PAS (and indeed EH and CBA) are very welcome to use our Comments section to indicate if they support artefact hunting on this basis and whether it is possible that outreach to farmers is a neglected element of outreach.The "basis" of artefact hunting to which they refer are the sort of rules metal detectorists are setting themselves, and conning compliant landowners into agreeing with, up and down the country. They ask "is this right?" and the answer is ... a deafening silence from the entire UK archaeological and heritage community, falling in alongside the history grubbers and grabbers.
When the tide is out, the Thames is the longest open – air archaeological site in London, and much of the foreshore is freely accessible to the public. However, many of the exposed archaeological sites are often unrecognised and unprotected, and almost all are vulnerable to the twice-daily scouring of the tidal river, and thus require close monitoring.[...] Building on initiatives pioneered by the Museum of London’s Thames Archaeological Survey that took place from 1993 – 1999, and the Thames Explorer Trust’s innovative education projects, the Thames Discovery Programme aims to communicate an understanding and informed enjoyment of the historic Thames to the widest possible audience. This ambitious project is hosted by Museum of London Archaeology. Other partners include the Museum of London, English Heritage and the UCL Institute of Archaeology. [and NOT the Portable Antiquities Scheme? PMB, How come?] [...] Find out more about the Thames Discovery Programme activities and other Thames-related events in the Events section. Learn about where we are working and more about our key sites in the Riverpedia and FROGBlog sections.Those intrigued by the mention of FROGs might like to follow up the references on the page concerning this volunteer group and maybe decide to become involved in some real archaeology:
It is interesting to note that the website's "links" section only includes one link to artefact hunting, and that is to a very interesting mudlark's blog (current top post on some interesting sherd jewellery). [I must say I found the blog really good reading too, worth a stop-by if you like that kind of thing].The FROG is the Foreshore Recording and Observation Group. It is is made up of 300+ volunteers who have been fully trained in foreshore recording techniques and health and safety and have been certificated by the TDP. The FROG members work with the TDP archaeologists to record the archaeology of the foreshore during the summer season fieldwork, assist with training sessions for new members, participate in outreach events, and monitor the archaeology of the key sites of archaeological interest, found on the Thames foreshore. We hope that the FROG community continue to take responsibility for monitoring these key sites and other areas with archaeological remains on the foreshore for many years to come!
The Egyptian Society of South Africa, out of our concern for the fate of Egypt's magnificent heritage, ask you to join us in our protest against the pillaging and damage being done to ancient sites taking place in Egypt RIGHT NOW! Reports from world renowned Egyptologists, archaeologists and specialists in other disciplines all mention many instances of wanton damage, theft and plain 'treasure seeking' taking place at sites ranging from the Great Pyramid itself to other important sites throughout Egypt. The sad fact is that it appears that little or nothing is being done to control the damage and ongoing theft of Egypt's heritage.They are ambitiously trying to get 10000 signatures, so they need all the help they can get. the question is of course whether the problem is caused by a lack of will alone, or whether you think Egypt has other, more pressing, problems to which priority must also be given.
"If you do not wish to make oral comment, but still wish to make your views known, you may send written comments for the Committee to consider. Again, your comments must relate specifically to the determinations under 19 U.S.C. 2602 of the Act. Submit all written materials electronically through the eRulemaking Portal (see below), ensuring that they are received no later than April 23, 2013 at 11:59 p.m. (EDT)".To submit comments electronically, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov), "enter the Docket No. DOS-2013-0008, and follow the prompts to submit a comment", except there is no such docket yet. Give them a few days.
Another artefact bearing the name of Proculus has turned up on eBay: Roman Æ Medallion of Proculus being sold by seller 'legendsfromancienttime'. The price is GBP 10.99, it is of course a 'historical replica':PROCVLVS AVG laureated bust left / VICTORIA AVG Victoria with wreath advancing right. Weight: ~ 10 gram Diameter: ~ 24 mm [...] These pieces are NOT ancient coins. Each coin is stamped 'COPY' on the rim.
1.28 gr. [...] NFA XX #441, a prior listing of this coin, notes, "[...] Proculus is not known to have left behind any numismatic record, but a small number of crudely produced antoninianii appear to be attributable to Bonosus. These closely resemble the "barbarous radiates" of the period of the Gallic empire, though a little thicker and heavier than most of these issues. The present specimen also exhibits traces of original silvering."Hmm. Many barb-rads do. The dealer's idea of a description of the coin is to tell his buyers about the events of c. 280. He does not give the legend, probably wisely, all you can see is [...]AVG. No 'B' or 'Bono...' anywhere in sight on the flan. The portrait is rather too chunky even for a bad barb-rad. It seems the only basis for the attribution (at least mentioned) is that this is "crudely produced " and "a little thicker and heavier"... I'll not be buying it. It is interesting that this dealer has apparently not heard of the upcoming sale of a Proculus coin in the UK, or perhaps he believes like the York FLO and Roger Bland that it is a fake?
