EU and UK Antiquity Laws According to Metal Detectoris

.

The UK metal detectorist posing as a dyslexic blonde legal secretary from Bournemouth seems to have run out of arguments setting straight "the misinformation and lies spread by the anti-metal detecting/anti-collecting archaeological lobby" (sic) and attempting to "expose their lies and set the record straight on a legitimate and lawful activity". So he's having a bash at people who've sent comments to this blog, Professor David Gill, Damien Huffer and now Mo. Unfortunately as a collector he really seems lost when dealing with what makes the activity he is engaged in "lawful". In doing so, spreads some misinformation himself, hence the need to correct HIS "lies and misinformation". The post concerned is called with his usual Wellington-boot charm, "Uninformed, misinformed and just plain ignorant".

On my blog Mo asked in passing whether when all the fuss had died down, the Crosby Garrett helmet would always need an export licence to leave the country. "Candice Jarman" takes exception to my answer, which was: "As a fresh dug-up yes. As an object - even if curated in a private collection for some time - of value over a certain threshold value, yes." To this the imposter replies (edited the writer's original bold font):

Well, I am sorry Mr Barford, it looks like little ol' Candy knows the law better than you do. ANY UK found antiquity - fresh OR old dug-up will need an export licence REGARDLESS of value - there is NO "certain threshold value" Mr Barford! Just read here! So what can we summise (sic) from this? Well, it seems some of Mr Barford's readers are really quite uninformed and Mr Barford actually knows less about national antiquities laws than he would like his readers to believe! So much for the self-proclaimed expert in Poland!

well, there is certainly a lot to read there and metal detectorists are not known in general for their ability to read a text longer than eight sentences without needing a break (one actually admitted that to me on a forum - Minister Lammy once described them as people "challenged by formal education"). As a result, I "summise" that "Candice" did not read any of this himself, or what I wrote, or at least with any understanding.

First of all I am not responsible for what people who drop in to my blog know or do not know about anything. I do not hold entrance exams...

Secondly, I think it a little risky to attempt to determine what Paul Barford, who not long ago sent a book to press on the topic, knows or does not know about British antiquity law and policy on the basis of a single one-liner on my blog. If I had written a six-page essay in reply (setting out the various aspects of the question with regard to UK and EU legislation and guidelines with respect to direct products of excavations and material on the collectors' market from within the EU and outside it), and got it wrong, fair enough. The legislation is in fact awfully complex when it comes to cultural property and antiquities in particular.

Nevertheless, I said the Crosby Garrett helmet would need an export licence, and nothing "little ol'Candy" and his neighbour's ten-year old daughter say about these matters indicate that I am wrong. It does, by both UK and EU law. Which is what I said. The problem I hinted at and on the basis of which "Candice" questions my grasp of the subject is whether that will always be the case (which was the gist of Mo's original question).

British export licencing legislation for archaeological artefacts is as nuts as its Treasure legislation. Having variant EU legislation thrown in on top further complicates matters beyond what could be covered in a one-liner. The Waverley criteria are about as much use for ascertaining archaeological significance as the gold or silver content of the Treasure Act. That, for the slow on the uptake, means "zero" use.

The problem I was alluding to is with this definition of "direct product" in the wording of the guidelines, and the suggested proof that the would-be exporter is required to demonstrate that is "sales catalogues" and "publications" which show the object has been on the market and not a "direct product" of excavations. Archaeological objects which are not "finds" are in certain cases exempt from licensing.

Here we begin to run into problems. A single copper alloy Celtic coin of Cunobelinus from the nineteenth century Sir John Evans' collection bought in Spink's for example would not need an export licence to leave the UK. Especially if - even though it came out of the ground in England - Spink's bought it accompanied by Evans' original collector's ticket in an auction held in Munich. What about the Harry H. Scroggins collection of Constantinian Fel Temp Reparatio reverses made from a lifetime of eBay purchases from UK, Italian Bulgarian and other metal detectorists and US 'bulk coin' dealers? Sold individually, that question starts to become very complex if the letter of the law was being stuck to. Sold as a group the situation is simpler - but not if the letter of the law was being stuck to by the exporter. It also matters then if the items are going outside the EU or not.

I suggest that if "Candice" wants to tell people what is what, he gets on to the Portable Antiquities Scheme and clarify that question if he is unclear. But of course the PAS should be monitoring what their "partners" the artefact hunters are up to on the Internet, and should be jumping in when they start misleading the public about the nature of the legislation affecting the hobby of collecting antiquities. In fact, should the PAS not - long ago - have issued its own guidelines written for the benefit of those of its "partners" who want to be law-abiding and do the right thing. I am sure they do not want to encourage "brown boxing" among their partners.

Curated in a collection, however, there comes a time when even the Crosby Garrett helmet is not the "direct product" of excavation. Of course it is too much to expect that British law can actually define when freshly dug up is not freshly dug up (ie. how long ago and in what circumstances), and what criteria apply to that definition. The UK export guidelines say each case is studied on its own merits - which seems rather unsatisfactory. Equally - which is surprising given the amount of metal detecting and international finds trading going on - there have not (yet) been any test cases to aid in a closer definition.