Smashing Pots in Anti-Collector Spite

.

I thought I'd discussed this collectors' anti-archaeological scare story on this blog earlier, but it seems not. The story goes that some archaeologists are so anti-collecting that when for some reason they cannot collect artefacts for long-term curation, they smash them "so they do not get into the hands of collectors". Therefore, the collectors' anti-archaeological league suggest, all archaeologists are evil and destructive people and must be fought by all possible means fair or foul. That is the story. It serves as part of the "selling collectors 'duplicate finds' so we dont have to buy looted finds" mantra.

Now, I have heard lots of this. All from the same two people on the same forums in the same context. On the other hand, I have worked in archaeology in several countries for more than 35 years, have spoken to many many archaeologists, museums staff, unit directors, and have never heard anything like this happening from them. Not in fact a whisper. The only people repeating these scare stories are coin collectors and coin dealers. Let us have a look at the evidence for archaeologists being evil.

Story 1

When I was in University, one of my professors (the course was on classics but he was an archeologist) told me that during the early 1970's they use[d] to destroy artifacts after excavating and recording then. The excavations were at Corinth in Greece, and reasoning was that the Greek Government lacked the facilities to store them store them, the archeologists were not allowed to keep them, and they were concerned that if they re-buried them they might be dug up later by someone who might sell them to a collector who would look after them . The story is 100% true and I got this first hand from the archeologist who destroyed the pots. To be honest, he personally was against doing this, but had not choice as he was ordered to so by the Greek government and to no do so would mean he would not be allowed on the site the following year. This I don't see his own behavior as unethical, but rather the behavior of the Greek archeologists in charge of the dig as unethical.

Right. An unnamed professor at an unnamed (Canadian?) university had heard something about unspecified "they" digging in Corinth in the 1970s under some unamed "Greek archaeologist" which he repeated to his students. The Corinth excavations have for over a century been carried out by the American School of Classical Studies in Athens. The American Mission built extensive storerooms there in the 1930s, in which the finds are housed. There is also an extensive publication series. Is this a piece of anti-American academic slander by a Canadian academic? Is there a Canadian mission at Corinth? What in archaeological terms is unethical here is not so much the solution to the problem adopted if this is true, but the fact it arose in the first place, a foreign mission engages in a research project of an otherwise unthreatened site without first ascertaining the ability to maintain a proper archive of the results. I think we need to know the name of this archaeologist. Mr Kokotailo?

Note the manipulative phrase inserted into the story with regard to the intended audience: "might sell them to a collector who would look after them"
Story 2 John Hooker, who lives just down the road from Kokotailo writes:

An archaeologist told me that at a dig she was on in Tuscany, bucchero ware pots were sorted for those with decoration and those without, and the latter were smashed with hammers -- the stores were overflowing with the stuff.

An unnamed archaeologist who at an unspecified time was on an unnamed excavation saw pot-smashing [in nasty old Italy who ("coincidentally") have the nerve to ask US collectors to stop buying illegally exported artefacts]. I have heard Mr Hooker repeat this story so many times, sometimes adding details not mentioned earlier. We did eventually hear from him the name of the informant, who turned out to be some Canadian lass he'd met online on a Celtic mythology forum and otherwise seems to be untraceable (I tried, but if she's reading this, I'd be glad to hear from you Michelle). The same comment applies about a Canadian taking part in a mission which had not ascertained that they have the resources to archive the results of their project adequately.

By the way the "Greek" story he'd heard which is mentioned several times by Hooker seems to be Kokotailo's discussed above.
So at the moment we have heard two anecdotal reports at second hand from two Canadian archaeologists taking part in two separate foreign expeditions. Missions that, if what is said is true (and of course we have no reason to doubt), no archaeologist should be participating anyway. I have no doubt there are more such anecdotes out there, each more scandalous than the last, the question is whether these are the norm.

