The Last Word On Nothing

13 thoughts on “One Roman Helmet, Going, Going, Gone”

1. Depressing indeed. I saw this on the BBC news today,and had exactly the same reaction; and I fear that your imagining of that ‘public spirited individual’ is overly optimistic – they’d’ve just donated the $470K, wouldn’t they?
   The real underlying question, I suppose, is: why the f was this object up for auction at Christie’s in the first place? I know the answer, of course – some ignoramus’s avarice – and that’s perhaps the most depressing bit of all.
   Makes you want to turn communist, doesn’t it?

2. Part of the problem is also the British government. I think it’s very good at pretending to be interested in preserving Britain’s fabulous cultural heritage, but often it doesn’t bother to take the necessary steps to protect things. In this case,the legal definition of a national “treasure” was simply too limited to include the helmet. Very sad and bizarre.

   1. Heather, I hadn’t realized how beautiful this helmet really was until I saw this picture. You could just sit and look at it for a long time, couldn’t you. I hope the plutocrat does that at least.

      1. Ann: It’s a knockout, isn’t it? You can’t see it in this photo, but there’s even a little griffen perched on top of the man’s hat. I love everything about this helmet.

         But who know what will happen to it if it slips into private hands. Anything could happen..

3. I missed this in the news. I was so hoping some institution (I mean that in the best way) would step in and keep the treasure in the same country where it met its fate.
   I certainly hope it does not land up as a dinner party trophy, admired by possibly less than twenty people.
   Living in Spain, I have seen private gardens full of Roman remains, not reported, very cared for but still in situ. Also seen empty spaces in gardens where the centre piece of a Roman mosaic has been dug out and sent to a private home to be a coffee table.
   I will tune into my optomistic side and hope the helmet stays in Britain on public display but fear it has been lost in an Ebay type auction frenzy.

   1. Rosie: That’s incredibly interesting about the private gardens with Roman remains in situ that you’ve seen in Spain. It must be an incredible experience to wander through them. I love seeing artifacts in situ, and I certainly don’t object to someone keeping them that way, as long as the objects are suffering or deteriorating.

      I’m trying to stay optimistic about the helmet, too. I’ts not easy.

4. It is indeed a travesty, and in stark contrast to response given the Staffordshire hoard, which was declared ‘treasure’ by the national government and subsequently purchased, refurbished with help from the Louvre, and is now ready to go on public display.

   http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11468138

   Apparently, only gold and silver are considered treasure in jolly ol’ England.

   1. Dan: Yes, ridiculous, isn’t it?

5. Just to put the record straight about British law on this: Only certain categories of ‘finds’ (e.g. stuff unearthed by metal detectors etc.) can be classed as ‘treasure’. The rules currently say that only items mainly made of gold or silver qualify. If it qualifies, the finder and the landowner share an estimated reward, and the item belongs to the Crown, i.e. the public. If it doesn’t, it’s down to the finder and the landowner to sort it out between themselves. This item didn’t qualify under these rules.
   You can argue that these rules are inadequate (although I don’t know where you’d draw the line – bits of old pottery? rusty old bikes?) – but what you can’t do is suggest that this particular case was in any way a governmental decision. The law of the land was correctly applied.
   Incidentally, just out of interest, what’s the corresponding law in the good ol’ USofA, Dan?

6. Tim: Yes, I agree that everything was done according to law. But I feel that British law is sorely lacking when it comes to protecting archaeological heritage–both on land and in the sea. Britain has yet to sign, for example, the UN Convention on the Protection of the Underwater Cultural Heritage (http://portal.unesco.org/la/convention.asp?KO=13520&language=E&order=alpha), which is truly remarkable given the fact that Britain has long prided itself on its maritime history.

7. Tim:

   I believe heritage preservation in the US is typically a matter of state law … as evidenced by this updated story on the Oxford Mound controversy from Alabama.

   http://www.annistonstar.com/view/full_story/7926341/article-New-law-would-have-saved-Oxford-mound?

   I’m Canadian, and here, provincial law seems to be the deciding factor, although the national government can step in when it wants to, as it did with the Burgess Shale, which is now a UN Heritage Site.

   http://www.burgess-shale.bc.ca/discover-burgess-shale/introduction

   Newly discovered sites are a different story, as evidenced by this fascinating discussion, with good links:

   http://qmackie.wordpress.com/2010/10/09/heritage-dinosaurs/

   As far as I can tell, there is nothing on the books in Canada that would automatically declare any discovery as ‘national treasure’.

8. Last word from me on this intriguing and important area:
   1. Thank you both for responding and informing me – I’m not an expert in any field (as you can tell), but am still insatiably curious about whatever catches my eye.
   2. Let’s not confuse conservation (which applies, or should, to any object/site/environment) with ownership (which comes into play, usually, only when there is commercial value at stake, and which the original Roman Helmet issue was about).

   Right, off for a gin and tonic.

9. Pingback: Finding buried treasure and keeping it (quiet) « A Corner of Tenth-Century Europe

Comments are closed.