legally possessed. Really all you know is maybe the country of origin. Right now there seems to be some La Tene artifacts that are very tempting to me, but I don’t know….

What are your thoughts on the subject? Would you own an antique? If you have bought one before, how much information were you able to find out about it? Did you make a point to find out how the object was found and any means of study that might had been done, as well as means of preservation that have been done to the artifact. Was any of this even a consideration for you? Etc…

Thanks
Shane

P.S. Move this as need be...

[Russ Ellis]

I was probably involved with the original brouhaha those years ago. Im pretty consistent my opinions on the subject really haven't changed. First I think if an individual wishes to own an antique and can foot the bill more power to them. Personally I don't wish to have the responsibilty of ownership, nor take the financial hit for what is essentially a sword that is just as unusable as the crummiest pakistani import. I also do not think that studying a single weapon or even several gives a clear enough picture to really make that a viable reason for owning a piece. Far better to examine them in a museum. Just my thoughts...

[Alexi Goranov]

Hi Shane,

It is an interesting question you are asking. I have never owned an antique, nor would I in near future (due to the cost of these fine things). But I have thought about about it, and since you are asking about thoughts, here are mine.

I think that the desire to OWN a piece comes more or less from collector inside of us. I am not certain that you need to own a pice in order to study it. I would like to hear Peter Johnsson on that subject, since from what I gather he travels all over the place to museums and collections for the purpose of studying swords. He (or any one else with the experience) may give us insight as to does one REALLY need to own a piece to get a good impression of it. My first guess will be NO, one does not need to own the piece to be able to study/reproduce it (but needs access to it). Again, that is just a guess. I suspect that will be more true about people with much expertise than about people who have had less exposure to antiques.

There is something about the antiques that calls us. I do not know what it is, but I feel it. I cannot find a rational explanation about this inclination to want to OWN one or more antiques. At the very least one can compare it to the reproductions we have and use it as the standard to judge reproductions by (provided one makes educated comparisons).

How concerned should we be about the lack of context within which we find particular pieces? I have no educated opinion on this one. All I can say is that the lack of context increases the number of assumptions we have to make about the weapon and decreases the certainty with which we can make some statements, if we could make them at all (where was it made, by who, when, how was it used, where was it used, against what opponents was it used, etc.). Personally, I'd rather have a relatively well preserved sword of a kind that I admire without historical context, than a half rotten well documented sword. Each of those types has a great significance and can teach us much, but the question is what are you willing to spend your money on. That is a matter of personal preference.

There is no practical advise in my babbling, just an exposition of my thoughts.

Cheers,

Alexi

[Allan Senefelder]

Hi Shane , i've owned tons and tons of stuff over the years ( started collecting when I was nine years old ) everything
from reinaissance to WWII and swords and armour to uniforms, rifles and service jewelery and loved every minute of it . I would spend hours just going over and over each new peice soaking in the history of it ( actually wallowing is the more appropriate word ) . I buy now just for research for new pieces but still do the same to each new piece wallowing
in the history it carries with it , going over and over it thinking about where its been and whats been done with it .
But thats just me and my bag and doesn't mean you should run out and buy something at all . I will tell you that I
have learned a great deal that was valuable in the context of what I do for a living from the period armour i've owned .

[Jesse Zinn]

Couple of thoughts on the matter (originally posted elsewhere... ( http://forums.swordforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5793 )...

First, Principle Three of the Society for American Archaeology's Principles of Archaeological Ethics is as follows:

http://www.saa.org/aboutSAA/ethics.html


"Principle No. 3: Commercialization
The Society for American Archaeology has long recognized that the buying and selling of objects out of archaeological context is contributing to the destruction of the archaeological record on the American continents and around the world. The commercialization of archaeological objects - their use as commodities to be exploited for personal enjoyment or profit - results in the destruction of archaeological sites and of contextual information that is essential to understanding the archaeological record. Archaeologists should therefore carefully weigh the benefits to scholarship of a project against the costs of potentially enhancing the commercial value of archaeological objects. Whenever possible they should discourage, and should themselves avoid, activities that enhance the commercial value of archaeological objects, especially objects that are not curated in public institutions, or readily available for scientific study, public interpretation, and display."



And, my composition from the SFI thread linked above...


"The arguments against the private collecting of historical antiquities (be they swords, pots, statuary, art, currency, etc.) have generally (but granted, not always) arisen from a reasoned philosophy that holds that history and culture (as expressed through any and all its manifestations, e.g. artifacts) belong to all societies and thus persons that ever have, or ever will exist. Culture is a uniquely human expression, dependent upon massed and interacting individuals, and thus has never relied solely upon any given individual. And as such, any behavior which limits the free access of (any) peoples and persons to such (and any) products of history and culture is considered, at least by this philosophy, to be fairly unconscionable.