In an effort to suggest they are, Mr Hooker (who though Canadian seems now to envisage himself as a spokesman for the Missouri-based ACCG) produced another piece of "damning" evidence from the CBA's Britarch list. Apparently this kind of destruction "is called "binning" in England (no need to break pots to prevent them from being collected)". See: [ tiny URL link to this ] Follow the thread -- I like the last recommendation to use proper landfill sites!". In the Britarch message Chris Cumberpatch asks a question about a working group on a 'framework for archaeological selection strategies' (issues relating to the retention, selection and discard of archaeological archives). The word collector nowhere appears in this text - this is in any case well after British archaeology started its PAS "partnership" with collectors.

Hooker's use of this material in this context is a total and probably deliberate manipulation (again the lack of respect for the intelligence of his readers) because it is talking about something else entirely. The question of what should be included in an excavation archive and how it should be stored (and for how long) is part of a debate that has been going on in British (and not only British) archaeology since the large rescue projects of the 1960s. The debate is ongoing, I do not know if they have similar debates yet in Canadian archaeology. Perhaps they'd like to ask Mr Hooker to join in. An update on the British working party itself can be found here and probably elsewhere.

Excavations often produce huge quantities of very diverse material and samples. Much of it is not the sort of stuff that any collector would be keen to have in their collections, slag and fired clay lumps tend to be rather unlovely to those who do not actually study the things. Even most pottery bodysherds are much of a muchness once they've been counted weighed and classified. Somehow they do not seem to be coming across in any quantity from Bulgaria in the shippings of "pieces of the past" on sale by ebay sellers, so I think one can assume that this is one type of artefact (along with Roman tile and featureless wallplaster bits) that are not regarded as very collectable by collectors of and dealers in portable antiquities.

"Smashing Pots" in Anti-Collector Spite UPDATE: 16th May 2010:

It seems collectors are rather foggy (among other things, that is) about the difference between "smashing complete pots so collectors don't get them" and a selection of material to form the excavation archive. The story was being propagated in collecting circles that evil archaeologists are so set against collecting that they will stop at nothing to prevent collectors coming any near a real ancient artefact. That is the stereotype that the "collectors' rights" advocates so strenuously wish to inculate into the minds of collectors, to provoke the siege mentality that fosters extremist viewpoints. There are some collectors bravely holding out and actually questioning them (on Moneta-L now Ross Glanville added his voice to that of Reid Goldsborough). Note however these are isolated cases. Most of the other collectors apparently believe the mantras.

I'd pass the following uninformed comment up if it were not for the fact that its author (Scott Uhrick of "Ancient Coins for Educashun") appended the challenge "are you listening Mr Barford?". I would not like him to point out to collectors that I was ignoring a fact allegedly because I found it inconvenient, so I'm putting up here what he wrote:

Folks, I just finished a recent book on the fall of Rome. In the introduction the author (an archaeologist and historian with Trinity College, Oxford) speaks of working with his archaeologist father in Rome. His task was to destroy that day's pottery. I quote; "I remember well as a child, sometime around 1960, helping to dump into a river (so that the current would scatter and lose them) boxes and boxes of Roman pottery recovered in a field survey north of Rome, which had simply outgrown the available storage space." [The Fall of Rome and the End of Civilization, Bryan Ward-Perkins, Oxford University Press, 2005 (page 90, paperback version, 2006)]. Are you listening, Mr Barford?

I find it amusing that Ulhrick thinks it is necessary to explain to his ancient-coin-collecting audience who Brian Ward-Perkins is. I know the book, the passage he quotes is concerned with hammering home to his readers the "consumerism" of Roman society and the text is intended to give the reader an idea of the masses of goods produced and used in Roman society. Somewhere in the vicinity of this reference as I recall, Ward-Perkins also discusses Monte Testuccio, now I do not know how much of that Uhrick would like to transfer to a museum and why. What is being described is the process of selection of material which will be permanently curated from a project from that which will not. What is described is the disposal of sherd material (see above) not the "smashing of complete pots so collectors cannot have them" (is tipping sherds into the river the same as "destroying" them for example by smashing them with hammers?).

