CBA's new Leadership and Collection-Driven EXPLOITATION of the British Archaeological Record

On 2nd April, 2020, the CBA got a new Executive Director replacing Mike Heyworth. Under Heyworth, artefact hunting with metal detectors and Collection-Driven Exploitation of the archaeological record was promoted (!) as "archaeology for all" and, disappointingly, the CBA was always very diffident about speaking out and never took any kind of an unambiguous leadership role (as opposed to RESCUE) in explaining the difference between Archaeology (with a capital A) and merely "digging up old things". I would argue that archaeology, conservation and the CBA were the losers.

The new head of the CBA, Dr Neil Redfern, said on appointment:

 “I am delighted to be taking up this role with the CBA and looking forward to strengthening our role in championing archaeology in the United Kingdom".

Let us see him do that. But not as a source of loose artefacts for collectors to fill their pockets and shift onto eBay, bringing "the past" within the reach of everybody's online reach. Please. He then is further quoted:

Our landscapes and cities contain the most fantastic stories locked away in the fabric of their buildings and the undulations in their fields. Our role is to help the public ask questions about their places, to drive curiosity and inquisitiveness and use archaeology to help create meaningful places and experiences for all."

It seems that at the moment, a very frequent question the thrill-seeking public are asking of those undulations is "How can I get on there? I bet I could find a lot of stuff there, maybe another Lenborough Hoard, or valuable Roman cavalry helmet". Curiosity and inquisitiveness  and the search for thrilling new experiences should not seek to destroy the fragile and finite archaeological record. Let us see if Dr Redfern can find a way promote archaeology as archaeology and not something that is just awkwardly tacked on to portable antiquities consumerism. 

Apparently, the CBA is 'progressing' [sic] 'a transformation project to modernise the organisation'. Including a move away from an object-centred nineteenth century approach? Good.

Heritage action in their text 'Metal detecting and the CBA’s new leadership' (08/03/2020) also hopes that 'strengthening our role in championing archaeology' means no longer championing non-archaeology, "we trust the CBA will continue to promote archaeology alone, not what isn’t. In just a few decades things have deteriorated". It is time to STOP the rot, isn't it?

"Britain's Secret Treasures" Drinking Game

.
In order to make the parade of the remains of archaeological contexts dismembered by metal detector wielding treasure hunters and artefact collectors on ITV1 next week more palatable, Portable Antiquities and Heritage Issues has devised a drinking game to accompany the programme.

THE “BRITAIN’S SECRET TREASURES” DRINKING GAME*

A game that gives you a good reason to get drunk and argue about archaeology!

Preparation:

Assemble a group of friends in front of the TV just before “Britain’s Secret Treasures” begins.  Before they arrive, make sure that all the necessary equipment is present. You will require:

• alcohol -- strong spirits have the best results, but beer or cider are more authentic (note to continentals: the beer in Britain is the warm-fermented type, and is served at room temperature…);  
• assorted mixers, ice cubes and snacks (for sustenance and variety);
• glasses; 

Ensure that everyone is seated comfortably at a safe distance from the television. Ascertain before the game starts that nobody came by car (those that did they are automatically disqualified from participation, but can act as impartial adjudicators).

The Game:

Everyone must have a drink to hand.  The general rules of this game are no different from any other drinking game. A drink is either a shot or a good gulp from a beer (or cider). Different events call for different numbers of drinks and all you do is watch the programme and play along.

 

Take 1 drink if:

• You hear the phrase "only in it for the history",
• Someone says "the money is not important, and I never sell my finds",
  
• sweeping generalisations are made,
  
• Nylon trousers, strap-on kneelers, baseball caps or camo gear are seen.   
• A metal detecting club's own "code of conduct" is referred to by a metal detectorist (two more if it is mentioned by an archaeologist).
• Someone says "we hate nighthawk[er]s/ nighthawk[er]s are not real metal detectorists" (it does not matter whether said by a detectorist, archaeologist or presenter).
• David Lammy or "unsung heroes of the heritage" are mentioned,
• There is a comment about the Treasure Valuation Committee or the speed and/or fairness of the 'Treasure Process'. 
• Hughes does her 'google-eyed' look.

Take 2 drinks if:

• You hear the phrase “revolutionizes our understanding of history”,
• you hear the word “context” (four if it is a metal detectorist that says it),
• The find being discussed is not of metal,
• resistivity meters or magnetometers are shown,
• people solemnly waving metal detectors over an excavation to no obvious end are shown,
• an historical re-enactment group are shown,
• Computer generated graphics and 'bright historic haze effects' are shown,
• The display of an object on the screen is accompanied by a 'leap of imagination' story, trite, dumbed-down and baseless narrativisation,
• The name of a member of the British royal family (dead or alive) is dropped into the conversation (those based on Geoffrey of Monmouth etc do not count). One drink if the ruler is foreign. 
• "Roman soldiers" are invoked (two more if there is a re-enacter in full armour shown on the screen at the time)

Take 3 drinks if:

• Mention is made of “agrichemical and plough damage”, 
• Preservation in situ is referred to as “left rotting in the ground”,
• A metal detectorist (or archaeologist) does silly stunts on camera like licking jellyfish or cross-dressing, 
• Interpretations involve human sacrifice, strange 'ritual' acts or gory deaths,  
• there is product placement (a metal detector brand is identifiable, or a metal detector producer’s logo is visible in the shot) - look at the clothing as well as equipment, 
• The object discussed is of iron.  
• The NCMD Code of Conduct is referred to by a metal detectorist (two more if it is mentioned by an archaeologist),
• Cotton gloves are not used while handling artefacts,

Take 5 drinks if:

•  A landowner has waived his "reward money".
•  eBay is mentioned by a detectorist,
• The Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales is referred to by a metal detectorist (none if it is mentioned by an archaeologist, three more drinks however if is shown being presented to a landowner),
• Any mention is made of a metal detectorist's personal artefact collection,

Take 7 drinks if:

•  A metal detectorist has waived his "reward money".
• The completion of a full publication of one of the discussed finds is mentioned (two more if it actually shown on screen),
• Any health risks from metal detector use (electromagnetic radiation, harmful nanovibrations etc.) are referred to,
• There is any mention of international conventions,
• There is any mention of any of the theoretical literature on heritage issues, from either side (White Hat Guys, Gill, Renfrew, Elia, SAFE etc. or the Dark Side - finds identification manuals, coin catalogues and price guides do not count).

If all goes well, you should all be so drunk by the end of the programme that you will not be able to fire off a strongly-worded letter of complaint to ITV about the misrepresentation of the nature of archaeology. Hopefully the next morning you will have forgotten what you saw.

Happy Drinking!

* Inspired (obviously) by ‘The Time team Drinking Game’ http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/4/4drink.html (see also http://www.ringthis.com/tvdrink/tv.php)
Vignette: : Keith Morris/Alamy

Britain's Secret treasures, ITV 1 16th-22nd July 2012

Britain's Archaeological Outreach: "New Series About Artefact Hunting" on ITV

.
Fourteen million quid of public money on outreach and CBA involvement is not wasted then:

"Britain's secret treasure", new series about metal detecting
coming in the late summer on ITV. 