Certainly, museums, government officials, historians, archaeologists, scholars, etc. have failed many a perspective regarding the “utilization” of artifacts, records, exhibits, etc. And, IMO, they always will (and they also will always succeed in others’ perspectives). The interpretation of culture and history has always been, and likely always will be, an arena of competing and conflicting perspectives; many based on faith, many based on philosophy, many based on “altruism,” many based on power, many based on economics, and many based on any number of motivations, reasoned or not. Most certainly, history, archaeology, anthropology, art history, classics, etc., and any myriad of museums and research centers the world over have benefited from the philanthropy of private collectors. This fact, however, does not address nor contradict the above philosophy of open access.

In most western societies (and likely in most societies in general), and certainly in the United States, it remains legally and socially (though not necessarily so – the ethics are argued daily) acceptable to engage in the private collection of historical artifacts/antiquities, providing certain laws and regulations are not violated. Many researchers despair at this, and some politically lobby against it. Nonetheless, most researchers acknowledge the benefit of philanthropic private collectors, but only when they remain philanthropic. Many a private collection was donated not by the collector, but by his/her heirs. While private collections may serve to enflame the passions of history in an individual, and which thus may lead to any avenue of social benefit (be it education, publicity, research, contribution, etc.), they also remain closed, or potentially closed, more or less, to the greater society (or societies).

This thread began in addressing the “faking” of ancient Chinese swords. The trade (legal or illicit) of “true” ancient Chinese swords to western (or wherever) societies denies the many Chinese societies portions of their ancestral history and culture. The private holding of such Chinese swords by individuals denies all societies their global history and culture.

It should be clear that the collecting, buying (and requisite selling) of antiquities creates a market for the exchange of such antiquities, thus making them commodities. The demand for such commodities causes systems of supply. And supply will be met in the most economically expeditious manner possible. In the antiquity trade the most economically expeditious manner is looting (far moreso than theft). The looting of cultural sites destroys the historical and cultural context surrounding such antiquities, resulting in the irretrievable loss of historical information. Context is everything in archaeology, and without it, we are all left with only pretty objects. Cultural sites are a finite resource – when they are gone, they are gone, forever."



Thanks for listening,
Jesse

[Allan Senefelder]

A well reasoned series of thoughts Jesse . However i'm not taking any of the items i've obtained and loved over the
last 27 years and getting on a plane to England , France Germany or wherever they originated from and dropping
them off . They were displaced long before I or any one else here was borne and there is no I repeat no way to
restore them to thier historical point of origin and have it be genuin so the best that can be done is to learn from them
whats to be learned and treat them well . In an ideal world there's some organizetion that will put all these things in there
proper place but we don't live in an ideal world so all we can do is make the best use of it as it is .

[Thomas McDonald]

[Andrew Winston]

An interesting and thought provoking topic.

Shouldn't we be making a distinction made between ancient artifacts uncovered from an archeological find and "antiques" removed from their original culture and use?

[Allan Senefelder]

Mac you hit on something that kinda sticks in my craw a bit . There are vast , vast amounts of educationally valueable
materials locked away in museums and universities all over that are and will always be unavaliable . The Met has a
collection of armour thats failed thats bigger than thier floor display but will never be shown because it lacks" artistic
merit " . When I was out in Wisconsin last month Eric was showing me pictures he took at a university when he was
in Sweden of drawer after drawer of swords, axes daggers , buckles ect. that will never be avaliable to expand the
knowledge base ( it perhaps might help if those who publish books on the topic of arms and armour would
put in a little effort and not just keep using the same tired examples of originals "oh look its the pembridge helm,
oh theres the cherborg armour again ") . We take the original peices we have to faire every summer and let our
customers see and handle them to " educate " if you will . They're not doing us any good after we've gone over them
just sitting around and by taking them out thier value as teaching tools is passed on .

[Michael Pearce]

I own a number of antiques that were purchased cheaply because they are veiwed as having little significance or interest to archaologists as yet- particularly two tulwars from the 18th century. Swords from India were for years available 'on the cheap' (I didn't pay more than $60 for either sword) because they were common and of no interest to collecters until the collecting boom of the 1980s raised the price of european antique swords out of reach of the average man.

