The publication of unexcavated artifacts, objects acquired from the art market, and which derive from the plundering of ancient sites, has for some time occupied the thoughts of serious archaeologists. Because of the nature of their derivation process some scholars have argued that it is unethical to publish them; that such publication does not serve the needs of archaeology. Others have argued that these orphaned objects must indeed be published, that while illegitimately (both legally and morally) acquired, it is nevertheless legitimate, indeed necessary to publish them, to share them, so to speak, with colleagues. At the request of James Wiseman, the Editor-in-Chief of the JFA, I was recently asked to speak to this issue from the perspective of a review of a recently published catalogue of unexcavated material. I chose to deal with tis request by first presenting a discrete review of an appropriate catalogue, and then to offer in a separate section my own views on the necessity of publishing unexcavated material. The review is purposefully written in a traditional manner, written exactly as I would for a journal traditionally accepting book reviews, and giving opinions and criticisms normal in such a context. Therein will be found my views concerning what problems confront scholarsship in the publication, and which in themselves will speak to some of the issues raised, directly and indirectly, by Wiseman's request. Wiseman also takes up these issues in an essay in this issue of the JFA.