Portable Finds and Roman Britain

My review of 50 Roman Finds from the Portable Antiquities Scheme (2020) has appeared in the latest number of the Journal of Art Crime. Several issues are explored including the accuracy of the find-spots.

Some of the finds have been derived from agricultural work, but most are obtained as a result of metal-detecting, some from more than 0.6 m below the plough soil. How much contextual information has been lost when hoards are removed from the ground? What scientific information has been derived about the so-called 'Gloucestershire Licking Dog Hoard'?

The so-called Crosby Garrett helmet is discussed along with the reported post-find investigation. Sadly this significant find is not on permanent public display. Why not?

I wonder if some of the finds are derived from Grand Tour collections rather than providing evidence of the Roman occupation of Britain. The garnet head of a philosopher may have been derived from Oxnead Hall, home of the Paston family in Norfolk. (Two other databases place it in Huntingdonshire or Oxfordshire.) A copper-alloy balsamarium could have derived from the collection of the antiquary Bryan Faussett. 

This study suggests that there are potential intellectual consequences of using this type of material for interpreting the study of Roman Britain.

Reference

Gill, D. W. J. 2020. Review of John Pearce and Sally Worrell, 50 Roman Finds from the Portable Antiquities Scheme (Stroud: Amberley, 2020). Journal of Art Crime 24: 69–74.