 (Twitter feed from Hidden History Ltd @HiddenHistoryuk [http://Www.hiddenhistoryltd.com])

Meanwhile others think the programme signals that the BM needs help in keeping its records in order:

Greenlit: Britain’s Secret Treasure, ITV1   By TV Mole ⋅ April 1, 2012

Britain’s Secret Treasure (4 x 30′ + 2 x 60′) -  Michael Buerk and historian Bettany Hughes join forces to catalogue  some of the million objects handed in by the British public to the British Museum for safe keeping [...]

So all these artefact hunters are out there in the fields finding a million objects which never go into their own collections, or scrap bucket or onto eBay, but they are all "handed in" (for free?) "to the British Museum for safe keeping" so that we can all have access to them? That's nice of them. And what does the British Museum do with them?


This twitter feed shows a wide range of opinions on what the programme is about:
The CBA tries to explain:

mikeheyworth Mike Heyworth - Major archaeology show to run on ITV during the CBA Festival of British Archaeology with focus on knowledge from finds   http://t.co/YAPr44nr 03/26/2012

 Meanwhile the metal detectorists are sure it is going to show artefact collecting in a good light:

thesearchermag The Searcher - Britain's Secret Treasures show judges the merits of antiquities discovered in the UK in last 15 years http://t.co/5PeKlAWU   03/26/2012

 maxineloader Maxine Loader @Historyandlife http://t.co/5WF2IFzD - Read this and note the bit that says "Most were found by amateurs using metal detectors"! (hint hint) 03/26/2012

Others seem guided by the 'talent show' presentation:

jlrivard Jean-Louis Rivard TV treasure hunt show to pick Britain's most important archaeological find - http://t.co/Cgd0DSvi #archaeology   04/04/2012

sotaterra Sota terra -  Britain's Secret Treasures: un programa que es preguntarà quina és la descoberta arqueològica britànica més important http://t.co/szu8AO69  03/27/2012

While others still are not fooled one bit:

crumbolina Pippa Shawley - Another stupid treasure-hunting tv programme masquerading as archaeology http://t.co/sXp5TB4K via @mediaguardian   03/26/2012

gwuarchaeology GWU Archaeology - Yet another show glorifying treasure hunting... http://t.co/xUbmWu8S http://t.co/Sh99vrdr  03/27/2012

medievalcombats Medieval Combat# - Heritage reduced to a #beauty contest? #Shame http://t.co/amooRbu9 42 days ago

 museumsecurity Ton Cremers - TV treasure hunt show to pick Britain's most important archaeological find - http://t.co/yqBerXJC    42 days ago

It is notable that many other tweeters here seem to think the programme will deal with the "most important archaeological finds in the past 15 years" as if there were no professional archaeology going on at all in Britain and the Portable Antiquities Scheme is all there is. Possibly that is the way things are going of course. who needs more expensive excavations is all we need to get "lottsa knowledge" about the past is a heap of finds hoiked out of the ground with a metal detector?

Is it naive to hope that  public misunderstandings about portable antiquity collecting issues in Britain will be resolved by the airing of this programme? Or will it only do a great deal to increase them?

Metal Detecting Under the Microscope 4: Harsh Words at Last from the CBA About "Metal Detectorists"

.

Mike Heyworth writes about current policies on metal detecting in Britain in the Nov/Dec issue of 'British Archaeology' in a short text "Changes to the Treasure Act and a review of its practice code are long overdue says Mike Heyworth". This is now available online and I've discussed the first part (about Treasure Act reform) in the post above, the second part of the text is of even greater interest to me. This text has aroused the ire of "metal detectorists" but Dr Heyworth writes perfect sense, and echoes very much a lot of what I've been saying here and elsewhere for the last couple of years - such as indicating what we can learn from "looking over the detectorists' shoulder" through candid bragging You Tube videos, the significance of the near unanimous rejection by English and Welsh artefact hunters of the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England in favour of the less stringent NCMD one, the number of unrecorded finds, that rallies simply do not fit in the picture as presented by the supporters of a "partnership" with metal detectorists, that Stewardship Schemes should be protecting the historic environment not watching on as sites are trashed for commercial gain and so on. Others noted these problems, but for various reasons stayed silent. It is satisfying to see the CBA, which notoriously used to pat "detectorists" on the head when I was on the CBA's discussion list 'Britarch' trying to question these policies, finally appearing to have changed its tune and is at last giving the issues an official voice.

Dr Heyworth's text begins with a reference to a projected next meeting of the Conference on Portable Antiquities (which is convened by the CBA, “as needed” - and when has it NOT been needed in the past decade and a half of "partnership" by the PAS?). This will be he says:

"an appropriate place for archaeologists to discuss with the minister the continuing damage to archaeological sites and findspots across the country caused by irresponsible metal detecting and, in particular, by metal detecting rallies".

Indeed, but why just in a closed meeting with a single minister? Let's have somebody from the archaeological establishment writing not just in a "trade newspaper" like British Archaeology but in the national newspapers, shouting it from the rooftops about "the continuing damage to archaeological sites and findspots across the country caused by irresponsible metal detecting and, in particular, by metal detecting rallies" (and what actually "responsible artefact hunting" consists of), for goodness' sake. To get something done, ministers should not be learning about the cautiously-expressed disquiet of a few academics in grey suits at a London meeting, that will not move them. What will is the widespread concern expressed by a conservation conscious electorate. And at the moment that electorate is being fed PAS-generated news pap about the benefits of "partnership" and "wottalotta- treasure -we-got" from it. If the CBA is at last speaking about about the damaging effects of current policies, let them do so loud and clear and to Britain's public, not in secret meetings with the Minister.

The CBA notes that - as some of us have been stressing for the last decade or so - many finds taken out of the archaeological record by artefact hunters simply do not get reported and no record is made of their context of discovery:

This can be either due to a lack of awareness of the benefits of reporting, or in some cases to the motivations of individuals who are “treasure hunting” for personal profit.

Selfishness and a lack of concern and apathy also come to mind. The CBA newsletter uses photos by Pete Twinn of two guys he came across on land for which he (Twinn) had detecting permission... [Note the sartorial elegance of the modern English gentleman out for a walk in the countryside].

Photos: Two shy metal detectorists in English fields (copyright Pete Twinn)

These images perhaps can stand for the many (thousands of) "grey" detectorists in the United Kingdom about whose activities we learn so little about from the official pro-PAS propaganda. They do not want their faces shown, they don't want you to look in their finds pouch. Who knows what they've taken from where? Have they always got permission to be where they are and taking away artefacts? Where is the boundary between the nighthawks (the people reputed to "get detecting a bad name") and the many more numerous "grey" detectorists, who really ARE the people that get artefact hunting in the UK such a bad name. Dr Heyworth goes on:

Access to information provided by some “treasure hunters” on the web (for example via videos on YouTube) show the degree of wilful damage to the archaeological heritage going on across the country, with rarely any thought given to the context of the finds.

Again, readers of my posts on Britarch and this blog will know that I have long been making use of this kind of material to make precisely this point - and invoking the wrath of the originators of the candid material into the bargain. In the paper copy of Dr Heyworth's text have been inserted what seem to be screenshots from metal detecting videos: one showing a Minelabs user who has just dug up a Saxon hoard, another dancing with joy over his gold coin.

