En lingerie au Musée d'Orsay

.
The video of three attractive young ladies walking through the Impressionist galleries of the Musee d'Orsay last month in their firm's lingerie has caused quite a bit of controversy in France. The main cause of the fuss is that (allegedly) the event was videorecorded without getting the museum's permission (the Museum does not allow photography of its collections).

As Art Info recounts:

The clip shows three women in trench coats standing in front of the Musée d'Orsay’s Impressionist collection. The women suddenly strip down to their underwear and strut in front of the stunned — but clearly amused — spectators before running for the exit. The stunt could have been a refreshing piece of guerrilla performance art if it hadn’t been constructed solely as a big-money advertising blitz. [...] The Musée d'Orsay administration didn’t find any humor in the happening. "I am in charge of filming [in the museum]; such a scenario could never have been accepted, it's unimaginable," Amélie Hardivillier, the museum's communications director, told Libération. According to Le Figaro, Musée d'Orsay president Guy Cogeval plans to write to Etam's C.E.O. to demand that the link to the video be removed from the company's Web site and all other platforms — or else the museum's legal department will take action. Etam's viral video has not been good for the museum's reputation, with many bloggers assuming that the shoot had the institution's seal of approval.

I have two questions, first of all the stunt is not exactly what one might term "indecent", the onlookers seem amused (bemused) rather than shocked, and it seems to have been filmed in natural light. So I cannot see why Ms Hardivillier would have refused permission - provided the requisite fee was paid (and here is the key to the issue perhaps). If no damage is done to the artworks themselves or their setting then why can they not figure in ephemeral advertising as just one of the social spheres in which they function in the consciousness of modern society? They are not holy relics.

Secondly, one might wonder how in a packed gallery somebody can pull out an unauthorised professional video camera (probably a relatively big one for that quality of photography) and calmly film the girls visiting the museum (dressed) and why when the whole team is parading and prancing around (undressed) and then running right through the museum, not a single security guard or gallery superintendent is in sight anywhere to even admonish them, let alone stop the unauthorised activities. This is a major museum, in the gallery containing a major collection of impressionist art, and nobody is there supervising the crowd? Incroyable.

Or is the Museum's pretended indignation part of the publicity stunt?

And what happened to the trench coats?

Vignette: edited screen capture from You Tube version of video produced by lingerie firm in question

"L’attitude du British Museum est Scandaleuse".

.
See Heritage Action's: 'French organisation condemns British Museum’s promotion of treasure hunting', discussing a recent text by HAPPAH. Not that there is all that much evidence that - like antiquity collectors in general - the British Museum gives a hoot what the outside world thinks.

Dorothy King on "Kosher Collecting"

.
Dorothy King is busily reflecting on what constitutes "looted" antiquities with plans to create a database of individual items known or suspected to be looted . The main use of this seems to me likely to be to help collectors avoid embarrassment by putting items they may have unwisely acquired and are found in lists of known (but missing) looted items on open sale. She says that in discussions of this database in her circle of acquaintances, the recently opened Mougins Museum of Classical-themed pricey bric-a-brac is a "hot topic". She says that "everyone I know that has seen the Museum has been enthusiastic about the project" (and makes sure her readers know she's met both the collection's owner and museum's director).

One of the points I made earlier about the database of looted artefacts Dr King is constructing is the lack of clarity about how to define "looted" artefacts and a comment on the Mougins Museum sheds some light on her own thoughts on the matter. Among other things, Dr King states that the Museum's creators:

have a strict policy of 20 to 25 years' provenance for lesser items and 40+ years' provenance for more important antiquities. [...] The Mougins Museum of Classical Art is a genuine attempt to create a kosher collection of antiquities with good collecting histories and to share those antiquities with the public. For that reason I feel we should fully support I[t].

It would be easier to support (should one be so-minded) this kind of initiative if the website and publicity material would not only state up-front that there is an acquisitions policy, but what it is and why. If this material is all of "kosher", licit origin, what is to stop them making sure those secure provenances and collecting histories are given on the website to bring that point home to the public they want to encourage to visit? At the moment not a single object figured there has any information about where - even in broad terms - it comes from. They are just disembodied artefacts floating in the context created by Mr Levitt's imagination. In the absence of anything like this it is difficult to say how "kosher" (or indeed authentic) any of this is.

Dr King adds:

I suspect that some of these provenances will in due course turn out to have been figments of the dealers' imagination,

which is why its not the story which provides legitimacy, but documented - and thus verifiable - collecting histories as has been repeatedly stressed by archaeological preservationists and repeatedly and recklessly ignored by collectors and dealers in their dealings with artefacts in past decades.

