My reading of the paper left me thinking the set in the Met is of unknown provenance, this is huge in archaeology/history as folks tend not to consider things w

My reading of the paper left me thinking the set in the Met is of unknown provenance, this is huge in archaeology/history as folks tend not to consider things without having context of the exact source. It's pretty clear (or seems so) that the armor in the Met came from there, but the Met doesn't seem to have a definitive source for it. I could have read it wrong or misunderstood, but I've been reading a lot about ancient history and they seem to value items found in-situ with context over ones that surface after they've been discovered without context.