Photos: Two happy metal detectorists rejoicing over finds taken from English fields (from British Archaeology Nov-Dec 2011 p. 65)

Not very flattering images - but as anyone who has spent time looking over the mountains of such material on the internet, wholly typical of what you see time and time again on the candid videos these people make and publish online. Dr Heywork also includes - without comment - an image referring to "Chicago Ron" to which I will return later.

The text then turns to the topic of commercial artefact hunting rallies which quite clearly, as I and Heritage Action have long been insisting, are the weak link in the whole web of arguments about so-called "metal detecting" in England and Wales. Dr Heyworth seems to agree and stresses that hard-pressed FLOs working across England and Wales are already fully stretched recording finds:

Yet at this time of year there are a number of metal detecting rallies taking place, often targeting areas of known archaeological potential, stretching the FLOs network to breaking point and beyond. Many rallies occur on land which is held under environmental stewardship, through which the owners receive financial compensation for environmentally beneficial land management practices. Yet Natural England appears to be powerless to prevent damage to the archaeological heritage through rallies on this land.

No, they are not only "powerless" (and that is not true, there would be a way to stop this) but they have been recorded on a number of occasions as having (quote) "bent over backwards" to allow them to go ahead, in other words aided and abetting the erosion of the historic environment. It is with some satisfaction (but with regret that it is so belated) that we note that

"The CBA will be calling for the government and its agencies to ensure that the rules for stewardship land are followed more closely in the future".

That means stopping the erosion of the record by the selective removal of collectables. But that means the admission that this process IS an erosion of the archaeological assets of the land in question, and not some "beneficial partnership" with the collectable artefact procurers. By the way the discussions on the bending of stewardship regulations was going on years ago, when the PAS still had a forum (and the PAS was being asked by its "partners" for support in this). It is a shame that the CBA did not take note (the PAS forum was a public one, even if many metal detectorist forums are closed ones) and take up a standpoint together with people like myself and Nigel Swift who argued that the schemes exist for conservation and therefore should conserve.

Dr Heyworth also takes up the points made by Heritage Action's longstanding questioning of "charity rallies":

A key argument often used by rally organisers is that they donate a share of the proceeds to charity, and should therefore be allowed to go ahead without hindrance from “bureaucracy”. Yet the “cost” of ensuing archaeological damage and associated knowledge lost forever as a direct consequence is not taken into account.

The upshot is that the CBA will at last be:

asking for more research to be carried out on the damage to archaeological sites and lost knowledge due to rallies, to provide a counter-weight to arguments put forward by the vested interests of rally organisers. If CBA members and readers of British Archaeology hear of any examples of “treasure hunting” or detecting rallies causing damage to archaeological sites, then please contact the CBA director in York. It is helpful to build up a portfolio of examples across the country to present to the government when future opportunities allow.

While it is nice to see that the CBA are at last saying what has long needed to be said, and precisely by the CBA, it is just such a shame that it has taken so long for the CBA to come to the conclusions that seemed to a few of us so obvious a topic to speak out against eleven years ago when I started writing on these issues. This was on the CBA's Britarch discussion list and we came up against a stone wall of archaeological apathy and incomprehension about the issues. How many artefacts have ticked through the Heritage Action counter in the time to get from one point to the next? (Nigel?)

The last paragraph of Dr Heyworth's text is a bit awkwardly-written. At the beginning it refers to damage done by "rallies" (only) but at the end it refers to damage caused by "treasure hunting” or detecting rallies. What type of data is he in fact collecting, what is understood by the term "treasure hunting" when the text also uses that unsatisfactory label "metal detecting"? Does anything lie behind this distinction?

Also I do not understand how hoiking out randomly selected objects from the archaeological record with poor documentation of the context of discovery can be regarded by any decent archaeologist as NOT causing damage to the integrity of the record. It'd be simpler to ask people to notify the CBA of examples where the archaeological evidence of a region earmarked for a commercial artefact hunting rally can be shown NOT to have been damaged by the selective but random and unmethodological removal of elements of the archaeological record. That would be a thin folder, then just list the other sites in a bulging thick one.

It was 1993-5 that it was precisely the CBA who initiated (with commissioning the Denison and Dobinson report), Britain's dotty social experiment of partnering "metal detectorists" for the sake of some of the archaeological information (I use the term loosely) that this might produce. It has taken nearly nineteen years and thirteen million pounds investment in a Scheme for it perhaps to finally dawn on people that an enormous amount (probably the majority) of the archaeological information is still being lost and destroyed and all that has happened is that the artefact hunters have been empowered to adopt attitudes of entitlement and to continue to carry on regardless in utter secrecy and attempting by various methods (including on the CBA's own Britarch discussion list) to silence any questioning of the wisdom of the policies that allow this destruction to go on. That includes the use of threats of violence, personal attacks and other nastiness. I personally welcome the signs that at last the British archaeological establishment (first Rescue, now CBA) are beginning to awaken from the Slumber of Reason that has created the artefact hunting nightmare that now faces the archaeological community in Britain and beyond.

Tory Councillor: No More Archaeology on my Patch

.
The obsession with British archaeology with 'Treasure' and its media coverage is reaping its rewards. Tory councillor Cllr Alan Melton, Leader of Fenland Council, Cambridgeshire, working on the principle “no growth equals no investment”, recently announced that from July 1st 2011, developers would no longer be required to observe the archaeological and heritage requirements of planning conditions. He says:

We will of course not seek to break the law, but we will be practical [...] we shall seek to be sustainable and practical, but we won’t dwell too much on the scriptures of the new religion. I don’t believe that Polar Bears will be floating down the Nene in my life time or indeed my children’s. I think we all need more convincing about some of the conflicting stories that are constantly peddled.

well, British archaeology has indeed been giving out conflicting stories about the value of finding shiny stuff and then demanding developers finance trenches dug in mud which contains no shiny stuff. So the developer "would not seek" to break the law when Treasure turns up unexpectedly on a building site but it seems that beyond that some are suggesting society need not go.

As the CBA said - "this example of unilateral policy-making on the hoof foregrounds a much more serious prospect: an era of local business-led, planning that may find it too much to resist the temptation of setting aside inconvenient truths about the impact of development on the historic and natural environment." Rescue has a similar response; the Archaeology Forum likewise. But are the public behind them?

The full text of Cllr Melton's speech is here, there is a Facebook page here (currently 895 members) and a petition here. Note that its organizers set themselves a target of "5000" signatories, in a country with fifty million people who current ideology has it are all "stakeholders" in the archaeological resource as common heritage - and at least 8000 metal detecting artefact hunters who are supposed to be responsible and all have a "passionate interest in the past".

It seems to me that British archaeology has dropped the ball and unless there is legislative (unlikely) and administrative reforms (even more so) strengthening the position of archaeology, we will be seeing many more Cllr Meltons in coming years. Certainly a first step towards any reform of growing attitudes is a return to emphasising that archaeology is not just a hunt for gold and silver objects which is precisely the picture that the public is getting from a decade and a half of the main form of "outreach" done by Britain's largest organization established for the purpose. This has undone many decades of hard work which was putting forward a more accurate picture of what archaeology is (was) about.