But really, a collecting history of 20-25 years of course takes you back only to at the most 1986, which though it predates large-scale Internet-trading of so-called "minor antiquities" and the 1995 Geneva-warehouse seizure of 1995, is certainly no guarantee whatsoever that an item has not been illicitly obtained, is it? The Icklingham Bronzes for example came onto the market in 19981/2, the Euphronios Krater a decade earlier, Hecht and Medici were active in the 1980s, and there is no reason to believe that other major players were too. In the coin world Bruce ("Fun While it Lasted") McNall had made by his own admission a fortune selling looted coins and artefacts before the decade had begun. The fact that we know that an object had been "in a collection" 25 years ago does not make it any the less a looted artefact.

What are the documented collecting histories of the antiquities accumulated in the "kosher" collection of the Mougins Museum of Classical Art put together by Christian Levett?
.

Vignette: The question every antiquity collector should ask, is it kosher?

A Step Backwards, or a New Trend? Kunstkammer in Mougins

.
Mougins Museum of Art (MMoCA) "is a unique museum which displays the art of the ancient world alongside paintings and sculpture from the Renaissance to the present day". It is also a private collection emulating the Universal Museum concept. Over on the SAFE blog on the basis of an enthusiastic Guardian article (the Museum is not open yet), Marni Walter asks: Good Guy-Bad Guy? On the basis of what their website showcases, I personally would ask Good-Taste-Guy or Bad-Taste-Guy? Take a look at the website. Look for example at what it says of MMoCA’s Egyptian gallery:

‘The Crypt’, is evocative of the Egyptian underworld and appropriately subterranean in the manner of a tomb to accommodate artefacts of special association with the afterlife. These include a splendid range of tomb reliefs, funerary masks and panels, smaller gods and goddesses in bronze and wood, culminating in a spectacular painted wooden sarcophagus. The material represents the complete span of Egyptology (sic), from the Old Kingdom (2686 BC – 2181 BC) to the Ptolemaic period (332 – 330 BC), complemented thematically by the more recent paintings of Alexander Calder, Jean Cocteau, and Hubert Robert.

I do not see much evidence of any egyptology in the presentation, nor the idea that Egyptian culture can be represented only by the funerary evidence. Click on the video (at your peril) - is that naff or what? Indiana Jones meets Frank Miller. Yuk.

And what is this? Fifth dynasty microcephalic brachiating apemen? There is no mention on the website where this object came from, how it got the 'musket-ball impact hole' in it or where the present owner bought it, but I've seen some similar stuff in a "Yahoo Ancient Artifacts" New York dealer's offerings on eBay. An atrocious piece. Where did the Third Intermediate Period sarcophagus "surface"? The granite statue from Karnak? (The "mummy mask" depicted on the website is clearly not a mask as such but - as the three dowel-holes show a fragment of a sarcophagus frequently the only bit that looters kept - the other bits being bulky and not so attractive to collectors).

So if this is about "Classical Art" and "connections", why does the Museum's website not attempt to explain why there is an Egyptian (but not, for example, Indian) gallery here at all? Egypt only became part of the Greek world (like Bactria which gets no mention) well after the formation of the Classical Greek tradition, and numerous elements of Ptolemaic Egypt never made it into the post-Classical Classicising tradition until Napoleon came along and kick-started interest in it as something "mysterious". It was only then, as a result of "Egyptomania" that it began contributing to European culture - which is not at all the way Roman traditions affected Medieval and Renaissance Europe.

In the Greek section is (Egypt again!) a “Marble Head of a Ptolemaic Queen” depicted with asymmetric eyes after she’s just come out of the shower which allegedly “is of special interest as its striking similarity to Cleopatra may make it be one of few sculpted portraits of the enigmatic queen in existence”. That’s the Cleopatra on the coins? Hmmm. In fact, this bust probably also "looks like" any of several thousand first century BC noblewomen with rather atypical hairstyles from whatever region it actually comes from. [UPDATE: It's nice to see that Dorothy King, initially very favourably disposed to the gallery now questions both the origins and attribution of this bust - among others - more closely].