We see here another symptom of the short attention span and inability of the collector to follow the logic of a argument containing more than eight words. This is all the more remarkable because it is the argument promoted by their "own side". An imagined "challenge" has been presented to the views of those of opposing views, intended to bolster the view being put out by the lollard agitators in their midst. Ward-Perkins' story is nothing of the kind. Astounding.

Update 17th May:
Coin collecting archaeologist John Rieske adds on Moneta-L:

Actually, it is not that uncommon of a thing. A professor from Colorado broke any pot that was found in his surveys and excavations for three reasons: ease of transport, discourage robbers, and finally to give his students experience piecing together broken pots in the lab.

Once again name and time active not given. The motive to "discourage robbers" makes it sound like transports of artefacts back to the mission's laboratories could have been held up by highwaymen who might not want to steal the broken pottery, wow, real Indiana Jones stuff. I bet he dug in mechanical 'spits' as well.

.
Vingnette: It is a well known fact among collectors that archaeologists are evil people who go to bed with the enemies of George W. Bush grrrrr.

UK Conference on Collecting

I see that a UK conference is to be held (13th-14th March) on "Portable Antiquities: Archaeology, Collecting, Metal Detecting". It is organized by Britain's Council for British Archaeology and Newcastle University's International Centre for Cultural and Heritage Studies. It purports to "offer perspectives from a range of different interest groups, look at recent research, present case studies from around the UK and beyond, and ultimately offer views about what the future may hold for portable antiquities management". A glance at the programme indicates that the first part of this statement is somewhat misleading. It seems rather that participants will be faced largely with the usual lame fluffy bunny stuff about entering "partnerships" with collectors and patting them on the head. The whole conference programme appears biased towards that model of dealing with the problem of the exploitation of the archaeological record for entertainment and profit, rather than discussing any kind of outreach to try and persuade the public that this making ephemeral personal collections of selected bits of it is no longer an appropriate way to exploit what remains of the world's archaeological record. Or is British archaeology now unanimous in regarding this as quite "acceptable"?

While there may be effusive and optimistic talk of "portable antiquities management" (sic), where is the down to earth talk of the management of the other parts of the archaeological record affected by artefact hunting, and in particular the SITES from which this stuff is coming in steadily increasing quantities? Modern archaeology is not (used not to be, at least) by any means about "managing portable antiquities", but managing the archaeological resource as a whole, not just "things". Or in its British (per)version has it now become reduced only to this, the lowest common denominator?

The conference title assures us that it's going to address "collecting" (one presumes of archaeological artefacts) but the programme fails to do so in more general terms but merely concentrates on "metal detecting". The issues connected with the collection of so-called portable antiquities surely extend far beyond those engendered by sad little men in army surplus clothes and anoraks wandering about with bleeping tools for hoovering up collectable metal artefacts. There are whole fields of debate apparently ignored in the over-ambitiously titled programme. So-called "metal detecting" surely cannot be seen in isolation from the other manifestations of artefact collecting - though that is apparently what the programme suggests that the conference organizers have set out to do. There is a paper on te "ethics of ownership" by a collector, given the approach of the conference organizers what would have been more useful would be a parallel one from an archaeologist about the "ethics of partnership [with collectors of archaeological objects]".

Equally problematic is why no-questions-asked coin dealer lobbyist and ACCG Executive Director Wayne Sayles has been invited over from the US to lecture the Scottish and others on "cultural property nationalism". I would like to ask whether the conference organizers are paying his travelling expenses, conference fees and expenses in the UK.

