Coiney Problems Joining the Dots

.
Bangor's Professor Raimund Karl may have had problems convincing (continental) colleagues to his views on the alleged archaeological benefits of liberalising artefact hunting, but he has become the poster boy among artefact collectors across the sea. Cross-posting the dealers' paid lobbyist's blog post "Metal Detectorists Preserve Artifacts Archaeologists Often Destroy or Ignore!" Californian coin-dealer-guy writes:

Here we have evidence from a respected archaeologist, that a rational examination of what "artifact hunters" [to use an emotionally charged pejorative term invented by anticollecting ideologues] are actually doing must conclude that they are preserving artifacts from the destructive activities of archaeologists.

In artefact collecting circles, an archaeologist only gains the label "respected" when he or she writes something that supports artefact collecting, when they don't they are "taxi-drivers", or "radicals" or "anticollecting ideologues". What Raimund Karl wrote was that artefact hunters take collectables from the topsoil of excavatable sites which tends to be machined away if sites are excavated. Readers might remember the Californian dealer arguing until he was blue in the face that the things that artefact hunters find, and artefact dealers buy from them "do not come from archaeological sites", that they are for the most part from "hoards buried at the edges of battlefields". It seems the dealer has a short memory, or an inability to join the dots of what he himself is saying.

By the way, in America they call the hobby "relic hunting" (likewise "meteorite hunting" is not treated as a pejorative term over there). Fox hunters hunt foxes, caribou hunters hunt caribou, house hunters hunt for houses and artefact hunters hunt for artefacts. Why is calling a spade a spade in any way a problem?

Vignette: Connecting the dots from Sociopath world.

Punishing Illegal Artefact Hunting in England and Wales

.
This is what happened to the car of a metal detector user caught red-handed illegally looking for artefacts on a site protected by law. A court ruled his motor was to be crushed following his sentencing. A Judge at Cloud Cuckton Crown Court ordered that the Audi A3 belonging to defendant 21-year old Barry Thugwit, of Lower Darkmess, Barsettshire be forfeited when he was sentenced to three years in prison last month. He had previously admitted metal detecting on protected sites using the car on three occasions between June 21 and 24 of this year. The vehicle, which was seized following his arrest, was handed to the police after the order from court and a decision was made to crush it. Detective Inspector Lancelot Goodguy, who ran the operation that led to the arrest of Mr Thugwit, said: “This car was used to facilitate the metal detecting and was forfeited to the police by the judge. By crushing it we are sending out a very clear message to others that we will not tolerate culture crime Barsettshire".

Source: Bedfordshire on Sunday, 'Ever wondered what happens to a drug dealer's car? Judge sends out a clear message that this is a crime that will not be tolerated',20/11/2011 (slightly amended).

Meanwhile in wilder Wales, metal detector users seem more prone to use other methods to deal with the 'black sheep' in the metal detector-using artefact hunting community. Such is their feeling of a bond with 'their' sites, that they declare publicly that they are willing take the law into their own hands to punish offenders without involving law enforcement. According to one "Detecting Wales" list member, people were suspected to be artefact hunting a hoard findspot by night and without the permission of the (hunting-shooting-and-fishing) landowner:

They were spotted by the game keeper who has night vision glasses. I think I will join him on a night time hunt, see who it is. I should be able to spot them, in the light of their burning car.

The use of violence among metal detector using artefact hunters in competition for access to 'productive sites' is an aspect which I wonder if Felicity Winkley will be covering in her NCMD-backed survey of the attitudes of metal detector using artefact hunters "to landscape and objects' findspots".

.

Welsh PAS "Saved" For Now?

.
Time was running out for the PAS in Wales, the contracts ran through until the end of March, the British Museum had said that in order to maintain the same number of posts in England as last year, they would no longer be funding the PAS in Wales, leaving this up to the Welsh Assembly government and Museums Archives and Libraries Wales CyMAL. Meanwhile there was this guy who does not consider that the Portable Antiquities Scheme is a solution to England's artefact hunting problem who'd started a blog which made a case for the removal of PAS cover from Wales being the beginning of an end to current policies of passive tolerance. There was a little stir in the metal detecting community of Wales, three or four of them glanced at the blog, shuddered at the thought of reading all those words, and moved on. Just recently however one of their number wrote to Wales' First Minister on 14th October with a question "wottabout the future of the PAS then?". The First Minister did not know, the buck was passed, down it went until the tekkie's letter ended on the desk of Linda Tomos, director of CyMAL who sent an answer out on 2nd November.

Dear Mr Langley, Thank you for your email to the First Minister ....