The Roman Gallery “shares the same gallery space as Greece and presents every aspect of life and death in the Roman Empire with a world class display”. That seems an extravagant claim for such a small exhibition space, depicting "every aspect of life" in the whole Empire in a single display would be difficult to achieve. (What's the actual dating evidence for that rather distinctive "third century" mosaic depicted, and where did it come from?). The Museum's creators claim that this gallery contains “many novel arrangements in museology” (sic). That is not true, there is nothing “novel” about the jumbled "cabinet of curiosities"/ Kunstkammer approach – it was applied by the earliest antiquaries such as Ole Worm and is applied in other media – such as (note the name) the arts (?) magazine “Cabinet” . The museum's website portrays the Mougins Museum of Classical Art as less an "encyclopaedic" museum than a private Kunstkammer put on display for the proles to gawp at and be impressed - so a bit like British museums' current movement away from being places of learning towards an emphasis on supplying easily digestible entertainment and especially as showcases of glittery treasures.

UPDATE 20th June 2011: Since this was written the museum has been opened and visitors can make their own mind up. The opening ceremony is pictured and involved speeches, fireworks and guys dressed as Spartacus involved in a mock gladiator fight. Note the naff entrance gate.

UPDATE2, 10th July 2011: Dorothy King with her name-dropping "collectors' friend" hat on considers the recently opened museum a "hot topic" and remarks that in her circle of acquaintances, "everyone I know that has seen the Museum has been enthusiastic about the project".

By placing the collection on display, Levett cannot be accused of hiding dodgy antiquities out of sight like a pimp hiding his whores for the benefit and abuse of his close friends. My understanding is that they have a strict policy of 20 to 25 years' provenance for lesser items and 40+ years' provenance for more important antiquities. I suspect that some of these provenances will in due course turn out to have been figments of the dealers' imagination, but other items have secure provenances going back to the 18th century[...] The Mougins Museum of Classical Art is a genuine attempt to create a kosher collection of antiquities with good collecting histories and to share those antiquities with the public. For that reason I feel we should fully support I[t].

Well, if that is so, a good start would be making sure those secure provenances and collecting histories are given on the website to bring that point home to the public they want to encourage to visit. It is worth noting that this collecting policy is not mentioned at all on the website, suggesting that the website creators do not consider this as important as the naff video and "wotta-lotta-good-stuff-we've-got" aspects. So it is difficult to say how "kosher" any of this is. A collecting provenance of 25 years of course takes you back only to 1986, which is certainly no guarantee whatsoever that an item has not been illicitly obtained, is it?

[I'm a bit puzzled by the PhDivan comparison with a pimp and his girls, surely the evils of pimping are not related in any way to the size of the clientele].


Vignette: Elizabeth Taylor as Cleopatra by Eric Digger, you can buy your own on eBay and start your own classically-themed Kunstkammer.

HAPPAH on UK Detecting Fiasco

In this month's HAPPAH newsletter, the leading article ('Détection à l'anglaise : 2,6 millions d'euros pour le Masque de Crosby Garrett et des conséquences pour le patrimoine européen') is about the "casque dit de Crosby Garrett" and the fact tht in its disastrous sale by its metal detectorist finder for "2,6 millions d'euros" to a private collector. Our neighbours across the Channel have strong words about "Les conséquences a posteriori" of the British policy which this fiasco has revealed and they are well worth noting:

Selon l’association HAPPAH, le système anglo-gallois doit être réformé en urgence. Pour l’instant isolé en Grande Bretagne, il a une certaine influence sur les politiques des autres pays européens alors qu’il démontre régulièrement son inadaptation au phénomène « chasse au trésor ». Plus qu’il n’engendre des découvertes spectaculaires, il accroit de manière insoupçonnée les dommages causés au patrimoine. Des découvertes spectaculaires permettent de donner un semblant d’honorabilité au système mais elles cachent de très nombreuses dérives et son inefficacité. Par exemple, les rapports annuels du PAS nous livrent des aveux éloquents : alors que le nombre d’utilisateurs de détecteurs est estimé à 10 000 en Angleterre, seuls environs 3000 d’entre eux ont déclaré des découvertes. Avec une moyenne de 8 objets par an et par déclarant, le nombre de déclarations est dérisoire au regard de ce qui est prélevé sur le terrain.
En réalité, le PAS n’a jamais permis de lutter contre le pillage mais il l’a au contraire encouragé en faisant tout son possible pour développer la détection de métaux. Le PAS sert les intérêts mercantiles des marchands et fabricants de détecteurs de métaux. Il doit sa survie aux complaisances de certains conservateurs de musées prêts à tous les affronts éthiques pour acquérir des objets d’exception. Le ver est dans la pomme. En Angleterre, de l’argent publique est dépensée pour payer les salaires de personnes au service d’un lobby destructeur de mémoire. Comment les archéologues anglais, eux qui étaient il y a quelques décennies à la pointe des techniques de l’archéologie, peuvent-ils tolérer ça ?
Après une découverte aussi sensationnelle, des utilisateurs de détecteurs de métaux affluent en grand nombre dans le Comté de Cumbrie à la recherche d’autres «trésors» potentiels. L’annonce de cette vente record va encourager les pillages et encore accroitre davantage les dommages sur les sites archéologiques locaux. En outre, cette affluence devrait provoquer d’inévitables litiges avec les propriétaires fonciers (spoliation d’objets archéologiques, dommages aux cultures, etc). Le PAS ne sort pas glorieux de cette affaire. Près de 2 millions de livres sterlings vont dans les poches de l’inventeur et du prétendu propriétaire du terrain. Les bénéfices secondaires iront dans les poches des fabricants et marchands de détecteurs de métaux qui se sont vus offrir ici une formidable publicité. Les ventes de détecteurs de métaux devraient bondir en Grande Bretagne et dans le reste de l'Europe. Les conséquences de cette vente pour le public et les générations futures, en termes de pertes de données archéologiques, ne se limitent donc pas au casque romain dit de Crosby Garrett.