CBA is not going to launch a new STOP campaign against metal detecting

A recent Twitter says "CBA is apparently about to launch a new STOP campaign against metal detecting", repeating some metal detector forum gossip... and why not? What STOP stands for is "Stop Taking Our Past". It is the name of the campaign orchestrated by British archaeologists way back in the days when they had some guts. British archaeology then tried to stand up for what archaeology is supposed to be about against those who saw the archaeological record (regarded as a resource we all hold a common interest in - hence the "our past") merely as a mine for collectables to be taken for entertainment and profit (hence the "stop taking"). A perfectly legitimate message that archaeologists elsewhere are trying to get over to their public. The selective mining of archaeological assemblages as the source of a commodity which fuels the expanding collectors' market is undeniably damaging archaeological sites all over the world. The attitudes that lie behind it are undermining the raison d'etre of the discipline of arcchaeology. Archaeologists clearly need to take a stand against this damaging tendency as much as they need to oppose other forms of damage to and destruction of the archaeological record. British archaeology however does not see it that way, nor see the need to keep in step with their colleagues worldwide involved in the fight against this phenomenon.

The full text of the Twitter message is telling:

CBA is apparently about to launch a new STOP campaign against metal detecting. No we are not. But only responsible detecting is acceptable.

Note, "detecting" and not "collecting". This is the crux of the problem in Britain, the whole issue of the collection of archaeological finds (which they rename using the terminology of the Trade as "portable antiquities") has been subsumed by the need to pat "metal detectorists" artefact hunters) on the head as their "partners". IS "responsible detecting (sic)" actually "acceptable" to an archaeologist? Would responsible tell digging be "acceptable in Iraq" (or anywhere else except Britain) or responsible tomb-robbing acceptable in Egypt" (or anywhere else except Britain)? What is it that makes the exploitation of archaeological assemblages in Britain "acceptable" to British archaeologists (and the Council for British Archaeology in particular) whereas (one would hope) the same British archaeologists (and the same Council) would condemn the exploitation of Iraqi, Nigerian, Egyptian and other non-British sites as a source of arefacts to be sold on the international market for entertainment and profit? Is there some inherent quality of the British archaeological record which makes it infinite and somehow impervious to damage no matter what and how much is taken from it? It would certainly seem that those Brtish archaeologists who state that artefact hunting and collecting are "acceptable" would seem to think so. I do not share that opinion.

vignette

UK Heritage Bill a Non-Starter again

It is reported on the CBA's website that the Heritage Protection Bill for England and Wales does not appear in the UK's Draft Legislative Programme for 2009/10 announced by the Government this week. This means that there is little hope of the legislative reforms promised by the 2007 White Paper promised will now occur. The proposed legislation envisaged placing the historic environment at the heart of the planning system. As Mike Heyworth, CBA’s Director said: "Our historic environment fundamentally shapes the quality of our surroundings and is integral to policies for sustainability. It must be at the heart of new policies for the way places are designed and planned, not side-lined as a low priority".

The Bill aimed to simplify and strengthen existing legislation and introduce opportunities for people to be more involved in protecting and enhancing their local heritage. It also paved the way for the signing and ratification of the Hague Convention, the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Without the Bill, the UK will soon be the only international power not to have signed the convention.

As the CBA points out, the lack of Government commitment to these reforms is deplorable.

British archaeology-collecting partnership in action

"This website is a resource designed and maintained by metal detector entusiasts (sic) to record finds and promote good practice within the hobby." That's what it now says on the revamped Council for British Archaeology website about the UK Detector Finds Database . The world has gone mad.

I think the archaeological community is entitled to ask what the CBA's definition of "good practice" in the hobby of artefact collecting actually is. There are a number of highly significant differences between the UKDFD and the Portable Antiquities Scheme, and it is for this reason the latter, and not the former figures in the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales, which - believe it or not - the CBA had a large part in brokering.

It is perhaps significant that this does seem to be one of the few links on this section of the CBA's new webpage which actually works. What a shambles.

