Over on his CPO blog (in a deliberately provocative post: "SAFE: Say Yes to the Corrupt Bulgarian Status Quo?") Peter Tompa proposes the "regulation of metal detectors" in Bulgaria which goes against (as British-based collector Kyri noted in his comments on CPO) what he'd been saying about their use for searching for collectable 'portable antiquities' in England and Wales. His reply to Kyri is notable: The use of metal detectors is regulated in the UK through the Treasure Act and scheduling archaeological sites. On the other hand, there does not seem to be any effective regulation of them in Bulgaria at all.So the use of metal detectors to hunt for collectable archaeological objects on archaeological sites in Bulgaria according to this cultural property lawyer is totally unregulated by law? I suggest the cultural property lawyer go back to cultural property law school. The use of metal detectors in Britain is NOT "regulated" through the Treasure Act (which applies to dog-walkers and truffle-diggers who find Treasure), the only place in the UK where metal detector use is regulated (by a permit system) is in Northern Ireland, but that is under different legislation. I find it somewhat odd that the Washington lawyer is calling for a "regulation" of something in one EU country where he praises the lack of regulation of use of the same thing for finding archaeological material in England and Wales.
Peter Tompa reports: "
Mr. Barford [....] does not provide me the courtesy of publishing my comments on his own blog".Really? There do seem to be quite a few comments below many of my posts on this blog signed by some "Cultural Property Observer" guy; is Peter Tompa now denying any relationship with that blogger? I have just checked this allegation and find it foundationless. "Cultural Property Observer" has in the whole time the Portable Antiquities Collecting and Heritage Issues blog been online sent the grand sum of 11 comments to 8 posts here. Despite what Tompa alleges, on checking I find that every single comment I have received from him has been approved and is visible under the post to which they refer and in most cases has even been replied to. If he sent a comment recently which was not posted, I clearly did not receive it (it happens with Blogger sometimes). Mr Tompa is invited to send it/them again.
Vignette: Ralph Wiggum depressed by all this talk about metal detecting.
3 comments:
Peter Tompa's objections to your views of these issues are very well founded.
It simply isn't practically possible (nor has it ever been so) to provide a detailed provenance for every ancient artifact.
I wish that the situation were different, and that an unambiguous provenance could be provided for every ancient artifact.
Peter Tompa's remarks concerning the unregulated use of metal detectors in Bulgaria are very much to the point, and Mr. Barford's efforts to ridicule them are typically misleading.
In Bulgaria as in other "source countries" the real problem is rampant and pervasive official corruption which enables those who illicitly excavate, transport and export ancient artifacts to do so in broad daylight, by bribing the officials responsible for preventing such offenses to look the other way.
Until administration of antiquities laws (and other laws) is reformed in Bulgaria, and in other states plagued by this sort of official corruption, no actions taken in the USA or other nations can possibly control looting of archaeological sites. As I have pointed out in my own blog, US import restrictions are in reality sought by Bulgaria and other "source states" for domestic political reasons. Import restrictions provide the appearance that the authorities responsible for protecting archaeological sites are doing something to control looting.
Until the people of Bulgaria are sufficiently outraged to take action to reform their corrupt government, nothing done in any other nation can prevent looting of Bulgarian archaeological sites and smuggling that loot across Bulgaria's borders.
Dave,
with regard to the first post, did you actually READ what I wrote? Where is there any mention of "provenance"?
Second one: "nothing done in any other nation can prevent looting of Bulgarian archaeological sites and smuggling that loot across Bulgaria's borders". How about - until the Glorious Bulgarian Uprising - weakening the impetus to profit through corruption on the looting of the past by refusing to buy the products?
I think your interpretation a mite simplistic.
Wasn't there once an ACCG Bulgaria Committee? If so, what did it do, and what resulted from that?
I'd like to know by what law or laws Mr Tompa says that metal detector use on archaeological sites has been "deregulated" in Bulgaria.
Post a Comment