. And what does the PAS intend doing about it? We can ask them, but I don't expect we will get any kind of an answer.

Diligence? What diligence?

"Ancient art" by Looter.

A few days ago discussing the Theban Tomb 15 fresco fragment that turned up in the Louvre, I said I could not find a picture. Now I have, on Heritage Key which may in turn have derived from Zahi Hawass' blog - and I must say I am shocked.



Well firstly on seeing it, it seems to me pretty obvious that on being offered a bit of fresco like the bit the Louvre bought, it seems to shout out "Thebes, early New Kingdom". Any due diligence search should have looked at published Theban tombs, should have involved the regional inspectors. Did they? So why was this fragment of a scene not almost identified for what it was by the "experts" at the Louvre? Why after its purchase was it not recognised for what it was and returned without having to be asked?

Secondly what on earth did these people think they were doing? What kind of "art" were they displaying? This cut out piece shows nothing, means nothing taken out of the context of the whole scene (including the dancers to the left). It is a shallow vestige, a mere trophy, not a document. It is a piece of wall of a structure brutally turned into a "portable" antiquity. It is obvious that the person getting it out bungled the job, presumably meant to take more, but the edges crumbled - in other words large areas of the fresco are destroyed already, just so some collector could have a trophy and eventually sell it on - no doubt at a hefty profit over what he paid the smugglers and his business partners. What does this fragment in a museum tell the viewer that a large scale high fidelity reproduction of the whole scene cannot? Why do museums still buy such items?

The money the Louvre paid for this hacked out bit of what was once a work of art as well as precious evidence of the past, could just as well (and much more usefully) have been paid into a fund to conserve paintings like these in situ - but then even though the remains of the past would be preserved the Museum would not have its trophies. I think the French government should now be invited to take patronage over TT15, do a proper conservation job and perhaps restoration, and then find a way of making this tomb more secure from further attacks, but also allow its opening to the public and bear all the costs. If they want to "preserve the past", fine. Let them actually do it and not add to the destruction by financing it.

Photo: "Vestiges of ancient art", decoupage by "Looter".

"Due diligence" and collecting

There has been some recent hoo-haa about the excavations of the Louvre at Sakkara in Egypt being suspended over the fact that they had some Egyptian relief fragments in their collections which turned out to be stolen from a Theban tomb. The case has been discussed by David Gill and others (Looting Matters here and subsequent posts updating the story). I was more interested in what the Louvre might have been expected to know about the origin of these fragments before buying them.
The news reports tell us that the items came from the tomb of Tetaki (Ttjkj/ Tetiki). A little bit of mouse-clicking reveals this is Theban Tomb 15, in the Dra Abu al Naga cemetery, early XVIIIth Dynasty in date, from the reign of Ahmose/Amenhotep I.

According to the Theban Mapping Project, it is published:
Carnarvon, Earl of and Howard Carter. Five Years Explorations at Thebes. Oxford, 1912. Pp. 12-21, pls. 1-12.
Davies, N. de Garis. The Tomb of Tetaky at Thebes (No. 15). JEA 11 (1925): 10-18.
Eaton-Krauss, Marianne. Four Notes on the Early Eighteenth Dynasty. JEA 84 (1988): 205-210.
Kampp, Friederike. Die thebanische Nekropole. Zum Wandel des Grabgedankens von der XVIII. bis zur XX. Dynastie (= Theben, 13). 2 vols. Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern, 1996. Pp. 194-196, figs. 96-98.
Porter, Bertha and Rosalind Moss. Topographical Bibliography of Ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphic Text, Reliefs, and Paintings. I, 1. The Theban Necropolis: Private Tombs. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1960. Pp. 26-27.

