Detectorist’s Treasure is wrongly valued by BM and fails meet minimum

There was a bit of media fuss in past weeks over the upcoming auction of a 15th century gold plaque found by a former pub cook in a field at Great Gaddesden, near Ashridge. The 57-year old housewife was for a while the talk of the metal detecting blogs (frivolous bloggers noted the alliteration Mary Hannaby, housewife from Hemel Hempstead, Hertfordshire and one even wrote a song about it). There is a You Tube video of her detecting in grassland, and a number of online news stories, such as this one which gives a totally odd view of the Treasure process, despite eleven years of outreach by you-know-who.

But then there is much in this story as reported which is unclear. I was unable to find any mention of when actually ths object was found. The object was presumably reported as Treasure and therefore valued “by the British Museum” as worth 4000 GBP. But, according to the news, the BM did not have that much cash in the office desk drawers which (it was said ) was the reason Mrs Hannaby took it to Sotheby’s where it was examined by a specialist (Carolyn Miner – we’ve seen her before) who pronounced it was very valuable, something like 150-250 000 GBP. So it was put up for auction on July 9th. A curiosity is that the landowner said he only wanted 30% of the proceeds instead of the more conventional 50% which treasure hunters usually agree with the owners of productive sites so they can empty them of collectable and saleable artifacts. It is interesting to note that the new valuation was based on it reputedly being one of “only three of the kind” and it was compared to that of the Middleham Jewel, which sold at auction for £1.3million in 1986 and was later resold to the Yorkshire Museum for £2.5million (actually, the Gt Gaddesden object is nothing like the Middleham one in date, function or quality of workmanship).

Two points emerge, Sotheby’s treated the object as a great treasure, but the fact that it came on the market suggests that the British Museum did not. The British Museum valuation of its market value quoted in the media is well below the estimate that Sothebys placed on it.

In the end, both were wrong, bidding opened at 30 000 pounds and closed at 38 000, the minimum having not been reached. But that is still 34 thousand pounds more than the BM is reported to have said it was worth on the market.

Obviously the more and more "metal detecting" finds come to the market the argument that “only three are known” of something wears a bit thin. A few years ago there were “only two”, next decade there might be “thirty two” known, therefore prices for this type of dugup based on (current) "rarity" are devoid of sense. Perhaps this was behind the BM's questionable valuation of the object?
.
In any case, who sees the Holy Trinity on this plaque? Where is the Holy Spirit?

Photo: Top, Mary Hannaby (from the Daily Mail's "the beep that made me leap"(sic);

bottom, gold plaque no collector really wants to pay 250 000 quid for (Sothebys)

Antiquity Seller Claims "Bulgarian Bonanza is over"

A few weeks ago I discussed here the eBay seller „the oddest thing” who said he’d been a US Navy Journalist aboard the USS Springfield (CLG-7) based in Villefranche-Sur-Mer on the southern coast of France in 1966-8. He was selling antiquities he claimed he’d bought while in the region alongside objects which were in fact for the large part imported more recently from Bulgaria. These included a large number of what seemed to be fake antiquities. See my discussion here.

Since then, the gentleman has had a change of heart and the merchandise he is currently offering is of a different nature (well, some of it is the same as before, but he has changed his description of where he gets it). Now he writes:

About Bulgarian artifacts: While Bulgarian law does not consider treasure hunting a crime, they also don't consider the manufacture of artifact reproductions as a crime either! The Bulgarian Bonanza, as I used to call it, is apparently over! The question of authenticity has placed a black cloud over all
Bulgarian imports, so I will no longer offer artifacts imported from Bulgaria.

Now, the first part of the quotation is as untrue now as it was when he claimed it earlier. While objects are represented and sold as “reproductions”, they are legal more or less throughout the world, the moment they are sold as authentic originals problems start, as it seems Mr Oddest-Thing was experiencing.