UPDATE 27.06.11
I did not hear it myself (the player does not operate outside GB), but to judge from the reaction of others talking about it afterwards, the Philistine Councillor made a complete ass of himself when faced with the reasoned arguments of Dr Mike Heyworth (CBA Director) on national radio. Good, but that still does not resolve the underlying problem of the way archaeology is perceived by the public.

Vignette: Cllr Melton addresses local about future Philistine planning policies in the pipeline.

Fluff Balls and archaeological censorship

.
In her Fugitive Ink piece ('Heritage under the hammer: the Crosby Garrett Helmet (re)visited') Barendina Smedley writes of certain "serious ethical questions regarding the way in which the Crosby Garrett helmet has been treated from the moment it was found right up until the moment the hammer comes down at Christie’s" and mentioned that they have not only been raised in her own blog but also here:

"but ignored entirely, as far as I can see, by the mainstream media. "

This is true. The question is why.

Right from the publication of the Christie's catalogue, before the media even picked up the story, I raised a question nobody wants to address properly: how in the circumstances we actually can be certain it was discovered where the seller says it was, unaccompanied by anything else (UPDATE: see now above). The only reaction to that has been a dismissive reply by the British Museum's Roger Bland who implied it was my intellectual facilities that were the problem rather than gaps in the story and the unusual form and condition of the object as presented to the PAS. I am gratified to see however that a lone blogger has the guts to acknowledge that this question has not been at all satisfactorily answered yet and now refers to it as "The so-called Crosby Garrett Roman Helmet". True there have also been attempts by list members to discuss this issue on the BAJRFed Forum run by pro-collecting archaeologist David Connolly, but the latter apparently fears open discussion and honest opinions which clash with his own rose-tinted views on artefact hunting and censors out anything like that.

The griffin on the top was questioned, and now it turns out not just by me. Yet in general its not something talked about loudly. Interestingly during the sale yesterday a new photo appeared (at least one I'd not recalled seeing before) and it showed the right side in better detail (on hindsight I see it was a bigger version of this one - it is also used on page 17 of today's Guardian). From this view, it is clear that the base of the griffin does not have the same curvature as the peak of the hat and has been set forward by the person doing the reconstruction to hide that fact when looked at from the front. That's why the figure seems to pitch forward so much. The significance of this is that anyone who has done any metalworking will know, if the two pieces of metal are not in proper contact, they never could have been securely soldered to the top of that cap (as reconstructed). Yet "solder" is what it is claimed was between these two pieces. Likewise nobody has addressed the loop at the front with the "ribbon" it is supposed to have held dangling in front of the rider's face. These are among the problems with the reconstruction we see and the description and interpretation of the object as supplied to the public by Christie's and the British Museum. They are totally sidestepped. Why?

Over on BAJR we can see that censorship will not make the problems raised by this find go away. One person wrote something that was then censored:

[...] I have it on good authority that at least one recognised Roman military specialist is of the strictly private opinion that the helmet has [AUP edit - and sadly that how it will have to remain - remember remember that allegations must be run past me first before posting on BAJR... stops me from getting angry emails/telephone calls, letters etc. ta muchly] .....might explain why it's in quite such good condition, not what you'd expect from something dug out of a soggy and probably slightly acidic Cumbrian field.....

"Has" what, Mr Connolly? What is the opinion this unnamed somebody expressed that has to be hidden on an archaeological forum in Britain? Who do you expect those "angry phone calls" from? What are you British archaeologists afraid of, somebody expressing an opinion? Bah! Crawl away and hide and hope nobody asks you awkward questions you cannot answer!

Then we have an odd story about the discovery, a young unemployed man has been travelling 77 km from his home to a field on grassland where he has never found anything, and for seven years he's been going back again and again (and part of that time acording to Roger Bland he was a student and then he's been unemployed - so one would think short of cash for the petrol). Nobody in PAS has questioned that strange behaviour in public. I would have thought that when provenance plays such a key role in this sale, that is something that really needs to be explained by more than a shrug of the shoulders. Another landowner in Crosby Garrett claims the "same people" have been metal detecting their land too.

We do not learn the full story of how and why the PAS became involved. We are not told why they stayed involved as it became clearer that all was not well with what was happening here. I am surprised that they allowed Christie's to use its name in their marketing of this object. They appear to be trying to keep quiet about the issues this find (and their involvement in its subsequent treatment) raise. This is a shame because of course it is their function to not only address these issues, but keep the public informed about them ("public outreach" is more than just filling databases with numbers of pretty metal detected finds). There could be a real public discussion about what lessons we can learn from this find and what happened (is happening for the story is not over yet) and surely the Portable Antiquities Scheme should be leading it, not hiding. I do not recall seeing any kind of statement about it from the CBA yet. Though there have been two tweets from Mike Heyworth:

"Hard to see how sale of Crosby garret Roman helmet for £2m+ to a private collector is in the public interest. We need a review of the law".

"Good piece by Maev Kennedy in The Guardian on the Crosby Garrett helmet sale today: http://is.gd/fPQwI. I agree with Sally!" [ah, but did Sally Worrell say what the Guardian says she did, or did she phrase it like the Independent does? More censorship?].

Let me quote again what Barendina Smedley an observer who admits to being to some extent on the sidelines of these debates has said about this:

It would be nice to think that l’affaire Crosby Garrett might focus enough light on some murky practices regarding metal detecting, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, Christie’s and possibly the Treasure Act of 1996 to make everyone clean up their act. Alas, though, the mainstream media don’t seem interested in moving beyond that well-worn ‘save it for the nation’ script, [...].

It seems to me it is not just the media.

Newcastle Conference, photographs sought

I'd like to ask anyone who was present at the Newcastle portable antiquities and collecting conference last weekend to look in their cameras and mobile phones to see if they have any photos of members of the British archaeological community smilingly shaking hands with Wayne Sayles the US coin dealer in the centre of the Baltimore Illegal Coin Import Stunt. I'd like to put one on my blog next to the link to the one of Roger Bland with Peter Tompa, but the conference organisers have so far refused to answer my query whether they had such photos. Who shook his hand? Where are the boundaries in collaboration with artefact collectors?

CBA Conference: A New Bridge

The ACCG has just released a press release "Collectors and Archaeologists Find Common Ground on Cultural Property Management at Newcastle, U.K. Conference " about its participation in a two-day event hosted by the CBA and Newcasle University, "Portable Antiquities: Archaeology, Collecting, Metal Detecting" held in Newcastle. The press release tells the world that at the event, the Executive Director of the ACCG representing all coin collectors presented a

61-page paper, (update: new URL) "Coin Collectors and Cultural Property Nationalism" [...] covering cultural property history, law and philosophy a collaborative ACCG effort prepared in response to the event".

Well, I've read the text twice and a bit and canot say I noticed anything that might be termed "philosophy", it's short enough on logic. According to Sayles, the event

might well be characterized as the construction of a fresh bridge between archaeologists, museums, metal detectorists and collectors. Two days of hearing and discussing weighty cultural property issues, in a friendly and meaningful way, left the participants with broader perspectives and a genuine interest in moving forward.