As far as I can make out (the map of the Theban tombs I have is relative to the old road system), the tomb is in the low rise behind the houses in the middle of the Google Earth picture here.


The road to the left is that which leads to the Hatshepsut Temple (where I will be working in three weeks, more of that later) the yellow winding road is that which takes tourists round the hills to the Valley of the Kings.

Now I have not seen any pictures of the disputed fragments, nor do I know to what degree one could work out from the Carnarvon/Carter and Davies publications that these were parts of these reliefs, it would be useful if this information could be made available pour encourager les autres. It can be seen however that this is not some tomb stuck out in the middle of the desert sixty miles from the nearest habitation but right in the middle of one of the most intensively visited and investigated archaeological complexes in the world. This must be intensely embarrassing for the Louvre. This must be intensely embarrassing for the Egyptian Antiquities Service (which has guards posted all over the Theban necropolis to stop these things happening).

The objects were robbed (we are told) in the 1980s but bought by the Louvre in 2000 and 2003. Where had they been in the interim? Let us hope that the story does not end just with four pieces of stone going back to Egypt, let there be a full investigation of all those who handled them, to trace the trail of the handling of stolen items back to its source.

Somewhere - possibly in the houses visible in the satellite photo - there is a crowbar-wielding culture-thief who somehow got into the tomb and smashed these bits out of the wall. Over the river (probably) is a dealer who bought the fragments from him and aranged to have them smuggled out of the country. If those handling them outside Egypt did not do so no-questions-asked, there would be every chance that these two could still be discovereed and brought to justice. But my guess is these guys sleep soundly for we all know the trail will stop dead somewhere in western Europe probably at the place where they were just before 2000. But then, what should happen to the dealer in antiquities in whose records the attempt to unravel backwards the trail of movement of stolen antiquities ends abruptly? Should they not be liable at least for the money the Louvre lost?

faux metal

A blog follower has drawn my attention to another link between coin dealer Dei Gratia and a metal detecting organization. Except the latter tries very hard to pretend it is something else. “Phoenix MM Archaeology and Historic Research” is run by Phil Critchley from Banbury in Oxfordshire. They try very hard to pretend to be an “archaeology” society doing “historic (sic) research”. Their website reads:

Welcome to the Phoenix Archaeology Website. We are an amateur group who wish to investigate as much land as possible in the area around Banbury (Oxon) in order to map out the land usage and settlement from prehistoric times to the present day. We do this by document (sic) research, field walking to recover items such as flint or pottery and, wherever possible, we use Metal Detectors to recover buckles, buttons and coins ets (sic) which are dateable evidence. The items that are recovered are carefully cleaned, conserved and recorded. Objects of importance are then recorded with the Find's (sic) Liaison Officer for the area. This is all carried out in accordance with the Portable Antiquities Scheme. Finds are then preserved by members of the society or placed in a museum in accordance with the landowners wishes. All information is recorded by area or farm and a copy of the file passed to the landowner.

It is not too hard to see what lies behind the notion "preserved by members of the society". One wonders by what criterion an archaeological group would distinguish settlement finds "of importance" from other archaeological evidence for settlement and rural activity in the past. The webstuff then goes on to say how they abide by some kind of a “constitution rules” and the group‘s “health and safety policy” (“copies of which are available”). The society is affiliated with the Federation of Independent Detectorists, and meets:

every first Tuesday of the month at the Flowing Well Pub, Broughton Road, Banbury, Oxon (7.30pm) and this includes talks and a chance to share information and discussion of finds. We also have Dei Gratia who kindly bring Coins and Artefacts for sale.

What we find no mention of is the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales, or any form of archives or publications resulting from this research, nor what the society (founded in 2000) has found out (or mapped) about "land usage and settlement patterns" from prehistory to the present day. But I bet the members have a lot of artefacts stashed away in their "grot pots" somewhere. Above all, if this group is doing genuine historical research of a region, why on earth do they need to buy coins from a coin dealer at their research meetings? To add insult to injury the group claims to be a “Member of the Council for British Archaeology.

