Detecting Under the Microscope: Comments on Old Sarum Looting

.
The nine comments under the article on illegal artefact hunting at the earthwork site at Old Sarum in the Salisbury Journal are worthy of note. Immediately under the article one "fudgeeeey" moans that this news item detracts from the carefully constructed benign image of artefact hunting:

seems to me this is just another way of putting us detectorist down again

and "Venusintransit" interjects with the usual tekkie 'hoik-it-all-out' solution to a problem of preservation of the archaeological record:

How is it that there is still things to find by people with metal detectors? It time the area was scanned by English heritage fully, then others would not bother.

It is nice to see some of the thirteen million pounds worth of PAS "outreach" is getting through to at least some elements of the population, for "Bigdavenorcott" recognising that riddling the site with holes is hardly "preservation", replies to the latter comment:

Yanking metal objects out of their context without proper excavation removes their archaeological value and destroys information which cannot be retrieved. That is why EH doesn't want to 'scan' its monuments, as their job is to preserve heritage, not destroy it. Detectorists on scheduled sites are thieves and vandals and should be treated as such.

Contributor "treehugginghippycrap" replies to the first poster,

@fudgeeeey: "another way of putting detectorists down"? By pointing out that their activities are antisocial and illegal? If detectorists are breaking the law and damaging our national heritage for personal gain, I can suggest better ways of putting them down. Preferably for a long stretch at her Majesty's pleasure. There are plenty of responsible detectorists and this activity and your comment tarnish their wholly legitimate activities.

To this "fudgeeeey" replies:

how can my comment tarnish are activities? We all know that english heritage etc are trying to get metal detecting band (sic), this is just another nail in the coffin. All i can say is , if it was not for us metal detectors they would not know about half these sites. And i and all the other detectorist i know would never do this to Ancient Monuments .

[Old Sarum is a pretty substantial site, and was discovered well before metal detectorists came along to pretend that in taking away stuff from archaeological sites they are in some way "partnering" archaeology and archaeological preservation]. "Yer Tis" suggests that responsible detectorists should:

take responsibility, as the detectorist world is small, find out who did this and then shop them to the police. Oh no you wont it is the unwritten code between detectorists, like the event in North Essex, where over £70000 worth of gold has been stolen by "responsible" detectorists from an event organised by detectorists! Theft it theft, simple, so maybe it does need to be banned

Indeed, there is an unwritten code, "we all know who they are" is said pretty frequently on metal detecting forums, but that information only very seldom gets passed on to the authorities (the exception are unverified allegations made most often as the result of a personal vendetta between detectorists competing for a site or sites in the region). But what is the difference in archaeological and heritage management terms between emptying an archaeological site of collectables that is not actually protected by law (yet) and one that is? A hole dug in a site is a hole dug in a site no matter what legal pieces of paper about it lie in an archive somewhere.

The "it's all right, I'm not ACTUALLY breaking the law" argument really does not apply here. Plundering the collectables from an archaeological site or assemblage protected by law is a crime, but just because a site is not protected by law, that does not make plundering it for collectables the right thing to do to it.

Tisbury Hoard a Model with Few Parallels?

.
Blog follower stewarth99 alerted me to this article (thanks): Annie Riddle, 'Ancient artefacts unearthed in Tisbury', Salisbury Journal, 3rd November 2011.

Apparently a "major hoard" of more than 100 Late Bronze Age/Early Iron Age artefacts has been unearthed near Tisbury, Wiltshire by "a metal detector enthusiast [...]on a farmland site which is being kept secret". It includes tools (chisels, axe heads and gouges), and weapons (including fragments of a sword and scabbard and more spearheads). Experts are reportedly "hugely excited about the hoard", but "not prepared to guess at its value yet". Oh, what a shame, eh? The newspaper article mentions in passing that the hoard is "the biggest in the area since the Salisbury Hoard – now in the British Museum - was discovered in the 1990s". Now it is shame that the writer did not remind her readers about the saga of the Salisbury hoard, how the various bits of it got "to the British Museum" after the site was plundered by metal detectorists and others who sold it off piecemeal. More interesting in the present case is: Having first found a spearhead, he decided not to disturb the ground and notified archaeologists, who were able to conduct a meticulous excavation. One spearhead unlike the majority of treasure finders who keep hoiking the stuff out day after day before they finally notify the archaeologists.

Salisbury & South Wilts Museum director Adrian Green enthuses about it... and admits that for all the 800 treasure finds including hoards like this being reported annually in England and Wales by metal detectorists:

“You could count on two hands the number of Bronze Age hoards which have been recorded professionally by archaeologists in this way”.

So, what are we paying out all those rewards for? Loose finds from trashed contexts? Is that what the Treasure Hunter's (oh, sorry Act) Code of Practice says then? No, it jolly well is not. So when are the brits going to stop paying out for those who refuse to abide by it?