Sayles' Second Thought

Wayne Sayles has reacted to the comments made in answer to his recent "Goose-stepping" blog post. He clearly misunderstands that it is precisely because of his position as Executive Director of the most prominent ancient coin collectors' lobby group worldwide, and precisely because he has undoubted achievements in other areas of numismatic erudition (and yes, I even have at least one of his books), that the constant name-calling he addresses to those who discuss the ethics of collecting of undocumented archaeological artefacts is so unbecoming and disappointing. He writes:

Until there is an overture from someone truly representative of the archaeological community, and not a nut case with a personal agenda, there will be continued animosity between that community and ancient coin collectors. A sad situation for sure. I have said repeatedly that I would welcome serious and substantive discussions that would lead to a unified position on cultural property management, I will not, however, deal with gadflies that have no authority, no plan of action and no ability to think beyond the box of their own ideology. The failure of the archaeological community to embrace any such discussions is a validation of their rigid ideological position which will be satisfied only by the total demise of private collecting. Expect a fight!

well, I suggest that the ACCG could send a representative (such as the Chairperson of the International Affairs Committee) to a group which represents a wider range of academic thought in archaeology (such as the Council for British Archaeology's Britarch discussion group) to present the collectors' case to other archaeologists. Oh, wait a minute, they did that...

Certainly there is an obvious conflict of interests between those who want to see better protection of the world's archaeological resources from exploitation by looters as a source of collectables and those who defend their "right" to collect unlimited ammounts of undocumented archaeological artefacts no-questions-asked. Certainly if that community aggressively defends its position, a "fight" for public opinion is inevitable. The question is, will the representatives of collectors fight in the same ring as the conservationists, or will dodge outside the ropes to sit in a dark corner shouting rude names and coarse challenges at their opponents while avoiding engaging them in a proper exchange in the ring? Let the audience of such a sorry spectacle decide whether they support the man in the ring, or the man who declines to enter it and engage in a fair exchange of blows.

It is also obvious that a person who sits outside the arena merely throwing insults at those who step in is unlikely to be seen by those "truly representative of the archaeological community" to be an attractive partner to engage in "serious and substantive discussions". Obviously it is the "pleasure" of the Board of Directors of the ACCG and all the members it represents to have an Executive Director whose immoderate public behaviour continues to frustrate any attempt at an equitable resolution of the conflict of interests between "heap of loose artefact on a table" collecting in the US and the interests of preservation of the world's archaeological heritage. Its a mystery to me how US and other "ancient coin collectors" expect to be taken seriously while they stand behind such behavior from their representives.

vignette: sumo wrestlers unafraid to face each other - no name-calling here.

A Threat of Turmoil unless...

Californian coin dealer Dave Welsh's latest "contribution" to international dialogue on portable antiquities collecting:

I really do not think that all of British archaeological thought has yet fully grasped the ethical implications of [the] demand that all antiquities must be fully provenanced before they may ethically be traded or collected. This is a very fundamental point, and it would be a serious error for British archaeologists to promulgate a "code of ethics" for collectors in which that demand is included as an ethical requirement, before the serious differences that presently exist have been fully discussed and resolved.
[...] When Barford and his fellow thinkers leave collectors in peace, you will be left in peace. Until that happens there will be turmoil. If you find that disagreeable, then I suggest that you give some thought to whether Mr. Barford is accomplishing anything constructive, or whether he is simply alienating and irritating collectors to the point that they are ready to take
concrete action to assert their rights.

Sounds to me like ACCG officer Mr Welsh is angling for British archaeologists, under threat of him and his fellow portable antquity collectors creating "turmoil" in their midst, to place a gag order on critics of portable antiquity collecting 'a la ACCG'.
What "rights" does the US collector actually have over the objects of cultural interest from other countries, such as Great Britain? Do these people imagine that their own personal rights completely override those of the citizens and state administration of those other countries? By what right does Mr Welsh think he can dictate to the British archaeological community what they should think, and threaten them if they don't change their minds about the ethics of collecting artefacts taken from their archaeological contexts? Let us see how well he has judged them and the depth of their obsession with "context". Of course they could just ignore his threats and treat the ill mannered transatlantic interloper with a polite but sardonic grin.

