The Archaeological Values of the PAS Database (XVI): Said he "Found it Wiv a Metaldetector", PAS believed Him and "Authenticated " it

 

Rabincano Lion
brooch Sept 12th

The idea of the PAS database was that members of the public would have a place where they could bring their finds in for examination by experts (actual real-live archaeologists) who would thereby be able to do outreach to them about archaeological values. Somewhere that idea got lost in the mists of time. PAS staff don't use social media in an sensible way to interact either. Here's a record being discussed there at the moment:

BROOCH
Unique ID: LON-FFA2A1
Object type certainty: Certain
Workflow status: Published Find published
A Roman copper alloy zoomorphic brooch depicting a lion and dating to the 2nd century AD. The brooch has been cast to form a lion advancing left on a thin strip. On the reverse are twin perforated lugs which secure an axis pin around which the pin articulates. The catchplate is also present on the reverse. The lion is depicted in profile with all four feet on the ground. The mouth is formed by a V-shaped notch and the eye is a simple dot. The mane is depicted by a double band of wavy lines bordered by straight incised lines. The shoulder and the front and rear forelegs are slightly raised and there is a groove which separates the tail from the body. The end of the tail curves over itself forming a small loop from which another element may have been suspended. All four feet are resting on the "ground" which is represented by a thin strip decorated with transverse stamped lines.
A similar brooch is illustrated in Hattatt (2000:363 no 1195) which shows the lion advancing right instead of left and the orientation of the tail is slightly different. Hattatt suggests a date of 2nd century AD for these type of brooches. Lion brooches are also recorded on the Portable Antiquities Scheme database e.g. SWYOR-0E2A45 and LEIC-751965 which shows a lion jumping or pouncing and BUC-3CD563 which has cells for enamel.
Dimensions: length: 48.43 mm; width: 19.86mm; thickness: 14.72mm; weight: 14.53g.
Reference: Hattatt, R. 2000. A Visual Catalogue of Richard Hattatt's Ancient Brooches. Oxbow Books., Oxford
Find of note status
This is a find of note and has been designated: National importance
[...] Subsequent action after recording: Returned to finder

and the finder will now perhaps put the thing on sale noting that it has been authenticated and recorded by PAS experts. It figures as found with a metal detector in "fresh running water" in or near Vincent Square (London Borough Ward) in the city of Westminster (so just under the nose of Whitehall lawmakers). Now unfortunately we do not know the name of the PAS expert who made this entry, they have all been anonymised and made faceless, so we cannot judge how reliable the record is on that basis. Also they no longer give proper dates for the entries, it was made "seven years ago", but though those DATA are missing, they do tell us the "weight" (but NOT the specific gravity, or the corrosion types visible).

So Baz Thugwit took this thing he found in some water near Vincent Square (Thames foreshore between Lambeth and Vauxhall bridges?) along to Faceless Jo the FLO in London, who could not be bothered to do any real research and look for grounded parallels, but reached for a "looks like" similarity in a big book of pictures of some collector's collection acquired on the antiquities market. It was the first thing they came across, there was a picture that "looks like" what Baz had brought it, "good enuff", Jo thought. No corrosion? Ah well, Baz says "it woz found in runnin' wa'er wannit? So that's why the corrosin's all washed off".  No wonder Faceless Jo does not want their name revealed. 

So finding a picture that "looks like" what Baz had brought him, FLO adds another record to the PAS database and thinks no more about it. That was seven years ago. Now look at another collectors' resource  Bron Lipkin's Collector-Antiquities.com - Fake Roman brooches, page 2. See a similarity? The PAS do not have a presence on artefact collectors' forums, if they had, they would have spotted this post by "Renate", a collector and forum member that has questioned the authenticity of this object ('Re: questionable ancient brooches at Catawiki in September 2020', #93331, 10/04/20).  

previous pa).   

The brooch allegedly found some time "before seven years ago" while metal detecting by an unnamed individual somewhere in and around Vincent Square and recorded by an unnamed individual is a fake. A Bulgarian fake. Now, the Bulgarians who turn these out are chuffed, one of their brooches has been authenticated by a London museum, you can bet that this will not fail to be referenced in future sales offers. Once again, the PAS is "partnering" the antiquities trade.

Again, through a lack of caution, the PAS database has been used to launder dodgy artefacts that are not what they seem. Again. And where have the national finds advisers been for seven years that this was not spotted when the "database" data were "verified"? The only "national importance" this has is missed here, it's an ideal opportunity for outreach on no-questions-asked handling of antiquities, the PAS FLO swallowed a story hook-line-and-sinker and got utilised to legitimise a fake. This type of behaviour is what is at the core of the problems that exist with the antiquities market, and here we see the professionals of Bloomsbury leading the way to perpetuate it.

WHAT verification of the context of discovery was there here? Can we know? On what basis are objects accepted for entry on this expensive public-funded "database"? Can we know? Apparently (allegedly) there is a "secret button" a FLO can use to indicate doubts about an object brought to them for recording, was it used here? And what is the point of including dubious data ON the database instead of simply rejecting them? Because otherwise the information presented there as reliable will lead others astray (for example, a collector [nota bene] noted that French archaeologist Michel Feugére copied the PAS information without checking). This sort of thing calls the whole enterprise into doubt. It should be the PAS that is checking its information, before publication. Is that really too much to ask? We've had six whole months of remote working where FLOs and finds advisers have been having few new finds coming in to fondle, ideal opportunity to go back over old records and verify them, or flag up things that need verification when FLOs can get back to their libraries). How much of this "database" hygiene has been completed now? And lets have the names of the PAS recorders brought back. Faceless Jo the Anonymous FLO, are you out there reading this? Care to make a comment? Was the finder's name Rabincano (the current name of the graphic file)?