This is a typical example of a common ploy of these people. In England, Wales and Scotland, the sucess of the hobbyist depends on getting a landowner to let them search their land and take away the archaeological and other artefacts it contains. Landowners are not stupid, they read the newspapers and know that treasure hunting is a contentious issue (well, they would if the British media were not dominated by PAS-generated good news stories calling them all "heritage heroes") . They might have heard views that artefact hunting damages archaeological sites. If the various countryside conservation organizations in the UK are doing their job properly, landowners should be becoming more aware of the fragility of the archaeological record and their responsibilities to help preserve it. So of course if one wants the frredom to rip "pieces of the past" out of the ground for entertainment, it's necessary to distance oneself from the "treasure hunter" image (so that's why they insist on being called now "metal detectorists", and heaven forbid somebody sould call them "artefact hunters"). Even better to pretend to be archaeologists. At a farmer's door:

"Hello, I am a member of the Phoenix MM Archaeology and Historic Research Society and I am engaged in doing historical research and request access to your land, kind Sir, to further my research"

probably works better than:

"Hallo Mate, I'm a trezure 'unter wanting t' find luvverly loot on yer land, gis a go willya?".

Now the PAS, who is proclaimed to be in partnership with these artefact hunters, is probably not very much concerned how these partners present themselves to the public. The CBA has in the recent past not excluded Britain's metal detectorists (after all they are only interested in the past like us") so there is nothing inherently improbable in the claim of this group to be affiliated with the CBA. [though see update below]

Personally I find it disturbing that two organizations which should be doing their utmost in these recession-hit days to conduct outreach to the wider public showing what archaeology is about are lassooed into supporting artefact hunting like this. OK, I understand and support the slogan "archaeology for all", but then when is portable antiquity collecting "arcaeology for all" and when is it not? This is a question which until now has not received an unequivocal answer. Neither from the PAS nor the CBA. let alone the IFA or any other archaeological body in the UK. Perhaps it is time this question was addressed?”

(UPDATE 15/9/09: I wrote they claimed to be members of the CBA, which is what their website says. I have since been informed by the CBA that they are not in fact CBA members, though they could be an organisational member of one of the CBA regional groups in England, which are separate legal entities and the CBA itself has no control over their membership policies, nevertheless the point I made still seems a valid one).

The Minister and le malaise anglais

The “partnership” between British archaeologists and the country's band of takers of the past continues to do its damage abroad. On the 7th July this year in what appears to be a coordinated action, the metal detectorists of France banded together and sent a synchronised packet of questions to Frédéric Mitterrand, the French Minister of Culture and Transport. They want a “pact” like the Brits have, they want “respect”:

Ils souhaitent aujourd'hui la mise en place d'un pacte, audacieux et prometteur, de collaboration simple entre archéologues et détectoristes. Le prospecteur responsable connaît son terrain et peut męme se révéler ętre un auxiliaire intéressant pour l'archéologue. La législation anglaise a déjŕ mis en place un pacte de confiance, le « treasure act ». Aussi il souhaite savoir si le Gouvernement envisage de mettre en place un tel dispositif afin de permettre ŕ chacun, archéologues et prospecteurs, de voir son travail ou loisir respecté tout en respectant celui des autres.

The Minister answered this officially in the National Assembly on the 11th August and his reply was published after outlining the legislation of France and what it is based upon, and the fact that the English laws are a local aberration peculiar to that country, the Minister has some stinging words for Britain:

La question évoque le dispositif expérimenté en Angleterre, dit « Treasure Act ». Il s'agit tout d'abord de pratiques propres ŕ ce pays, qui s'appuient sur un régime juridique particulier des objets archéologiques, lequel s'écarte relativement du nôtre, et qui ne pourraient ętre transposées telles quelles. Si ces mesures ont effectivement permis d'augmenter le nombre des déclarations de découvertes d'objets archéologiques métalliques, elles n'ont en rien permis de réduire les atteintes au patrimoine générées par l'utilisation de détecteurs de métaux. Tout au plus permettent-elles de mesurer avec plus d'exactitude l'ampleur de ces atteintes.

{“If these measures have in fact permitted the number of declarations of the discovery of metallic archaeological objects to increase, they have in no way allowed a reduction in the number of attacks on the heritage caused by the use of metal detectors. All the same, they allow a more exact measurement of these attacks"}
[that last bit I included for the EU-sceptic conspiracy theorists :>) ].

So the Director of the Académie de France à Rome has not had the wool pulled over his eyes by the pro-artefact hunting claptrap about the “benefits” of allowing them to get on with emptying the collectables of British archaeological sites into their pockets. Good. Perhaps Roger Bland should invite a delegate from the French Ministry to the British Museum to the upcoming PAS conference to give participants a more rounded view of what people “in other countries” think of Britain’s “pact” with the history-takers. But France (Britain’s closest continental neighbour just a Channel Tunnel drive away) is not included in the provisional programme is it? I wonder if this is because the British Museum did not want to hear the preservation-orientated views of the French, or whether the French decided there was no point discussing this with the Brits.