More (and more) "Radical Archaeology"

The end of the ACCG „benefit Auction” (more about this later) was trumpeted today as „ ACCG Raises $45,000 to fund the Struggle Against Radical Archaeologists” which is no doubt news to all those people whose collecting activities are an expression of an "interest in the past” and who thought they were bidding to raise money to fight the US government’s restrictions on import of undocumented archaeological artefacts from heavily-looted Cyprus. The ACCG have even gone so far as to post this “good news” on the CBA’s Britarch archaeology discussion forum, perhaps seeking approval, perhaps hoping to stir controversy, who knows?

There may however be a communication problem unforeseen by these non-archaeological transatlantic pieces-of-the-past consumers. In Great Britain, we already have a Radical Archaeology, and it's not an archaeology which is (as the portable antiquity collecting lobby loudly accuse) the so-called “Culture Property Nationalist” or “Retentionist” type (see David Gill’s Looting Matters post on their use of the term). The REAL Radical archaeology in quite the opposite.

I am sure we all wish that portable antiquity collectors would do a little research and thinking before they make their wild claims and try to attach labels to what they quite clearly have no understanding.


Illustration: From Archaeology Channel's Radical Archaeology Television Parody (yet another meaning of the term "radical archaeology")

Notes from Britarch: Coins are not archaeological finds because...

For the reason mentioned in my previous post, I did not feel comfortable to reply this afternoon to a post made by Dave Welsh on Britarch, the Council for British Archaeology's academic discussion forum presenting for discussion by British archaeologists of the definition on which the ACCG seems to be basing its curious assertion that ancient coins are not archaeological finds (and which will perhaps in part form the basis of their case against the Cyprus coin restrictions). Dave Welsh writes:

Archaeological finds are objects which have been buried, or concealed in subterranean locations or ancient structures. The origin of nearly all ancient coins being unknown, to classify them as "archaeological finds" is clearly presumptuous.

He adds in explanation that

Large numbers of ancient coins were never buried at all, but were kept in treasures until they eventually found their way into collections, for example the vast store of Byzantine coins [originally paid in as tribute to the Sultan] held by the Ottoman treasury until the twentieth century. Roman coins were still circulating in Europe during the eighteenth century. Finally, there are large numbers of ancient coins in the souks and bazaars of North Africa, the Middle East and Asia, where they havebeen traded by money-changers since time immemorial. These coins are in demand for various uses including being sewn into tribal wedding garments".

Well, there we have it, straight from the expert's mouth, though Mr Welsh admitted that (unlike most members of the forum he was addressing), he had not actually dug up any ancient coins himself and his information on where they come from was largely second-hand. Anyway, according to the coin dealer, coins on the market are "not archaeological finds" because we don't know where they were found once they appear there by mysterious and undocumented means. Also many ancient coins were according to coin dealer Welsh simply never buried at all. Have a look in your pocket change, you might find one. It is a shame that the call for the discussion to be brought to a close prevented British archaeologists from discussing this strange idea.

To suggest that “coins are not archaeological finds” of course implies a denial of the right of the US State Department to include them on lists of restricted goods if a nation requests the US to restrict the import of “archaeological finds” in general. This argument has taken so many strange turns recently that its's not beyond the bounds of possibility to imagine we might see the lawyer for the ACCG case stating in court, "Your Honor, this definition was posted on the Council for British Archaeology's website and most of the 1440 British archaeologists there did not contest it, so it must be a true statement of archaeological opinion". Yeah right.

Let's take a look at this definition. Welsh states that “archaeological finds are objects which have been buried, or concealed in subterranean locations or ancient structures”. He uses the phrase “have been buried” (and not “have become buried”) which would tend to suggest that he thinks the only category of items qualified to be considered the subject of archaeological enquiry are those deliberately hidden (the relationship between this and old Treasure Trove law is obvious).