[There is already at least one Bronze Age hoard from Tisbury and a lot of traces of Bronze Age historical landscapes on the downs nearby, it would be interesting to know whether the find was made in a totally barren area, or whether the metal detectorist was targeting a likely spot, or even a known site, or whether the find was in ploughsoil or below it or on pasture. The secrecy surrounding the find does not allow us to explore that issue. My comments on it being perhaps a "model" find refer thus only to the fact that it was reportedly reported while there was archaeological context to e examined. Again, just what the archaeologists did there subsequently and the quality of the results of that work seem not yet to be in the public domain].

UPDATE 5th Nov.

Uh-oh, here's a video of a tiny hole in the ground with three people squeezed into it scrabbling around, no grid pegs and an enthusiastic FLO and a winged chape:


Note the PAS archaeological task force Chinook helicopter at the end of the film heading back to London with the archaeological loot. It's not as sleek as the black helicopters some apparently suspect that "radical" archaeological "agents of influence of foreign governments" are transported in, but if it's theirs, I expect it gets the PAS archaeologists and their extensive array of surveying and geophysical equipment to where the action is.

A Collector's View of the Conflict

.

Chris Rose, a previous correspondent with this blog, offered his own opinion on an ongoing Unidroit-L discussion about whether I should brave the naysaying lynch mob and attempt to take part in discussions with collectors and dealers on that list. He mentioned there that he felt I'd been a bit rude to him when he came here (which I accept I was, because it seemed to me at the time that he was an ACCG supporter trying to be disruptive). I wrote to him to apologise and received a long reply which I asked him to edit out certain remarks and for permission to reproduce here as it presents a somewhat different picture of part of the collectors' world than the one usually presented on the pages of this blog.

Hi Paul, It is nice to get a direct email from you. First of all, I am sorry that you are under various threats related to your blog. Sometimes people get caught up in an argument and lose basic human decency. You certainly have a right to speak out over your concerns. Collectors need to check our bruised egos and recognize that your freedom of speech is at least as valuable as our freedom to collect.

I think you have made some serious headway among a good portion of Moneta, people that largely communicate with me off-list. It is frustrating to me and others that the market offers no other real options to collectors than buying coins without evidence of legitimacy or stopping collecting all together.

A few months back I made a real push to see if I could build some collector concern around this issue by focusing on a collector's right to clear title to what they purchase. It may have appeared that I was wasting your time but I was taking your strongest responses and trying to inject them into the Moneta discussion. Unfortunately most of the list was caught up in a fit of pique at the thought that anybody would question their right to totally unrestricted access to whatever they wanted. They had plenty of attention for scurrilous accusations against you but no attention for your strongest responses, such as your demonstration that the AIA is not implacably anti-collecting.

You have a right to do as you like, but generally advocates of a certain position do well to make it easy for people to learn about their views. I really don't understand why you don't have a FAQ that lays out your main points and your strongest evidence. Combing through 4 years of blog entries is not an option for me or most people who come to your site for information. I read a good deal of your blog and it seemed to me -- incorrectly or not -- that your position varied. Having an explicit summary would have been helpful.

I am sure that most or all of the Moneta-L members are nice people in person. I suspect that many of them suffer from the inflexibility of viewpoint that comes with having many years under their belts. Some of them do sometimes seem to be extremists but then seem totally normal in other situations. I have spoken out out publicly several times against unhelpful statements about suppressing "anti-collector" blogs [...].

I appreciate that it was difficult to distinguish me from someone who was attempting to wear you down with feigned interest. But I am human. I really was operating with good will towards you (meaning that I respected your right to have your views and to call ancient coin collectors and dealers to task. And also that I respected your knowledge and was interested in learning more about the issue from your perspective) so the tenor of your response did hurt my feelings. But I am a big boy. Certainly it is no longer an issue after hearing your side.

I am a consultant. I live around the concept of win-win solutions. I do not understand why that phrase bothers you. Solutions that work for both sides in a dispute are much more stable and reliable than unwelcome solutions forced upon one party.

As I have laid out in various postings on Moneta, I think lack of provenance and site information puts collectors at much greater risk of counterfeits. It introduces criminals into our hobby. People that smuggle coins are likely also to be human traffickers, gun runners, and a host of other things that I don't want to support or be involved in. We are erasing the information that we need for our own studies. Not keeping provenance is not in the everyday collector's interest.

Is the absolute refusal of ACCG to address the problem of looting and provenance just a question of old timers not wanting things to change? Is it an ego battle? Or is dealers' profit dependent on illicit coins? Are 1% of coins on the market looted? Or 95%? I don't know and it really seems that nobody wants me or others to find out.

