Resources for Authors
To submit a book proposal for preliminary consideration as a publication in the Hellenic Studies Series, please fill out this questionnaire:
Style templates for CHS publications (instructions included in the template). The first is for Microsoft Word 2004 and later; the second is for Microsoft Word 2008 and later; the third is for OpenOffice (Open Document Format applications like NeoOffice and OpenOffice):
- CHS Unicode Template 05.04.2012 for Word 2004 (155 Kb)
- CHS Unicode Template 05.04.2012 for Word 2008 and later (170 Kb)
- CHS Unicode Template 05.04.2012 for Open Office (65 Kb)
In order to avoid the publication of suspect or looted material, and in keeping with the 1970 UNESCO convention against the illicit trafficking of cultural property, the Archaeological Institute of America’s code of ethics, and the 2007 resolution of the American Society of Papyrologists, the Center for Hellenic Studies discourages publication projects involving artifacts that lack secure provenience, or at the very least, secure, documented provenance prior to 1970. Publications on our website from prior years that fail to meet this standard will be labeled as such.
We take as key the distinction that has become a norm for archaeologists between the words provenience and provenance (for a full discussion, see “Looting and Faking” by Theo Nash). Provenience is documentation of the time and place where an object from antiquity was originally recovered, its "find spot," whereas provenance is what has happened to an object since its uncovering, in other words the documentation of its ownership. From an archaeologist's point of view, the provenience of a find is crucial. An ancient object without a secure provenience is both suspect and almost useless, since crucial information about its date and function cannot be asserted or verified. Since the UNESCO Convention of 1970, it has been illegal to participate, directly or indirectly, in the illegal trade in cultural property, and to buy or sell objects that have left their country of origin. Illegally obtained objects ipso facto lack a secure provenience that would betray their illegal sources and must accordingly be suspect as forgeries in the way that objects with secure provenience are not. The situation is similar but not the same for papyrologists and philologists who study papyri. A papyrus without provenience is as suspicious as any object without one, but its usefulness and therefore its value depends on its contents, not where it was found. While the AIA has forbidden the participation in the market for antiquities and publication of objects unearthed since 1970 without provenience, the American Society of Papryologists makes the provenance of a papyrus, the documentation of its ownership, its key criterion. Papyrologists are forbidden to engage directly in the illegal market or to support it indirectly by evaluating looted objects; crucially, they are forbidden to publish, present, or exhibit such papyri without a "frank and thorough discussion" of their provenance. And one cannot be naïve about provenance—it must be verifiable.
The goal of the policies articulated by these professional organizations is to prevent the export of antiquities from their countries of origin and to do everything possible to undermine the illegal market in looted antiquities. There is good reason for that, even apart from the doubts that they raise about authenticity: the people who loot sites do so at risk of their lives, are often the poorest of citizens or their children, and they get themselves killed with impunity by authorities or competitors. As a publishing institution, CHS supports these goals and seeks to abide by the policies that flow from them.