Détecteur de métaux destructeurs de sites archéologiques

More advocacy to annoy the collectors on their sinking ship. This weekend viewers of France 5 will see a 52 minute documentary film "Chasseurs et pilleurs de trésors" made by Laurent Dy and produced by Maximal Productions, with the participation of France 5.

En France, il y un a un site archéologique tous les cinq cents mètres ; un patrimoine immense mais aussi une mine d'or pour les pillards. Le cadre juridique est flou et le gain financier énorme en cas de découverte de " trésor ", les vocations sont donc nombreuses. D'un coté, les pilleurs, plus ou moins conscients du mal qu'ils font. Ce sont les " détectoristes ", des particuliers qui, armés d'engins en forme de poêle à frire sensibles aux métaux, partent à la recherche de monnaies gallo-romaines. Individuellement, ils font très peu de dégâts. Mais ils sont plus de 40 000 en France. En face, les archéologues qui protègent leur zone de recherche avec les moyens du bord. C'est le cas de Frédéric Devevey. Il travaille à l'INRAP (Institut national d'archéologie préventive) et vient de commencer un chantier de fouilles en Bourgogne. Ses solutions de fortune pour écarter les visiteurs : des panneaux "chantier interdit au public", des clôtures, et même des brouilleurs de détecteur de métal. Pour lui, les indélicats font des ravages. Ces archéologues professionnels sont donc sans cesse confrontés à ces pillages. La guerre est déclarée.

Now if there really are 40 000 of these artefact hunters in France (population 62 400 000) the majority necessarily working illegally, to what do we ascribe the fact that in England there are estimated to be a quarter that number in a similar-sized population? Is it because the legal restrictions have in some way led to the hobby being more popular in France? Is it because either the French or the UK estimates are way out ? (I argued the point with HAPPAH and they do seem to have quite convincing reasons for their figures.) Whatever the reason, it is clear that rather than a purely legal solution, in order to reduce the scale of this problem we need to concentrate more on public opinion of the activity of collecting and create some form of regulation of the collection of and market in antiquities.

French metal detectorists seek archaeological asylum in Britain!

Heritage Action has a few well-chosen words on a recent disturbing story on "metal detecting" that has been discussed on UK and other "metal detecting" forums, and an archaeological one. Apparently "a group of French metal detectorists (from ANDL, the National Association for the Metal Detection of Leisure) has started sending details of their finds for recording at the Roman Legion Museum of Caerleon, in Wales, asking for an “archaeological asylum”. That’s the details of their finds, note, not the objects themselves - they are keeping those for themselves not giving them to the museum." Apparently the French artefact hunters have chosen this course of action due to "the issues we face in France" and "to practice our hobby, we decided to force the French authorities to take a clear position". Actually the French have already taken a clear position which is embodied in their heritage protection legislation which makes grubbing up archaeological artefacts from archaeological sites in France for entertainment and profit illgal if done without a permit. A perfectly clear and perfectly reasonable position.

What is not clear is why the French "detectorists" chose to involve this particular British institution in this stunt. Do they already have the Museum's agreement that it will "record" their finds? On what basis? Given the current legal situation concerning this kind of artefact hunting in France (as HA quite correctly noted), this is illegal. Will therefore Caerleon Museum (part of the National Museum of Wales) "pick up the phone" to the right people over the Channel? Certainly that is precisely what several international documents to which the UK is party, not to mention two at least codes of archaeological ethics, would require them to do. I would like to think they would, though seeing what kind of an "asylum" Britain has become when it concerns portable antiquity collecting and collecting.....

If the National Museum of Wales really is going along with this scheme, then what on earth do they think they are playing at? After all it's one thing when dealers and collectors of portable antiquities pick and choose which antiquity protection laws they regard as "bad laws" which they will disregard to "get their hands on the stuff", it is another thing when it is a national museum doing it. I think we and, indeed in particular, the French public deserve a statement from the museum (a French version would not go amiss in the circumstances).

The privately-run pirate "recording database" for UK metal detected finds, the UKDFD has also got involved in the antisocial behaviour of their French counterparts. Heritage Action has a few well-chosen words about them too:

In the circumstances one might have expected UKDFD to advise these people that if French law tells them not to put leurs patts grossières on French heritage they should simply do what they are told. Sadly, that is not the case since UKDFD, which constantly complains it has been branded “irresponsible” by
all of Britain’s archaeological and heritage organisations is proposing to aid, abet and host a database of looted artefacts supplied by French criminals! This revelation may not change the opinion of UKDFD in the minds of the British establishment any time soon.