What however is more interesting is the term “Bulgarian bonanza”. By this the seller obviously means the flow of bulk lots of metal-detected antiquities from ancient sites in the Balkans, principally exported through Bulgaria along the same routes as other illicit commodities. The archaeological record is however a finite and fragile resource, it would seem that even this eBay seller has realized that one cannot keep taking multiple kilogrammes of metal artefacts annually from that resource without it ultimately becoming depleted to the extent that there is hardly anything left in the more accessible places. This is when the faking began. As far as I am concerned, it is not the “question of authenticity” which “has placed a black cloud over all Bulgarian imports” of portable antiquities, it is the destruction that has been caused to the archaeological record in the name of a particularly odious form of commerce.

A further point may be added. As Nathan Elkins has shown in a number of papers and blog/forum posts, a large part of the US ancient coin trade is based on illicit exports from the same Bulgarian suppliers that are providing the metal detected artefacts to eBay sellers like "the Oddest Thing". If these supplers are having the same problems then we may soon be seeing signs of a severe destabilisation of the ancient coin trade, and a search for new sources of saleable material. As this process goes on coin dealers' lobby groups such as the ACCG, PNG and IAPN are likely to get louder in their protesting of the innocence of the o-questions-asked market in antiquities and that "in any case coins are not archaeological artefacts".

"Wise not to respond"?

I was having a look through Wayne Sayles’ “ancient coin collecting (sic) blog” and was struck by one comment sent by coin collector Bill Donovan from New York. It was appended to a text by Sales about the Euphronios krater, in which as far as I could see my name does not appear once. So it is very odd to see that he wrote...

It is hard to decipher all the arguments, because behind a facade of logic sits an irrational foundation. When you try to argue with someone or something who holds an irrational viewpoint (which they are probably unconscious of) you get drawn into their insanity. I think you are wise not to respond to Paul Barford, for the reason mentioned above.

Wise not to be drawn into my insanity, into my irrationality? Anyone would think that instead of the effects of the no-questions-asked antiquities trade, I was discussing FEMA prison trains, thought control chips inserted into citizens’ heads, conspiracy theories about the personal life of a US Secretary of State or whatever. According to MR Donovan there is a mere facade of logic in my position, but the underlying foundation does not fit what Mr Donovan considers rational. Mr Donovan is very proud of his artwork, let us watch and listen to him talking about it on his blog “inkstained hands” (caution: contains coins and topless video scene). The "rationality" Mr Donovan seeks apparently looks a bit like this, or maybe this, or as seen here and here (etc.).

The author of this art considers it the “wisdom” of the proponents of the no-questions-asked market to avoid answering the questions and points raised by their critics. Instead of dismissing a position by pretending it is "based on an irrational foundation", what would be even more wise would be to do what the critics of no-questions-asked collecting are doing to the arguments of its proponents. We are consistently exposing the irrationality at the core of their own arguments and stubbornly-maintained positions. After all, if critics of no-questions-asked market really are using irrational arguments, it should be easy to chase them (us) off the field of public debate on the heritage. There would be no need for all the personal attacks and glib platitudes that substitute in the pro-collecting rhetoric (I use the term loosely) for proper reasoned debate. Mr Donovan might do well to try to articulate that "irrationality" he sees in the archaeological resource preservation case - if he cannot put it into words, maybe (please) in the form of a cycle of colour-clash cartoonic artworks.

Photo: When it comes to accidental art, I personally prefer something more like this.

U.S. settles with family of scholar

.
The U.S. government has agreed to pay $880,000 to the estate of the late Roxanna Brown, the 62-year-old Southeast Asia scholar who died in federal custody in Seattle last year. Brown, a US citizen, directed the Southeast Asian Ceramics Museum at Bangkok University, in Thailand. She was arrested on a single charge of 'wire fraud' on May 9th 2008 in Seattle, where she was scheduled to speak at the University of Washington. During her imprisonment in a detention center at the SeaTac detention centre (a multi-story, maximum-security facility that serves the Northwest region) where she was awaiting transfer to Los Angeles to face the charge there, she complained of being ill and missed a court date. Four days later (May 14th) she died in her cell from a perforated ulcer for which no medical assistance had been supplied by federal authorities.

Ms Brown's arrest was part of last year's investigations into the donation of allegedly looted artefacts to US museums and related tax offences in a case which got a lot of media coverage at the time. In January 2008, hundreds of federal agents had raided the Bowers Museum in Orange County, the Pacific Asia Museum in Pasadena, the Mingei Museum in San Diego and the Los Angeles County Museum of Art, along with nine other locations in California and Illinois. Brown was expected to play a key role in the case as an expert witness and informant to government investigators. Her death in federal custody has been a setback to investigators; since it, there have been no public moves in the case.