These two swords are plain and rather rough looking, and if owned by a museum would have been sequestered in a drawer or on a shelf somewhere away from public view and never seen the light of day- too often such pieces are allowed to deteriorate so that the limited resources available can be devoted to more 'worthy' pieces. Such pointless hoarding would have denied access to these pieces and nothing would ever have been learned of them. With them in my possession other people have gotten to see and study them, and I have been able to study them myself and have learned a bit about them and swords ingeneral by doing so. These pieces were both brought to the west no later than WW2, and of course have no provenance at all- I have had to date them based on characteristic features of form and construction. The significance of these pieces as 'historic artifacts' is virtually nil- their significance as examples of sword-making however is is much more significant to a student of swords.

The very lack of monetary and 'historical' value of these swords has allowed me to take them to shows and allow people to handle and examine them. What is better- to have these two pieces rotting on a back-shelf in a museum, or to have them preserved, studied, examined, displayed publically and even tested by a collecter?

[Jonathan Henzi]

Its hard to break into such a educated discussion when one is not as versed into collecting as the rest of you are but I'd like to add some insight. One can alway over analyze a particular subject. For me its music because that's what I'm educated in. I sit down and say to myself "that symphony was good but it lacked the composers true feelings", and I could go on all day especially if their a others with educated Ideas. The same applies for swords. Those of you that have posted on this thread have supplied me with a greater insight to this particular topic. Different points of view, idealism VS. realism, the world of swords would not fascinate me like it does if it weren't for folks like you guy's. however, in regards to historical artifacts I think that its a combination of a few replies in this thread. As I immerse myself into the sword collecting world I want to draw from what was the elemental reason I first liked swords. This particular event in all our lives has been at the base of the evolution for each and everyone of our hobbies(or lifes ambition). If we loose site of this simple truth We loose site of what it is to collect . One guy said that collecting an antique is useless because the sword is useless. History is not useless. For the guy who wanted to own a piece of history to learn from it more power to you. Some people seem to put a price on pricelessness so whatever you can gain from that particular piece of history is worth that much. It is also an investment that grows. So not only can you learn and grow frow tangible history you can own it and it only gets better as time goes by, it can benefit your family financially as more years pass. I see only a win-win situation here. Posess History and soke it up, the one with the most toy's wins, Whatever your reason it's elemental to you, it's part of you. It a true joy that the museums don't have all the specimens out there. Because ultimately Swords were made to have one owner so that man and blade could become one. Owning a sword that has that history taps you into that mind set. Somebody carried this sword. They might not have used it but it was there for that. Sword are like guns in that they represent mortality ar the lack of mortality. The imagination is a powerful thing, we can evolve from it and it's fun. So as not to go on-and-on, Sword collecting at its core should be fun in however that particular individual deems so. I look forward to learning more from everybody to help evolve an cultivate the road I'm on. Thanks for listening.

[Shane Allee]

Well, looks as if everyone who wants to weight in has had a chance.

As Tinker pointed out, price isn't always that much. This morning an early iron age sacrificed blade sold on ebay for $120, the seaxes from a couple years ago sold in the $20-40 range I believe. Things like axes, spears, and knives often times sell dirt cheap. Now of course one can't expect to find a sword like one out of an Oakeshott book for these kinds of prices.

Studying museum pieces is something that I hope to be able to do in the not too distant future, and it would be great if I could go into virtually any museum that I wanted and study however many sword for however long I wanted. Thats not going to happen though. Peter has some wild stories about examining museum pieces and I can't even imagine the amount of frustration he has had at times. It isn't easy getting the confidence of the right people to even let you in the door, and even if you do it will be under very limiting conditions. Which does bring us to another aspect, examining a blade in a museum for a couple hours verses and extended study of a piece. In a museum you might have time to do a quick sketch, take your measurements, and take your photos; getting an overall feel for it. I wish I would have asked Peter this, but I wonder just how many sleepless nights he has had after museum trips where he keeps having ideas about this or that aspect of a sword and he is left to wonder. The latest piece that I have been able to look handle is an older wak, all told I have stared at the saya for close to two hours just trying to figure out how they did the laquer work. There will be a difference in the amount a person can learn from the two.

Really, there are tons of issues in this subject area when one things about it. For example do you buy an antique to "save" it from possible mistreatment. Of course and always fun debate was the idea of leaving sites untouched for future generations. On one hand, what might be lost between now and the time the site is excavated. On the other what might we not be able to learn now that we could sometime in the future. It can get just crazy...

Personally I think I am about to the point that I might try buying a piece here or there to study for a few years, then try and donate it if anywhere would except it. Still left with the problem of making sure it has been obtained by ethical means, and I'm not sure how to deal with this yet.

Thanks for sharing everyone.

Shane

[Sean Flynt]

Ethical concerns aside, I think ownership of ANY antique weapon brings with it a responsibility to exhaustively document the weapon and place all available information in the public sphere, ideally via a site like this one.

[J. Charles Penn]