Cute, eh? It's a good job then, isn't it for those nice cosy chats that the co-author of that collaborative philosophical paper, Dave Welsh was not there. He announced recently on his blog that he'd given up dialogue with the other blokes and, in the spirit of the Coin Collectors' manifesto which Sayles presented at Newcastle, will fight to defend his rights to sell what he likes through the courts alone. Mr Sayles makes no mention of friendly chats with the officers of the PAS sitting in the front row, nor that the paper he delivered was an apologia for the Baltimore Illegal Coin Import stunt (the coins of which were reportedly bought from an unamed British spplier). Neither is it mentioned how many metal detectorists Mr Sayles was able to network with.

Perhaps Sayles was too busy chatting up finders to ponder the involvement of Chief Inspector Mark Harrison, seconded to help English Heritage combat Heritage Theft. Oh, so it happens in England does it? Ooooo...

Obviously though he was busy with doing something like that, too busy to read the conference pack - or perhaps he did not understand the import of the letter from the National Council of Metal Detectorists which it contained. John Wells of the NCMD was due to talk on the first day on "The National Council for Metal Detecting and the Portable Antiquities Scheme: The Way Forward". He refused. Clive Sinclair from the same organization was also supposed to be there (I'd have liked to heard him, so I am glad I did not go to the UK to do so).

The Executive Committee of the NCMD made a last minute decision not to attend the conference. A letter outlining the reasons for this was included in the delegates' conference pack, which was the first opportunity most members of the organization had of learning why their representatives were abandoning them. Wells wrote that "little benefit would be gained from participating in a gathering more overtly focussed on the restriction and control of the legitimate hobby”. Mr Wells perhaps is the sort of person who must sleep with the lights on so the monsters do not come out from under his bed and attack him at night. Talk about paranoia... The NCMD have a long history of such histrionic withdrawals from almost every single important initiative which resulted in stronger collaboration between archaeologists and artefact hunters. Almost every single one. They claim to be the national representatives of the artefact hunter/collector and yet at every stage of any discussion head straight for conflict. (Rather like certain people on the board of directors of the ACCG then; it seems that collectors both sides of the Atlantic have a lot in commmon.) One collector in the UK was aware enough of the stuation of collecting today to notice that "the NCMD is not fighting our corner, but sidelining us from the leading edge of debate and developments". I wonder how long the US coin collector will take to realise that the ACCG is sidelining them in exactly the same way in the pursuit of the short-term aims of those who run it, a handful of (part-time) dealers in ancient artefacts dug up from sombody else's archaeological heritage and bought and sold no-questions-asked.

One detectorist went away from the conference having learnt a lesson which it is taking the ACCG and its member collectors an awful long time to grasp:

"Its already accepted that the genie is out of the box
and it isn`t going back in. No bans, no licencing but an acceptance that we cannot continue to remove a finite resource without taking on board some responsibility and that responsibility is to record the item as accurately as we
are able too ".

He is of course referring to the provenance of the artefact, not its mere existence.It seems a bit unlikely to me that anyone of normal intelligence could sit through two days of PAS-talk and NOT realise one simple fact. The collectors that are "on the bridge" with archaeologists are those who record the provenance of the objects they collect, pass that information on and record it in a permanent form. The ones that persist in collecting stuff without noting that information, hiding it or otherwise rendering it unavailable to study are an anathema. They are the ones who are destroying the archaeological heritage for mere personal entertainment and profit. It remains to be seen from his "report" whether Sayles actually understood that the PAS is actually set up to record provenance. It is around this alone that all the co-operation between archaeologist and artefact hunter in England and Wales is built. So what does that mean for coin dealers and coin collectors that too want to exhibit a "genuine interest in moving forward" along the path shown by the viable model of the PAS they so extoll? When will they leave the nineteenth century behind them?

The ABSTRACTS of the conference papers can be found here.

.

CBA - The Mark of the Beast? Hardly.

CBA Director Mike Heyworth's forthright "only responsible detecting is acceptable" Twitter the other day has aroused a telling and furious reaction on UK metal detecting forums. As a result it seems there is a growing feeling among the artefact hunters gathered there that he and CBA are now the devil incarnate (it used to be Time Team and Tony Robinson). This reaction to what seems to the rest of us to be a fairly self-evident statement is interesting because of course when challenged, UK metal detectorists have always claimed they are "all responsible" and it is "only a few black sheep which get the rest of us a bad name". So why all the aggression when a public statement is made that only the something-they-all-claim-to-do is acceptable ? The mob reaction to him saying that however is made even more incomprehensible in that none of them could actually say what was wrong with it.

Debate or no debate?

.

Over on the CBA's British Archaeology Forum, a debate is or conversely is not about to break out on the dreaded subject those metal detectorists. The media hoo-haa about the seven-figure sum reward paid to the finder of the Staffordshire hoard is the context. Let's have a look in.
The thread starts with Mark Horton drawing attention to the plight of a Devon museum which suddenly, it appears, had the funding it was reliant on for developing its business plan, slashed by the local council. By a million quid. The museum will have to close, local jobs will be lost, the developers may well move in to the site and ruin its heritage amenities. He ends: "I am not sure if there is anything that can be done, except to feel outraged". A list member (Nigel Swift co-author of a certain book on artefact hunting) adds a trenchant comment to that:

One could reflect that if only 10% of market value of the Staffordshire hoard was paid to the finder (which is more than enough for surrendering what belongs to us all I would have thought) then the £1 million shortfall could be covered and the museum could be saved. It is really not on that finders can chortle that "it is better than winning the lottery" while at the same time museums can be allowed to go to the wall.

One Ian Daintith answers with a one-liner:

"And with an attitude like that more detectors will go "underground" and heritage would get nothing!" [my emphasis]

To which the sharp-witted Mr Swift replies with the only response possible faced with such a comment (remember metal detectorists say they're "only in it fer th'istry"):

So what are you suggesting?? Unless society is prepared to pay every penny in full, it can forget about seeing its heritage ? Is there a word for that?

[I think we can all think of one]. At which point Diana Briscoe, Archiver of Anglo-Saxon pottery stamps if you please, remonstrates:

OH PULEEZE!!!!I do NOT want to have to start deleting another round of metal detectorist arguments and slanging. Please stop this one right here!.

Lady D. does not want. Sounds like Andy Holland of the CBA who also "does not want" to talk about these issues on an archaeology forum either. Wimps. Quick as a flash Mr Swift (glad he's on my side) responds:

I'm afraid we shall have to differ. Millions of heritage pounds are not going into museum funding, yet millions of heritage pounds are going into private hands to reward people for doing what the law already obliges them to do. I really don't see why we shouldn't debate whether the heritage cake is being sliced to optimum effect.

Nor do I. Will there be a discussion on the British Archaeology forum? Probably not, British archaeologists seem to have lost the stomach to stand firm on anything much to do with artefact hunting and collecting these days.

There are three problems with this "full market" value lark. The first is it costs the public budget an awful lot. Britain is a rich country - but not that rich that it has enough hospital beds or school classrooms, or whatever. Most of these rewards are going to people deliberately going out seeking treasure.