In a paradoxical turn of events, Brown had become a target of the same investigators who she had earlier been aiding. She was arrested because her name was allegedly associated with the appraisal of objects for Jonathan and Cari Markell, Los Angeles gallery owners. Authorities said they had found her electronic signature on the appraisal forms that inflated the value of artwork. It is alleged that the gallery's clients then donated objects to local museums for inflated tax write-offs.

More disturbingly it was also alleged that Ms Brown had been involved in the sale of Thai antiquities to Robert Olson, an alleged smuggler from Cerritos (see the letter published in the LA Times which if genuine certainly raises some questions). The settlement therefore leaves unanswered broader questions about Brown's role in the alleged scheme.

The Los Angeles Times produced a lengthy three part portrait of the deceased and account of this case which made interesting reading:
Part 1: a passion for art, a perilous pursuit,
Part 2: Her career revived, scholar turns tipster,
Part 3: Once an aid in a federal probe, antiquities scholar becomes a key target .

Photo: Roxanna Brown during her years covering the Vietnam War (Fred Leo Brown)

What happens to dugups when collectors get their hands on them

Request for information on a collectors' discussion list from one Geremy Gilbert:

My name is Geremy and im new to collecting old roman coins. It has been a complete blast so far. Does any one have any great tips on how to clean up old roman coins? Ive been soaking them in olive oil for a couple of months then taking a nylon brush and water to them. Im open for suggestions.

Reply helpfully offered by coin collector Bob Lilja:

You have quite a selection of methods, many engendering criticism. Electrolysis is popular, tumbling with various media is another, and there are assorted chemical treatments. Usually, patina and heavy cleaning are incompatible. Depends on how far you want to go.

The methods "engendering criticism" are the ones that destroy the artefact, making something which was already stripped of its potential information value by ripping it out of context (decontextualisation) into something also devoid of any information that may be contained in its original surface within the corrosion layers that formed on it when buried in archaeological contexts. In such a manner the destruction of evidence at the hands of the collector is total and irreversible. No surprises there, then.

To be fair, alongside Mr Lilja's scandalous recommendations, we have one from a Ken Baumheckel who puts the "dry coin under a low power stereo microscope and use a needle or a fiberglass scratch pen to remove obscuring material from the coin's legends and devices". This is far closer to what archaeological conservation specialists would do, though in the wrong hands such tools can also lead to damage (when does mechanical cleaning become "tooling"?). Mr Baumheckel forgets though to mention the safety precautions needed for using a "fibergalass scratch pen" (nasty tools) in such a manner and the necessity to stabilise the corrosion products remaining by use of inhibitors and/or controlled storage. Of course those who buy coins in bulk simply dunk them in something, "zap" them by electrolysis, or tumble them. They bought them "cheap" after all, and even if the majority are damaged by such treatment (and can be dirtied up a bit and sold on), some may come out to be identifiable, after a little "enhancement".

Posts like Mr Lilja's really do put the claims made by portable antiquity collectors that they are "saving and preserving pieces of the past for future generations" into perspective. Many of them are instead actively trashing the artefacts in their "tender, loving" care through ignorance, carelessness and haste.

ANS Executive Director on the war between coin collectors and conservationists

In an editorial from the Spring 2007 American Numismatic Society newsletter, Ute Wartenberg Kagan the Executive Director of the ANS spoke out against the belicose rhetoric employed by the ACCG and its supporters (here the emphasis is mine):

an e-mail from a member has prompted me to speak up. This message ended by asking me to “get SERIOUS before American numismatists experience their own ‘holocaust’ at the hands of these ivory tower fascists.” This message had been preceded by an e-mail in which the phrase “Pearl Harbor of the Cultural Property War” was used. Although I understand that this is an important issue, the increasingly belligerent tone of the debate makes me wonder whether a better response and attitude may exist.