Networks UK’s History channel has ordered what is billed as a "new factual series", the eight episode "Hoard Hunters" from ITV Studios. This is a "docuseries following archaeologist Mike Webber
and his team as they travel to sites of known treasure hoards around the
UK to piece together history and perhaps find more artefacts". The treasure hunting escapade is described as a "character driven series that feature amateur enthusiasts who are the best at what they do”: Hoard Hunters follows Gordon Heritage and Gary Brun as they team up with archaeologist Mike Webber to embark on a quest to unearth hoards of treasure and unlock historical mysteries. Each week the treasure hunting heroes take on a fresh challenge at a new UK location, heading to sites where previous hoards have been found in an attempt to salvage what may have been left behind and maybe even find a whole new hoard.It was described by Andy Cook one of the TV researchers thus:
A sort of Top Gear meets Time Team for the History Channel, made by ITV Studios. Hoard hunters follows Gordon Heritage & Gary Brun, expert metal detectorists as they re-visit the sites of old hoards with bigger and better equipment than before. Combining history, humour the show resembles a boys own adventure – as we follow Gary and Gordon on their quest, whilst historical investigator Mike Webber looks into what they might find.It is called an "archaeology" programme. Well, what can we expect after the ITV's PAS-produced "Britain's Secret Treasures"? Now we are not going to have even secret ones. The presenters will show just how easy it is for any Tom, Dick and Hamid to go to the records, find a likely Treasure spot and get the metal detectors and spades out and dig up the rest of the archaeology at these sites. Sites, that is of the discovery of nationally important archaeological remains, so by that token these are themselves nationally important archaeological sites, not suitable for ad hoc digging willy-nilly on a Treasure-hunter's whim. What is going on over in the UK? Has any archaeological body given the producers of this treasure-seeking adventure film full of "characters" the low-down on the possible undesirable side effects? Or has the PAS already put its name down to supply FLO-Characters (the pop-star, the cute one, the jovial bald one) for the needs of the programme?
Sotheby's was aware of the origin of the Statue, that it had been broken off at the ankles, and it first appeared on the international art market during a period of rampant looting of antiquities from Koh Ker. Sotheby's has a particular expertise in works from India and Southeast Asia, including extensive experience in the sale of Khmer artifacts. Sotheby's consulted regularly with the Collector and knew him to be the original seller of the Statue in 1975. The Collector knew that the Statue had been looted from Koh Ker, and had trouble selling it in 1975 because many prospective buyers were unwilling to purchase it due to its lack of legitimate provenance and missing feet. Subsequent to import, Sotheby's was expressly advised that the Cambodians had clear evidence that the Statue was definitely stolen. Sotheby's is alleged to have provided inaccurate provenance information and omitted information about the Collector who acquired the Statue in Sotheby's communications with potential buyers, the Kingdom of Cambodia, and United States law enforcement. Accepting all of these fact as true for the purposes of the parties' motions gives rise to a reasonable inference that Sotheby's knew that the Statue was stolen at the time of import and thereafter.