It might also give them pause for thought on a wider level: if foreign heritage criminals see Britain as a sort of lawless
banana republic where they can escape the consequences of their illegal activities in their home countries, maybe Britain needs to consider who is out of step, Britain or the rest of the world?

Vignettes, above: carrefour avec priorité à droite, below: the British Hatter and Hare give the Dormouse asylum by hiding the problem...

Compteur d'objets prélevés illégalement avec des détecteurs de métaux

The French heritage lobby group HAPPAH have just put online a counter which is equivalent to the one of Heritage Action for Britain which I have mentioned here before. Their "Estimation basse du nombre d'objets prélevés illégalement depuis le décret du 19 août 1991" .... "représente le nombre d’artéfacts intéressant l’art, l’histoire, la préhistoire et l’archéologie prélevé illégalement par les utilisateurs clandestins de détecteurs de métaux en France." At the moment the counter stands at 9,105,239 items, so it would seem that illegal artefact hunting is not a problem restricted to the United Kingdom and Bulgaria.

The authors assure the visitors to their website that, like the Heritage Action one, "Il est basé délibérément sur les estimations les plus basses. Le nombre d’utilisateurs illégaux de détecteur de métaux en activité a été évalué pour ce compteur à 10000. Ce chiffre est nettement inférieur à la seule statistique officielle datant de 1997 (70 000, rapport du conseil de la concurrence)".

The counter works on a slightly different principle from the Heritage Action one, for which the PAS somewhat selective idea of "recordable artefact" was used (nowhere actually formally defined but reconstructable from what is included on and excluded from the database). HAPPAH (perfectly logically in fact) use a more archaeology-based definition based on le jolly old Convention Européenne pour la Protection du Patrimoine Archéologique (you know, the one Britain signed too but then failed to actually put fully into action). So:”Un clou de sandale, même fragmenté, est au même titre que le vase de Vix un objet archéologique. l’Article Ier, Définition du Patrimoine Archéologique, […] sont considérés comme éléments du patrimoine archéologique tous les vestiges, biens et autres traces de l’existence de l’humanité dans le passé, […].” Fair enough.

Furthermore they reveal that in terms of overall statistics “Nous avons fait le choix de compter seulement un seul artéfact prélevé par semaine et par utilisateur, ce qui est très peu comparé à nos décomptes sur des collections particulières. Ce qui porte à 107 le nombre d’objets trouvés chaque heure durant la journée et 12 objets par heure durant la nuit. Nous avons en effet choisit de ralentir le compteur durant la nuit en estimant que les prélèvements se font surtout le jour. Mais on connaît malheureusement de nombreux cas de pillages nocturnes sur les sites archéologiques". I am sure it's only the denser British metal detectorists that need explaining that nobody is saying that each detectorist in France goes out once a week, finds one object and packs up and goes home. This is a statistical average based on what the organization knows about average find rates (which I understand vary from region to region of the country anyway). As a result, HAPPAH estimate that " Au minimum ce sont 520 000 objets qui sont pillés chaque année !" Half a million illegally obtained artefacts a year, many no doubt entering private collections and the illicit market. That is if there are "only" 10 000 detector using artefact hunters in France.

Not surprisingly HAPPAH want something done about the failure of law enforcement bodies to do anything about this illegal plunder and the ownership of the proceeds. I expect the British and the US "ancient coineys" will be saying "give them a PAS and let the looting go on legally". That fails to address the problem of the physical erosion of the record.

France honours antiquities dealer Ali Aboutaam,

In looking something else up, I stumbled across an interesting news article ('France Honors Ali Aboutaam, President of Phoenix Ancient Art' Nov. 15 PRNewswire) which I'd not come across before (though in fact I now realise it's here too). It refers to something that happened in September 2006 (note the date) in Paris during the Biennale des Antiquaires, one of France's most important art exhibitions.

Ali Aboutaam, president of Phoenix Ancient Art, was presented with the badge of Chevalier (Knight) of the Order of Arts and Letters by Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, the Minister of Culture and Communication. [...] In his remarks during the award presentation, Mr. Donnedieu de Vabresnoted that those in the
antiquities field "are the enlightened keepers of these jewels that are our heritage" and the "precious transmitters of culture." He also commended the dealers for their "immense professionalism"and "passion in the exercise of such a noble profession [...]

Well, I thought until now that it would be difficult to beat his contemporary UK counterpart's remark that artefact hunters and portable antiquity collectors are the "unsung heroes of the UK heritage", now I am not so sure. A close second at least.