Looting at English Heritage Sites

Old Sarum © David Gill

It has been noted that reported incidents of looting at heritage sites in England have doubled in the last year ("English Heritage urges end to illegal metal detecting at historic sites", BBC News 27 February 2020). The sites include:

• The site of the Battle of Hastings
• Goodrich Castle
• Old Sarum

It is noted that up to 75 holes were dug at each site.

Back in 2015 I noted that such incidents were falling outside the definition of "Heritage Crime" that was being promoted by some commentators. 

Are such incidents being trivialised by some in the academic community? The archaeological record needs to be protected from such acts of looting.

A parade helmet among 50 Roman finds

2020

John Pearce and Sally Worrell have presented 50 largely decontextualised Roman finds from England. Among them (no. 4) is the so-called 'Crosby Garrett helmet' that some claim comes from Cumbria, though there remains a possibility that it was recovered near Catterick on the other side of the Pennines. 

How reliable are these reported find-spots? Why is there no discussion of the loss of archaeological context?

For some of the issues related to this helmet are discussed here.

The Schøyen Collection

It has been some time since LM commented on the incantation bowls from the Schøyen Collection and the discussion (including the report available via wikileaks).

A detailed study of the Schøyen collection is now available:
Prescott, C., and J. M. Rasmussen. 2020. "Exploring the “cozy cabal of academics, dealers and collectors” through the Schøyen Collection." Heritage 3: 68–97.
DOI https://doi.org/10.3390/heritage3010005

This raises important ethical issues for academics who are involved in the research on and publication of such newly surfaced materials.

Abstract
In the wake of the trade in ancient materials, several ethical and political issues arise that merit concern: The decimation of the cultural heritage of war-torn countries, proliferation of corruption, ideological connotations of orientalism, financial support of terrorism, and participation in networks involved in money laundering, weapon sales, human trafficking and drugs. Moreover, trafficking and trading also have a harmful effect on the fabric of academia itself. This study uses open sources to track the history of the private Schøyen Collection, and the researchers and public institutions that have worked with and supported the collector. Focussing on the public debates that evolved around the Buddhist manuscripts and other looted or illicitly obtained material from Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq, this article unravels strategies to whitewash Schøyen’s and his research groups’ activities. Numerous elements are familiar from the field of antiquities trafficking research and as such adds to the growing body of knowledge about illicit trade and collecting. A noteworthy element in the Schøyen case is Martin Schøyen and his partner’s appeal to digital dissemination to divorce collections from their problematic provenance and history and circumvent contemporary ethical standards. Like paper publications, digital presentations contribute to the marketing and price formation of illicit objects. The Norwegian state’s potential purchase of the entire Schøyen collection was promoted with the aid of digital dissemination of the collection hosted by public institutions. In the wake of the Schøyen case, it is evident that in spite of formal regulations to thwart antiquities trafficking, the continuation of the trade rests on the attitudes and practice of scholars and institutions.