An additional point is that every time the newspapers trumpet another six or seven figure reward another couple of hundred people decide it might be a good idea to take up metal detecting. Every year therefore we are going to be seeing more and more of these items being handed in. This will only stop when the Treasure (a finite resource) is all used up, or all the museums have decided they have enough gold and silver goodies to please the crowds. Mr Herbert of the Staffordshire hoard says treasure hunting is "like the lottery", it is not at all. With some 700 treasures being reported a year in England, Wales and Northern Ireland alone among 10 000 metal detectorists, a quick calculation shows that statistically in a decade or so detecting, the chances of finding a big-reward "Treasure" are cnsiderably higher than winning big-win sums on the lottery. It takes a bit longer, but it is exercise in the fresh air and you get your name in the papers and a pat on the head from the archaeologists.

The other issue is legal. The Treasure does not become Crown property from the moment of the inquest. The inquest determines whether it is or is not - the objects are Crown property while in (by virtue of being in) the ground. This means you or I or Mr Herbert cannot legally dig them up and sell them on eBay, any more than I could sell on eBay one of Her Majesty's corgis I found wandering lost in Windsor Great Park. Given therefore that their sale by a private individual would be illegal, how can they be sold for their full market value? They can only be disposed of by under-the-counter sales, for which the illegal vendor cannot expect full market value. This is the reasoning behind the assignation of rewards in other countries where items are considered state property. Why then is Britain different?

Archaeologists who find "Treasure" items in the course of going about doing what archaeologists do (they mainly "do it fer th'istry" too, there's no money in archaeology these days) do not get a reward. The law requires them to go through certain procedures with items of a specific category that they encounter as a result of their activities, and they do so without a big rigmarole, without a murmer. Metal detectorists who find "Treasure" items in the course of ("only doing it fer th'istry") doing what metal detectorists do get full market value. The law requires them to go through certain procedures with items of a specific category that they encounter as a result of their activities, and they do so and expect a massive reward for doing so. And they are often found complaining loudly on their forums that they reckon their mates were "diddled" by the state.


Let us note that English and Welsh law also requires everybody to report to the same official (the coroner) if they find a dead body somewhere, like in the woods or fields. So how soon is it before citizens will be expecting a reward for complying with that law (starting no doubt with the metal detectorists)? After all if there were no bodies reported, the newspapers would not be able to write about them, and the police would not be able to do their job would they?






Photo: the Knoxville body farm, no rewards for finders here.

British humour: CBA's "Britarch Debates on Portable Antiquities"

Trying (unsuccessfully) to get a link to the CBA page on HMS Sussex in an old post here to work, I came across a little page tucked away in "Conservation/ Current Issues/ Debates/ Portable Antiquities" called "Britarch Debates on Portable Antiquities" (let's see if this link works). Apparently the CBA thinks "This section provides an archive of the latest debates on portable antiquities in the United Kindom". Well, there has not been much in the way of "latest debates" on the topic since Andy Holland the CBA Education Officer over there told us to shut up because he'd rather talk about "Iron Age fish". I was therefore interested to see this "archive".

It did not take long to look through it. In fact it consists of ten random posts (presumably the head of topics), one from no less than Californian coin dealer Dave Welsh proclaiming that “the black market in [Iraqi] antiquities seems to have stopped”, and a snide comment from a Norwegian "metal detectorist" about the latest Treasure report. There's one from me about something or other (also Iraq), though not particlarly representative of anything I said there in 2007 or 2008 on portable antiquities. There is something about the "Nighthawking" report being set up, nothing of any discussion after its publication. One wonders what the basis for the selection of this rather haphazard collection of unrelated items actually was and who is responsible (though I can guess). Really if that is the best that the Council for British Archaeology can do to highlight and show the public the scope of the debate that HAS been going on about artefact hunting, then its a pretty poor show.

Changes to UK Treasure Act?

The Coroners and Justice Bill has just ( 14 January) been placed before the UK Parliament. In the draft version it was intended to effect two changes to the systems for reporting “Treasure” finds, the first was the proposal to introduce a single coroner to deal with Treasure cases from the whole of England and Wales and (rather like the Scottish system). The second was the proposal to amend the Treasure Act 1996 to widen the obligation to report finds of Treasure to anyone who comes into possession of them, rather than just the original finder. It is now being suggested that these two elements may not be included in the final Bill.

The sound of a pin dropping

Over on Britarch, the Council for British Archaeology's discussion forum, the chairman of Heritage Action suggested continuing the discussion on what a code for ethical collecting of portable antiquities should contain. This was a reaction to the Icklingham illegal metal detecting case discussed here. It was Heritage Action which pointed out that while collectors continue to buy their portable antiquities without a documented provenance it gives "nighthawks" a carte blanche to carry on looting sites for a collectables. In England and Wales there is a Code for Responsible Metal Detecting (but not one for Scotland or Northern Ireland), and antiquities dealers have their weasel-worded "codes of ethics" but nowhere is there the concommitant Code of Responsible Portable Antiquity Collecting. Why is that?

The suggestion had been made before on Britarch, and gained the support of the CBA's director Mike Heyworth, and after a beginning had been made on discussing what it might contain , the topic was quietly dropped. This time there was an immediate reaction to the suggestion from Norwegian metal detectorist Gary Brun who said:

I really don't see how you can make a "Code of Responsible Collecting". People have collected things since the origins of man and covers so many areas. I think it would cause a huge backlash and is a very difficult road you are trying to walk on.

That, apparently, was the end of the discussion among British archaeologists of the idea that collectors of portable antiquities can and should be establishing some sort of code of responsible portable antiquity collecting.

Why, actually, after more than a decade of "outreach" and encouragement of portable antiquity collecting in England and Wales by the Portable Antiquities Scheme should it be regarded as "a difficult road" to even discuss the creation of such a code and what it might contain? Among archaeologists. Could it be that British archaeologists themselves are totally unclear where they stand on the issue of responsible portable antiquity collection and even what it is? Why might that be?

Curbing the Killing by Keystrokes: EBay ivory ban

For the past few days, conservation blogs and news have been full of stories that from the beginning of 2009, eBay will ban all sales of items made of elephant ivory - Yielding to Conservationists, eBay Will Ban Ivory Sales. Lobbyists had been campaigning for the closure of the loopholes that de facto had existed in the existing regulation of the ivory trade, and unregulated internet sales were one of the biggest.

This is a victory for the conservation lobbyists who have been pointing out that it is the inability of buyers (and here US ones figured largely) to curb their acquisitiveness and ask where the raw material was coming from which has been directly responsible for the continued poaching of elephants in the wild, even in places where they are supposed to be protected. Good profits are still involved because despite existing bans there is still an unquestioning market for ivory, as a result elephants are being gunned down even in wildlife reserves, despite the presence there of armed rangers and other measures taken to protect them. I wrote on this depressing situation earlier and reflected on its relationship to the antiquities trade.

This is an interesting parallel to the antiquities market in several ways. First of all the current situation is a foil to the arguments of portable antiquity collectors that "it is not they who are responsible for looting", but the archaeologists who “do not guard sites against the looters”, or the laws "are ineffective". It is clear that in the case of ivory, the market and therefore the incentive for poaching exist because there are people willing to buy ivory goods no-questions-asked. Here internet-aided sales have a large influence. Conservation groups detail how much ivory they found being traded in the US alone through sites like eBay. They labeled it “Killing by Keystrokes” which is an interesting parallel to Elias’ “Collectors are the real Looters” epigram referring to portable antiquities.