Indeed, there seems to be a conviction among US coin collectors that the fresh coins they collect come mainly from hoards, though one collector adds grave robbing to this. The lawyer Peter Tompa (1998: 73-75; Tompa and Brose 2005: 205, 207-210) claims that the exploitation of such hoards need not be a matter of concern for they are found in the middle of empty fields, well away from any archaeological sites. There is a piece of collectors' folklore that they were buried by Roman soldiers before battles.

These collectors completely ignore the fact that many hoards and groups of ancient coins are indeed to be found within settlements where they were used, deposited, left and lost. Welsh claims though that coin collectors cannot be held responsible for the destruction of ancient sites by metal detector users and other artefact hunters because collectors would allegedly not even want coins coming from settlement losses because finds from settlements are unsuitable due to their “low denominations and very poor condition” This however does not seem to deter many US collectors who buy uncleaned Roman coins precisely of such a character .

There also seems to be considerable misunderstanding in coin-collecting circles in the US over the “90% of finds” that the records of the Portable Antiquities Scheme show are coming from ploughed fields. Many portable antiquity collectors in the US seem not to understand that archaeological finds come from fields because archaeological material is in those fields because in the past (before they became fields in the modern landscape) they were the site of human activity. It is that activity (whether or not it comes from particular surface patterns of finds that we would label ‘sites’) which is the focus of archaeological enquiry. US collectors claim that Roger Bland told them of this on each of his three ACCG-sponsored trips to the USA presenting the Portable Antiquities Scheme as a model which (apparently) could be with benefit adopted elsewhere.

In reality in the 'source countries' of the classical world, ancient coins are commonly found on archaeological sites of all types, and as casual losses in areas between them. They are as much archaeological finds as potsherds, post-consumption animal remains, roofing tile fragments, glass shards, iron slag, burnt daub, wall plaster and a couple of dozen other categories of object types which are commonly found on ancient sites. From an archaeological point of view, it is utterly pointless for ancient coin collectors and dealers to try to pretend otherwise. Their special pleadings have noting to do with scholarship and actual knowledge of where coins are actually found, but are clearly dictated by entirely commercial motives.

References:
Tompa, P.K. 1998. "Ancient Coins as Cultural Property: A Cause for Concern?" Journal of International Legal Studies 4.1: 69-104.

Tompa, P.K. and A.M. Brose. 2005. "A Modern Challenge to an Age-Old Pursuit: Can Cultural Patrimony Claims and Coin Collecting Coexist?" in K.F. Gibbon, ed., Cultural Policy, Cultural Property, and the Law. New Brunswick and London: Rutgers University Press: 205-216.

Discussing Collecting, the British Way

On the Council for British Archaeology's "Britarch" forum this afternoon, Andrew Holland B.Sc. M.Sc. AIFA (who works for the Council for British Archaeology as Education Project Officer) pleaded for a halt in ongoing discussion in that forum of the remarks of coin dealer and vociferous pro-collecting activist Dave Welsh. Welsh had appeared on this discussion list a few days earlier to enlighten list members on his notions of selling off “surplus” portable artefacts from museum stores discussed here earlier. Discussion however had swung from this to how terrible it is that some source countries have restrictive laws and require licenses for exporting archaeological finds so they can be sold in US markets, to Mr Welsh’s notions of "where ancient coins come from".

It is a shame that Mr Holland tried to halt this discussion on a publicly-accessible archaeology forum at this point as it was quite clear that the tide was going against Mr Welsh and his numismadogmatic generalisations and special pleading. It was no doubt acutely embarrassing for the pro-collecting lobby when Welsh started to explain his doctrine of “where coins really come from” and “what archaeological finds are” to archaeologists who actually had dug the things up. It was at this point that Mr Holland decided to step in and make a personal plea to stop the spectacle. Holland (“Yorkbadger” on the pro-detecting forum BAJR) pleads:

Please enough already! [...] the debate stopped being fun a good long while ago now - time to call a truce, agree to disagree. Lets face it you are not going to agree as you're all from hugely divergent views.