I believe that antiquity belongs to all of us and that individuals have as much right to collect ancient coins as organizations and professionals. But I also believe in the rule of law. I do not want to see archaeological sites ruined for a greedy grab at a few coins. I personally think that the British scheme should be adopted worldwide. But I cannot impose that solution. Countries not passing the laws I want does not mean that I am free to ignore the laws that ARE in place. We are adults, not spoiled children. I am tired of the tantrums.

Nobody is going to get everything they want in the issue of cultural property. I recommend negotiation. There are a lot of coins. There should be enough for everyone. Archaeologists and collectors should stand hand in hand around remaining pristine sites and ensure that all interested parties get maximal benefit from their study and excavation. If the interested parties don't come to agreement amongst themselves politicians will force some incomplete and fractured solution on us that doesn't serve anybody's interest.

That is my position today. It is a work in progress. I realize you feel differently. I am open to learning more.

I do not claim to be "enlightened". I am motivated by self interest and self respect. I too benefit from archeology. I do not want to be involved with criminals. I do not want to be tricked by counterfeiters. I am enraged at the thought that provenance is purposefully being erased. And I am enraged at the image of looted sites. And I do not like being played for a sucker.

I would appreciate an invitation to your blog. If it matters to you I will not share its content with anyone without specifically asking for your permission. However if you do not wish to invite me I respect your decision.

I would love to see a debate on Unidroit or Moneta. I think that you would find a decent amount of support on the list, particularly if you suspended the generic collector gibes ("coiney", etc) for a while. In any case, I wish you well in your current trials. I am a web systems architect. If I can be of assistance please let me know.

Best regards, Chris

Vignette: a rose for collectors with responsible attitudes.

Hearts and Minds, with What?

.
In the comments to an earlier post, art historian Dr Marc Fehlmann has among other things written:

Greed has become such an uncontrollable force within the global art market that I see a strong parallels with the drug-trade - and therefore - lack of political will. [...] Strict regulations for the transfer of cultural property in the EU and Switzerland have certainly improved the situation within the relevant countries, but there will always be guys beyond that "juristiction"... One might be able to change the current situation if it became more appealing to buy pieces with solid histories of previous ownership. If buying unprovenanced material would become an equivalent to consuming heroin, but acquiring pieces with attractive provenances would become 'chic' and convey palpable prestige, then we might change the behaviour on the consumer side.

This is of course the answer, what is needed is for collectors to take responsibility for the form of the market they frequent. Or rather first of all acknowledge their responsibility for the form it is currently in, and accept the need to take responsibility. On present showing, that seems likely to be an uphill struggle for them.

But with reference to what Dr Fehmann said, I’d like to ask, is it not already “appealing to buy pieces with solid histories of previous ownership”? Is it not “chic” and prestigious to buy “pieces with attractive provenances” ? Of course it already is.

Of course if such stuff was readily available “We might change the behaviour on the consumer side” [or "see change" perhaps]. The trouble is it currently is not, because of the cloak and dagger manner in which the majority of the finds (antiquities) on the market “surfaced” on the market. Collectors have long valued provenanced pieces, the problem is that one might very well suspect that most of the stuff they’ve been buying since the ‘magic’ date of 1970 has been of a provenance that nobody is going to admit to. It is not being unduly cynical to suggest a number of reasons why dealers have not been keen to let on just where they got most of their stock from and how their supplier came by it. These probably have less to do with commercial secrets and gentlemanly discretion about former owners of an 'old private collection' or simple carelessness of such mere details, than the fact that deeper enquiry would reveal that these "freshly surfaced" objects are instead from completely dodgy sources. That is, I submit a perfectly valid interpretation of the number of artefacts on the market with virtually no information about where they were more than a few years ago - that they were then probably still in a (now destroyed) archaeological context in the ground.

How is anyone going to “give” these undocumented pieces already circulating on the no-questions-asked market the provenance that would be required for the "provenance chic" model to work? Or are we to wipe the slate clean, accept that we’ve hundreds of thousands of potentially looted objects on the market (or dump them in a skip), and start stocking the market with freshly dug stuff which does have a provenance? That obviously is not that a sustainable model of managing what is left of the archaeological record?

How could anybody go about “changing the behaviour of the consumers”? Like the US dugup collectors who’ve joined the ACCG for example? What pointers do we have that even suggest it is possible to change attitudes to the extent that would be needed to severely curb the illicit trade to a timeline that would actually manage it before the world runs out of unlooted sites?

Responsibility

.
And how does Gainsborough, Florida, Pastor Terry Jones fund his hate-ridden cult church? How else? Through trading to American buyers old things taken from other countries:

Dove World Outreach is funded by the pastor's furniture firm, TS & Company, which buys vintage items from Europe and sells them in the US.

Jones claims he is "not responsible" for the consequences of his actions, like most people involved in the trade of artefacts taken from other countries. Would you buy used furniture from this guy if you knew where the money was going?