It is the same with document-less antiquities. There in an incentive for people to go out with spades and metal detectors to dig up little scraps of the past from a local archaeological site while there are acquisitive people who are willing to buy them.

In the case of ivory, EBay faced with the criticisms of a whole bunch of animal rights and nature conservation groups has decided to do its bit to protect the elephant (and also of course its corporate image). Good for them, one can only applaud this decision and hope it will do its bit to curb the disgusting killing to give a few selfish individuals the hedonistic but perverted pleasure of owning a piece of dismembered elephant in the form of some kitschy gee-gaw. What I would like to know however is where are the archaeological and heritage lobby groups insisting they take the same sort of measures to protect the world's archaeological heritage from being similarly dismembered?

Who are the real lame ducks?

David Ian in his comments on October 13th to David Gill’s post on the ongoing SLAM mask/Brent Benjamin CPAC appointment/ US foreign policy scandal (scroll down) urges us not to underestimate “the strength and tenacity of the lobbyists in Washington who want folks just like Mr. Benjamin in this position”. I for one certainly do not. I think they are very damaging to the world’s archaeological heritage, something I care very deeply about, and all too obviously, wrapped up in their own self interest, they do not. I’d say not only SLAM’s current director needs, as David Ian puts it, “a refresher on how to respect someone else's property”.

David adds

Having observed these debates for a while, I've noticed that while the opponents make no bones about their complaints, the archaeological authority is curiously silent, except for a handful of people (like yourselves), who become immediate targets of attack by the opponents.

Yes indeed, very nasty personal attacks and continual harassment sometimes. I see each case of this as simply indicating that the couldn't-care-less collectors and dealers have no real arguments with which to rebuff what their critics are saying. It is an admission of failure to find that mythical “common ground” they insist exists between archaeology and collecting.

David asks the question:

Are the archaeologists willing to fight as hard as the lobbyists?

Well, I don’t know about North American ones, but I do know that the majority of British ones most certainly are not at all keen to look too deeply beneath the glib assurances that "all is OK" and artefact collectors are "unsung heroes of the British heritage" (sic) or stick their necks out. It would not be “politically correct” you see, but actually they are really afeared that a couple of blokes with metal detectors might get a bit "stroppy" if they say anything slightly critical too loudly. Wimps. I wonder if they give other aggressive eroders of the archaeological record the same wide berth and leeway? Developers for example.

Discussing the International Antiquities Trade, the British Way

This is a follow up to an earlier post here about discussions or rather the attempted avoidance of discussions about collection of potable antiquities on the Council for British Archaeology’s discussion forum, Britarch .

Ten days on, Dave Welsh is still trying to persuade British archaeologists there of what is what. They are mostly ignoring both him and sidekick (antiquity collector from Canada) John Hooker, from time to time interjecting with carefully-worded brief comments or reproaches. Welsh is noticeably attempting to play to the gallery by singling out for criticism one participant in the debate over portable antiquities collecting and trade in every second of a long series of posts, usually preceded by words such as “extremist”. Emboldened by the fact that nobody objected, and one “metal detectorist” agreed to the use of the term, he has now issued them a direct challenge:

I would like to invite listreaders other than extremists such as Paul Barford, to present reasons why his remarks and those of similar extremists should be taken seriously.

These "remarks" of course refer to things like:
1) the international trade of portable antiquities,
2) the effects of wholesale unregulated digging on a near global scale of the archaeological record as a source of collectables for entertainment and profit,
3) the movement of illegally excavated and exported material (and the efforts of the pro-collecting lobby to justify ignoring such “bothersome” formalities as documenting the origin of the items which are traded in this lucrative and ambiguous market).

The conservation-minded reader can decide for themselves whether it is indeed “extremist” to express concern about and desire to see a change in the current situation.

Welsh has made the job of starting (or avoiding) such a discussion easier for them by issuing statements in the same challenge such as:

Arguments which in effect assert that site specific contextual information is all important frequently tend to conflict with modern views of the importance of learning from the past

and that such attitudes lead to disastrous results:

Perhaps the preventable (and in many cases horrible) deaths of many millions of people should receive at least some weight in current archaeological opinion.” (sic).

Well, let us see what the inherently portable antiquity collector-friendly British archaeological community on the CBA's discussion forum make of this. Will they stand up to the challenges of the portable antiquity dealer and argue in support the notion of the conservation of the archaeological resource in the face of widespread commercial exploitation for the collectables market? Or perhaps they will collapse in the face of the enthusiasm with which he expounds the collectors’ point-of-view that to question the status quo from conservation grounds is in some way not only "non politically correct " or "elitist" but actually "extremist" and refuse to be seen to be associated with such ideals? Will they settle for further “compromise” with commercial exploitation (on the grounds that artefact collecting of the type advocated by Mr Welsh is in some way really “archaeology for all”)? Or will they turn a deaf ear and pretend they did not hear the question and ignore him in discrete (or embarrassed) silence?

Watch this space.

More codes of ethical collecting?

The idea of ethics codes for portable antiquities collecting [rather than “dealing” which seems a lost cause] seems to be catching on. On the Britarch forum (British archaeology – run by the CBA), Heritage Action Chairman Nigel Swift proposed one, Director of the CBA Mike Heyworth endorsed the idea and in reply US coin dealer and anti-archaeological activist Dave Welsh currently on that forum trying to tell British archaeologists what-is-what wrote: “I enthusiastically endorse everything said in this message. The idea of a Code for Responsible Collecting is worthwhile, and I will be glad to cooperate with all who are interested in drafting it. I regret the gulf that has opened between archaeology and collecting, and desire to do everything possible to bring our disciplines together again, as they were in happier times.”
Thus encouraged, Raimund Karl (Bangor University) then produced a draft of a 'Code of Responsible Collecting of Archaeological Remains' (CoRCoAR) which is accessible here (open archive of posts): It seems however that despite his earlier enthusiasm, coin-dealer Welsh has changed his mind about discussing ethics with British archaeologists now he’s seen what has been placed on the table for discussion. Was that a pin I heard drop?

A few days earlier (August 4th) back on the Moneta-L discussion list Paul McSweeney a coin collector in Ireland addressed some of the anti-conservation naysayers on the list hitting the nail on the head. he wrote:

“as collectors, we cannot dissociate ourselves completely from the fact that the existence of a market for ancient coins in the West (i.e., us) can help drive unscrupulous practices in source countries and so I think we should do our best to collect ethically”.

He asks would it be possible for "collectors to develop a code of (more) ethical collecting?” He then makes a suggestion how it might look, “just to start the ball rolling”, (quoted here with the author’s permission, though I have added the numbering):

1) We only buy coins that could plausibly have come from existing collections and avoid those which are very clearly recently dug up (e.g., those bulk lots of "uncleaned coins fresh from Eastern Europe" we see on eBay!).
2) Give our custom to dealers who appear to stock the above types of coins and who appear to deal ethically.
3) Avoid dealers in source countries without sensible
antiquities laws (as in the UK) and so who are probably exporting coins illegally.
4) Try to encourage dealers to record the provenance of coins,
where possible. I have bought a few coins that came with the previous owner's tag which gives me the great feeling of just being steward of that coin until it is passed on to another collection, probably long after I am gone. I know it is
easier to forge a provenance than a coin, but at least it would send a signal to dealers that provenance is something to be valued and recorded.
5) Avoid collecting antiquities other than coins, without a clear provenance. Coins can plausibly be found in a ploughed field with a metal detector without harm to an archaeological context, but non-metallic antiquities cannot be found other than
by destructive excavation. Likewise, hoards of coins were presumably hidden well away from habitation whereas other antiquities are much more likely to have been found in an archaeological context.