County
|
Objects
|
Records
|
| Bridgend | 44 | 44 |
| Caerphilly | 33 | 33 |
| Cardiff | 248 | 160 |
| Carmarthenshire | 180 | 143 |
| Ceredigion | 22 | 22 |
| Conwy | 47 | 41 |
| Denbighshire | 229 | 209 |
| Flintshire | 314 | 274 |
| Gwynedd | 78 | 69 |
| Isle Of Anglesey | 107 | 106 |
| Merthyr Tydfil | 15 | 14 |
| Monmouthshire | 2349 | 749 |
| Neath Port Talbot | 17 | 17 |
| Newport | 224 | 174 |
| Pembrokeshire | 1918 | 450 |
| Powys | 974 | 490 |
| Rhondda Cynon Taff | 83 | 76 |
| Swansea | 9868 | 1317 |
| Torfaen | 12 | 12 |
| Vale Of Glamorgan | 3756 | 931 |
| Wrexham | 228 | 218 |
Here for completeness are the corresponding figures for the dates after the data-dump till the end of last year: Statistical analysis of the database for for Wednesday 24th March 2010 until Sunday 24th March 2013Finds per county (England)
Recording in Wales is right down - just 229 finds: Finds per county (Wales)
|
Just though i would through [throw? PMB] this question out there why is it that metal detectorists are required to cooperate with archies yet they dont for the most part with us[?]Member "Chef Geoff" ("Finds 2013 Roman grots 14 Fibula 2") is in some doubt about what he means, and enquires: "In what way don't they cooperate and what sort would you like to see?". Stever explains (Reply #2 on: March 28, 2013, 09:38:36 PM):
hi geoff i went over to talk to one ealier on a site i knew there was history on but he was rude and basically slagged off us detectorists. i guess just a bit of mutual respect would be nice geoff thats all. im just ranting really but i dont get why on earth they think they have more rights than us[.]The reply is interesting. Chef Geoff (Reply #3 on: March 28, 2013, 09:53:36 PM) opines:
Basically because they do. Unfortunately Steve archaeologists see a lot of the damage that we detectorists can cause to a sight(sic), not only Nighthawks but the everyday hobbyist who digs through stratification removing dating evidence. Yes I think most now realise that we have added hundreds of sites to the record but they are also well aware that thousands of detectorists go out every weekend and don't record their finds which takes away evidence not add to it.There are two significant things about that comment. The first is that I'm pretty sure that "Chef Geoff" wouldn't have said that a few years ago. Secondly, it sounds to me like he's saying stuff he has learned from blogs like this one rather than from the PAS. The PAS do not say things like that in their "outreach". More to the point, is it true that British jobsworth archaeologists are becoming more sceptical about partnering artefact hunting than a few years back? Oh, I hope so. Time they woke up to where the Pied Pipers of Bloomsbury are trying to lead them.
A group of artefact hunters (and 'citizen archaeologists') in Florida are trying to effect a change in the law. They want to see the introduction of a "Florida Citizen Archaeologist Permit (CAP) program" to allow individual private citizens to legally recover historical archaeological artefacts from "state sovereign submerged lands, including lakes, rivers,
streams, and coastlines". Currently, under
Chapter 267 of the Florida Statutes, all archaeological materials found on state
lands or submerged in state waters belong to the people of the state (see The Heritagist: "Archaeological group objects to proposed Florida Citizens Archaeology Permit",
Posted:
28 Mar 2013 ). They propose that such permits would be available upon payment
of an annual fee and agreement to certain conditions.In the past, Florida had an Isolated Finds Program (IFP) that allowed individuals to collect artifacts from state submerged lands, but the program was discontinued in 2005 [partly] because of the failure of many private collectors to report their finds. The proposed CAP program would essentially reinstate this same program, and thus give rise to the same reporting concerns.It is noted that the effects of the "Isolated finds" programme were much the same as is happening with the Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and (for the moment) Wales: "only a few reported locations and they were the same people (harvesting multiple artifacts, not singular finds)". The proposed CAP is not an archaeology permit, but rather merely a collecting permit ("to better regulate artefact collecting in public waters [...] to obtain a permit to legally recover and curate..."). Archaeology is rather more than simply collecting old artefacts.
The Florida Public Archaeology Network (FPAN) is rightly concerned about the loss of archaeological context and information about the recovered materials that would occur if they were not properly reported. Unfortunately, as shown by by the previous experience with IFP, such reporting requirements prove extremely difficult to enforce. FPAN has issued a statement on its blog explaining in more detail its objections to the proposed CAP program.There are seven really good points on the blog, worth reading, too, by supporters of the PAS over here in Europe.
Florida’s IFP is neither a success nor a failure, instead, it is a good alternative to open hostility between avocational and professional archaeologists. Whatever the outcome of the IFP, Florida’s laws governing artifacts in submerged lands, and future enforcement of those laws, artifacts in Florida’s rivers will continue to be extracted. Those artifacts may be in private collections or in state-owned collections and actually may migrate from the former to the latter sometime in the future.This seems a suitable cause for the US Collectors' rights organization the ACCG to get involved in. They are always banging on about how, instead of asking US collectors and dealers to clean up their act and avoid buying smuggled artefacts, the source countries should be facilitating the reporting of artefact hunting activities (voluntarily of course) through setting up in countries like Bulgaria, Greece, Italy and Egypt clones of the English (and for the moment, Welsh) PAS. Those of us with a more developed sense of justice and fairness than that possessed by the average US collector of dugup antiquities would argue that if the US were to impose such a requirement on a (sovereign) foreign state, it should at least adopt such a measure itself. Lead by example. Here then is a solid opportunity for the US advocates of the PAS-clone solution to looting problems to see that it is introduced in the USA. Now they have lost their Baltimore Illegal Coin Import Stunt case, they can turn their attention to other ways of supporting US collectors' rights by encouraging this model of dealing with the archaeological record through a citizens' initiative closer to home.
