Not all artefact hunters in the UK are as "responsible" or even "law biding" as claimed by their supporters. It seems the time is coming where we might look at some of those that got caught, and consider how many dishonest tekkies are simply 'not caught yet'?
Friday, 23 January 2009 PAS Reportedly Used to Launder Stolen Coin
In June 2008 a coin of Edward the Confessor dating to 1042 and struck in the minor mint at Malmesbury was stolen by a visitor to a museum display at Malmesbury Abbey from a display case (Joe Ware, Stolen 1,000-year-old coin returned to Malmesbury Abbey, The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald, 23rd January 2009). According to this account, a man was recently arrested in Surrey and the coin has been recovered. The reported circumstances of this discovery raise a few questions. The man was apparently traced as the result of an anonymous phoned tip-off to the Abbey bookshop who said he had heard a “metal detectorist” bragging about stealing the coin.
What is highly disturbing about this however is the fact that although the coin was actually stolen from a public display, the artefact hunter is said to have reported the find to the Portable Antiquities Scheme Finds Liaison Officer in Surrey, claiming he had discovered it with his metal detector in “Tetbury” (presumably the one in Gloucestershire, where there was recently, I believe, a metal detecting rally, presumably he pretended he had found it there). The media report suggests that the coin passed through the entire PAS system, the FLO examined and recorded it, researched its history and then after a month of work (in which time both the British Museum and the Fitzwilliam Museum in Cambridge had expressed great interest in the "new" find of a coin from this comparatively rare mint), the coin was apparently returned to its finder with its alleged provenance officially-documented.
The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald reports that it was only after the anonymous tip-off that Wiltshire police went to Surrey and arrested the man, who at first claimed he couldn’t find the coin; the Police said if he didn’t return it they would press charges, and the “metal detectorist” eventually returned the coin. It is now safely back in Malmesbury, this time not on display but locked away in a bank vault until new security measures can be put in place in the church.
This story has a number of dimensions. The pro-collecting lobby tend not to stress that so-called “metal detectorists" are collectors, and as we have seen in previous posts here, many collectors of portable antiquities are not too bothered about where the things they covet come from, just as long as they can get their hands on them. This man, for example, reportedly stole from a church, and since he was said to have been bragging about it to one or more of his mates (fellow "detectorists"?), saw nothing wrong in that as an expression of his self-centred collecting passion. Likewise many antiquity collectors think nothing about buying portable antiquities they know have been looted in the Balkans or Middle East and smuggled out of the country by black marketeers.
To add insult to injury, in an attempt to cover up a crime, the Surrey metal detectorist apparently tried to supply the coin with a false provenance, which would enable him to keep it in his collection or sell it with impunity. It was in this way that the PAS was unwittingly dragged into this affair. According to the report, he was only caught out because he bragged about the new addition to his collection. This (together with other similar cases which have come to light by accident) raises a very disturbing question. How many more illicitly obtained artefacts (for example by so-called “nighthawking”, or smuggled from other countries) have in fact been recorded under false provenances by the Portable Antiquities Scheme and thus given false legitimacy? We will not know because as far as I know, the PAS has no consistently-applied procedure established for verifying the reported data (like asking to see finds release protocols assigning title from the landowners). Surely it should have, to ensure that its staff are not running the risk of handling dishonestly-obtained material.
The PAS is very fond of publishing impressive numbers showing how their "partnership" with artefact hunters is growing. This is represented by the pro-collecting lobby as an expression of the degree of "responsibility" in the milieu - the Malmesbury Church Looter reminds us that these bald figures hide a multiplicity of individual motives for contacting the PAS, not all of them connected with "responsible" artefact hunting or collecting. I wonder if any records in the PAS database concerning previous 'finds' from this individual will now be deleted, and researchers made aware of these deletions in case they have previously used potentially tainted information in their research?
One thing is unclear from the wording of the news report (“Police said if he didn’t return it they would press charges”), does this mean that the Police did NOT press charges because he gave the coin back? Do we understand that this "metal detectorist" got off with a pat on the head and a “thank you very much, sir” from the police? Let us reflect that as someone (allegedly) with a passionate interest in history he should be aware that in Edward the Confessor's day stealing from a church would have been punished somewhat differently.
Photo: Stolen coin NOT from "Tetbury" (Photo, The Wiltshire Gazette and Herald).
No comments:
Post a Comment