These are just some of my thoughts; I'm sure that others will agree with some points and not with others. However,
would it be possible by consensus to develop such a "code of ethical collecting"? It may not solve the problems of the market for ancient coins helping to drive unscrupulous and destructive
practices, but it might help (and give us more ammunition to defend our hobby!)”

Well, Mr McSweeney threw the ball onto the pitch in front of the players, none of them however have picked it up and run with it, in fact they seem to be pretending not to have noticed it. He tells me that a similar attempt about a year ago met with a similar response.

So at the moment portable antiquity collectors and dealers seem to be playing lip-service to the idea of a code of ethics, but it seems to be beyond them at the moment to actually compose one that suits the needs of the responsible collector as well as contributes substantially to clearing up the ambiguities and the utter mess the trade in portable antiquities currently is in . Still, its good that the idea is floating about the milieu.

I personally think Raimund Karl’s proposed code is too long, and tries too hard to fill in the gaps left by the way the Code for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales was drafted (it should not have been just about metal detecting but all kinds of collecting, pays too little attention to collecting as collecting, and is only applicable to the situation in two of the four regions of the UK – this is not ignoring the fact that getting such an agreement with British "detectorists" in current circumstances WAS indeed a major achievement). I’d like to see a code just on the collecting of artefacts once they have been found and are on the international market, its not a code for Mustafa with a spade digging up the Afghan mountain pastures looking for coins, but it should be aimed more at getting Tony Balony the ancient history buff in Wisconsin buying with discrimination and putting money only into the pockets of ethical dealers' and their suppliers.

Mr McSweeney’s version is interesting. As an archaeologist I would query the “avoid collecting antiquities other than coins, without a clear provenance”. Coins (whether ACCG dealers like it or not, and whether they were produced in thousands and “meant for circulation”), ARE archaeological finds, and if we agree that the archaeological layer of information of a portable artefact is best preserved by having detailed information of provenance, then so much more so is that the case with coins. Off-list correspondence with Mr McSweeney was a heartening experience, he obviously thinks more deeply about the effects of his hobby on the archaeological resource than the majority of his collectors on that discussion list seem to be capable of (to judge by their on-list responses). It is good to learn that there are such people in the hobby alongside the vociferous naysayers who tend to attract more attention. Let's have a code to sort out the sheep from the goats.

A Question for British Archaeologists

British archaeologists are engaged in a process or "bridge-building" and compromise with all manner of artefact hunters and portable antiquity collectors. I'd like to address a question to those among them that support, advocate and actively pursue such policies, including the Council for British Archaeology and the Portable Antiquities Scheme:

"when is personal collecting of portable antiquities "archaeology for all" and when is it not?"

A straightfoward question; getting an answer to it from British archaeologists seems not so simple, I wonder why? They talk of compromise, but seem unwilling to disclose the limits to the degree to which they will compromise archaeological principles to avoid any form of confrontation with the artefact collecting lobby.

Tiberias coins and Collectors' Numismadogma

As part of the ideological battle to protect their commercial interest, a group of coin dealers and collectors, for the most part based in the US, are attempting desperately to persuade the public and lawmakers of the truth of a number of dogmas which have been developed as protective mantras, defending the noble and venerable “science” (sic) of amateur numismatics from attacks by those good-for-nothing conservationists and archaeologists. In the course of following the antiquity collecting debate the same ones keep cropping up again and again.

One of them (Numismadogma number one) is that ancient coins are not archaeological objects (and so therefore should not be included in measures intended to protect the archaeological record from erosion by artefact hunting to supply the antiquities market). These pro-collecting activists have armed themselves with a number of specious arguments which aim to prove “coins are not archaeological finds”. Most of them show a woeful disregard (for I suspect its not actually ignorance) of the facts concerning where coins are actually found in the “source countries”. Currently one of the dealer-activists is over on the British archaeological discussion list (Britarch run by the CBA) trying to lecture British archaeologists about how they allegedly “don’t know” where Roman coins are found in the soil of Great Britain, apparently they don’t come from archaeological sites at all, because “90% come from ploughed fields”. Yeah, right.

Another of their strategies is to try their hardest to claim some intellectual (and cultural and sometimes ethical) higher ground over archaeologists when coins are concerned. One of the ploys in which they do this is to belittle the understanding of archaeologists of any matters connected with ancient coins (and their ability to look after them). Archaeologists, allegedly know nothing about ancient coins, only a collector can do that. This seems a rather unfair and intentionally misleading generalization. A typical example of this mythmaking appeared a few days ago on the Moneta-L discussion list. Dawson Lewis a collector from South Dakota writes:

A few years ago there was a find of "Jesus" coins in Northern Israel. The archeologists who reported the finds talked about how rare the coins were and gave new light on Muslim and Christian relations. In reality they were gold Byzantine solidi minted in the early 1000's. That archeologist needed some
collectors to help them.

This seems an odd story, it is incomprehensible how an archaeologist working in Israel could be unable to identify such a coin. Barely believable in fact. So I decided to try to look into these sad allegations of artefactological ignorance. As far as I can find out from colleagues working in the area, there were no “gold Byzantine solidi”(sic) minted in the early 11th century found in northern Israel in the period mentioned. There was however some newspaper coverage of finds made by Byzantine specialist Prof. Yizhar Hirschfeld in Tiberias. It would seem that these are the coins referred to. But these are anonymous folles, struck in copper alloy not "gold". We are clearly dealing with more of the mythmaking endemic in US amateur numismatic circles. I cannot see where there is a problem here in what Hirschfeld said and why he allegedly "needs a coin collector". Hirschfeld was a specialist in Byzantine archaeology and I think we can assume he well knew what these coins were (The predictable comments of a local government official seeing here an opportunity to market the tourist values of the area as a result of these finds should not be ascribed to the archaeologist.)

Lewis seems to think that it is an expression of ignorance that Hirschfeldt said they were “rare”, such coins are pretty common after all in coin dealer’s trays (many of them from illicitly exported metal detected finds from the Balkans). By the end of the tenth century the area where these coins were found had not been in Byzantine hands for a couple of centuries, and Byzantine coins of this date and type are indeed rare there. The presence of a group of 58 folles does indeed raise interesting questions about what they are doing there and the relations between Byzantium and the Islamic world. Mr Lewis seems merely to have had a problem accepting that these coins were found by an archaeologist rather than them entering the antiquities trade. As a result however of his muddled account of what had been found and what was said about them, many US amateur numismophilists will have found confirmation of the “archaeologists know nothing about coins” mantra. How many of them are bolstered by precisely such anecdotal evidence? Probably all of them.