Pointing out that the ANS "has long been a place where academics, collectors, dealers, and curators have shared their interest in coinage and other items", she expresses the hope that the ANS will serve as a place where the issues concerning looting, the market and illegal imports could be discussed and debated. She expresses the conviction that "there is common ground between archaeologists who care about their sites and collectors who care about their coins". I guess for this reason the ANS seems not to be involved in the ACCH illegal coin import stunt.

Indeed, the ANS takes a dim view of the illicit trade. The collection policy of one of the largest collections in the Americas (800 000 objects) thus states that:

The ANS supports the spirit and intent of the UNESCO convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illegal Import, Export, and Transfer of Cultural Property of November 14, 1970. The Society will not purchase or exhibit numismatic objects or other items that the Society reasonably suspects to have been unlawfully removed from archeological sites, stolen from public or private collections, removed from their country of origin in contravention of that country's laws declaring them state property or otherwise imported in contravention of the laws of the United States.

Good for them. But then if they get a gift of somebody's collection, in the present Petrarchian mode of undocumented collection, there are unlikely t be records which show which coins come from Petrarch's old collection and which ones came from a Punxatawney dealer in ancient coins who bought them in a German auction from a seller supplied by a bloke with a brother in Bulgaria and a van.

I wonder how many of the 2260 members supported the ACCG protest against the Cyprus MOU?

Seven days to go....

Two US dealers’ associations the Ancient Coin Collectors Guild and Professional Numismatists Guild together with the Belgium-based International Association of Professional Numismatists have decided to challenge the legality of the US government’s imposition of import controls on certain types of archaeological artefact. Wayne Sayles, executive director of the CCG declared this a “war” with the conservation lobby.

The first stage of this “war” was through a Freedom of Information suit to attempt to obtain copies of documents from the US State Department which would be compromising and indicate that the imposition of the import controls being fought (the two of eight which involve restrictions on the import of ancient coins) was achieved in some way unlawfully. So far the plaintiffs have not received the documents they need to prove this case, so are merely left to mouth conspiracy theories.

Stage two of the “war” involved provoking US customs into seizing a package of coins imported by an individual or individuals associated with the ACCG (in conflict with their own “code of ethics”). These had been sold to the US buyer by an (unnamed) foreign seller who had not supplied them with the documentation required to allow them to pass through US customs unchallenged. In the absence of the export licences required by section 307(a) of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CPIA) there is a dealer-friendly let-out clause which allows the exporter and importer to skirt right round the export licence problem by simply signing a what amounts to a “due diligance” statement (section 307(b) and 307 (c). They have ninety days to do this. Three months seems ample time for an importer and exporter to arrange a simple signed statement is sent across the Atlantic to allow these objects to reach their purchaser.

Stage three of this “war” is presumably intended to be an expensive legal case where in fighting to have “their” coins returned by US customs, the ACCG and affiliated organizations will attempt to show that it s not they who are acting against US law, but the US government in imposing import restrictions on US citizens buying undocumented archaeological material abroad. As another collector has noted, this is at the US tax-payer’s expense.

Presumably there is intended to be a fourth stage where if the ACCG and affiliated bodies win the first three legal cases, they would intend to use this as a lever to change US legislation to allow unregulated movement of decontextualised archaeological material into the US regardless of origin. This seems to be the ultimate aim of the ACCG/PNG/IAPN’s FOI request and the Baltimore illegal coin import stunt.

Meanwhile we have seen that in the ninety days in which the ACCG and affiliated bodies could have supplied a signed due diligence statement, dealers in other antiquities from the countries involved in the same MOUs have been continuing trade, and collectors of other collectable material from these countries in the US have continued collecting without complaining. Without protest. Without deliberately engaging in illegal activity to challenge their government’s ability to enforce the laws. Ninety days in which the only problem-makers have been a small group of ancient coin dealers intent on being free to trade material without paying any attention whatsoever to any restraints whatsoever. The epitome of the no-questions-asked trade.

There is of course time for a transatlantic fax or courier of a simple piece of paper from the seller to allow these coins to continue on their journey from US Customs in Baltimore to their purchaser, but time is running out. In fact it runs out on the thirteenth, a day future coin collectors may come to regard as an unlucky one as a result of the long-term effects of this coin stunt on their hobby and "freedoms".