I was not aware that discussing among fellow archaeologists policies for the protection of the archaeological heritage against unregulated exploitation as a source of valuables was supposed to be "fun". It seems like a deadly serious problem to me. But for the CBA's education officer "it's very boring!". Mr Holland wants to debate such topics as "why are (sic) there no fish being eaten in Iron Age Britain?" Or "maybe what will the archaeological technologies of 100 years time be able to do - geophysics that can identify wood & bone [...]?". Well, the rate things are going, the main use to which geophysics might be put on most archaeological sites across a large part of the ancient world will primarily be to try and isolate islands of stratigraphy surviving between the looters' holes.

It is true that Mr Holland stressed afterwards that his position was his own private opinion. It is a matter of recorded fact that messages sent to the Britarch discussion list which his organization hosts and which contain “certain trigger words” are sent for moderation and unsuitable posts are not distributed to list members. The “trigger words” concerned are a closely guarded secret, but seem to include the terms “metal detecting” and probably “artefact hunting” (any interest expressed in determining the rest has led to reprimand). This suggests that the list owners and list members find such topics awkward to discuss openly – the question remains why these topics should be at all controversial discussed among archaeologists on an archaeological discussion list in Britain?

For nearly a decade and a half, England has been pursuing an official policy towards a artefact hunting and personal portable antiquity collecting based on the idea that there is allegedly “common ground” between archaeology (archaeological resource management) and the personal collecting or archaeological artefacts taken from that resource. To what degree is that based on a proper definition and forward-looking projection of what is involved, and to what extent is that an expression of despair and lack of will to combat the problem by any other means than adopting a passive approach of turning the other cheek? To what extent is the existence of a “common ground” with collectors an illusion fostered by an unwillingness robustly to discuss certain issues, but sidestepping them in order to avoid “rocking the boat”?

It is telling that Mr Holland, along with many of his fellow British archaeologists, appears to believe that there is a compromise solution to be found to the issues raised by Mr Welsh’s comments to an archaeological forum. This of course raises the question precisely where British archaeologists believe that archaeological practice, principles and ethics can in fact be compromised to reach such an accord with dealers representing views like those held by Mr Welsh and why.

Mr Holland’s comments seem to me symptomatic of the British approach to artefact hunting and collecting, current attitudes in the British archaeological community as a whole seem to be taking political correctness to the verge of apathy. Turning backs on problems does not make them go away. I really do not understand how any archaeologist can countenance an approach of "Let's just ignore the dealers and traders busy trading the unprovenanced and possibly illicitly dug stuff, perhaps if we ignore them long enough they will stop". London is one of the major international centres of the trans-national trade in antiquities both licit and otherwise, right under the noses of the whole archaeological community and the public it serves. This is therefore a problem British archaeology has to face up to, no matter how much they want to avoid talking about it and regret that no equitable "compromise" can be reached. It is a mystery to me why the CBA’s education officer, whether in a professional or personal capacity, would want to reach a compromise with antiquity dealers not only deeply involved as end users in the international trade of objects of undocumented origin but those actively engaged in trying to justify it to public opinion?

Signing up at long last to the 1970 UNESCO Convention, the United Kingdom undertook to educate the public about “the threat to the cultural heritage created by theft, clandestine excavations and illicit exports". So when are British archaeological organizations like the CBA going to take a part in this, when and how? Certainly not by stifling open discussion on the topic and suggesting that such problems cannot be openly, frankly and freely discussed. One would have thought that it would be in everybody’s interests to encourage Mr Welsh to learn the opinions of British archaeologists on his suggestions so he could take this information back to his fellow collectors in the States

Antiquities Trade – 1 ; British Archaeology - 0....