The letter is published in full on the "Detecting Wales" forum. In it Ms Tomos gives a totally superfluous (in the circumstances) summary account of the history of PAS funding from 1998 to the present day and ends thus:

Following a reduction in the ring-fenced funding for the scheme from the DCMS, the British Museum advised that it would no longer be able to operate the scheme in Wales. Given its success and popularity[,] officials in CyMAL: Museums Archives and Libraries Wales have explored alternative options. We have therefore been in extensive contact with the British Museum, which has agreed to continue providing some financial support. The Minister has also recently agreed additional funding from the Welsh Government. These steps will ensure the continuation of the scheme, including the important post of Finds Liaison Officer, in Wales.

It would seem that the PAS is not seen over in Wales as a means of heritage preservation (mitigation of damage caused by artefact hunting by preservation by record) but something which is "popular" and "successful". How this popularity and success are measured is not explained, the Scheme certainly had very little success getting anything like a decent number of finds recorded compared to what was lost. In fact one wonders whether that was the motivation of the BM's backtracking on the decision to cut funding. One can imagine that, instead of desultory few showing a dribble of their finds as seems to have been the case up till now, a few dozen artefact hunters from Glamorgan taking most of the recordable stuff they find along to the museum in Cardiff for recording could easily have produced the same figures as a whole year's worth of PAS "outreach". This really would have called into question the value of spending all those millions on a PAS - and those questions might have been asked this time by more than a few bloggers.

To be honest, being "in extensive contact with the British Museum" who had earlier said in effect, "you are on your own" really does not sound to me very much like "exploring alternative options". This is particularly important since for a decade or so the PAS had a fifth aim: "To define the nature and scope of a scheme for recording portable antiquities in the longer term, to access the likely costs and to identify resources to enable it to be put into practice", which they announced in their annual reports a few years ago they had "fulfilled" - but without revealing what their conclusions had been. Obviously they were not communicated to CyMAL either.

Ms Tomos does not reveal any of the nuts and bolts details, the promise of how much cash their pleading squeezed out of the BM, or the amount of financial backing the Welsh Government will be supplying. Neither is it explained why, is this just because the Scheme is "popular"? At what level of operation will the Welsh Government be happy that its investment has been well repaid? What obviously is needed is not just the "continuation" of the PAS but its expansion, strengthening, incorporation into the legislative and administrative measures concerning the preservation of the archaeological and historical heritage of Wales.

So, the PAS coverage (I use the term loosely) of Wales has apparently been "saved" for now. How long it can limp on remains to be seen.

UPDATE 12.11.11: David Gill (Welsh Government to consider revised funding package for PAS) has another, somewhat different take on this story, from which - despite what "metal detectorists" have been told - it appears nothing concrete has in fact been decided....

Archaeologists Supporting Artefact Hunting in Mid-Wales

.
The "heritage society" (in reality a metal detecting club) of Wrexham has sent yet another comment to a previous post. I did not publish it as it was not phrased in a manner conducive to further discussion of the points raised, though I will answer some of the points here. In my earlier text I had pointed out the gallery labelled "for our local Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust team to place artefacts of interest" and doubling as the "PAS Gallery". I expressed surprise that, if archaeologists from the CPAT and PAS were posting items of interest on the Society's website (why?), it was odd that no findspots were given. After all PAS is all about instilling best practice, and recording and reporting findspots is part of that. The Society's spokesperson queries this ethos:

Do you honestly think we would post find spot data on a very public page Paul??!! I think the local farmers would thank you for that one!

But is not indicating where finds were made what the PAS do? This is how they claim to be allowing the public to learn about the history of their region. This is the whole justification of what the PAS do and part of the bargain between artefact hunter and the public whose archaeological record is being exploited to provide the collectables they seek. The bargain is that the collectors get to keep most of what they find if they provide the public with information about what was found where so it can be recorded for general use. So I really do not see why when the PAS and its CPAT team put information on the WHS website, it allows itself a different approach to the public record from that adopted on its own database.

If the farmers object to this basic information being available, the responsible artefact hunter surely says 'thanks but no thanks' and finds a farmer willing to allow him to operate within the bounds of the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales.

So I really do not know what example the "CPAT/PAS team" is setting posting these items on the Society's website without any inkling that this is what the bargain with the main stakeholders in the remains of Britain's past is. The "PAS gallery" of the WHS has less information than an eBay page (because there at lest you get the seller's identity and a price). Come on, PAS, pull your socks up.

I expressed surprise that over in Wrexham the Welsh Portable Antiquities Scheme reportedly actually supports artefact hunting. My correspondent expands on that:

Yes we are supported by the CPAT team in Welshpool, And Mark Lodwick from Cardiff.

So the local archaeological trust actually supports people that seek out and and take archaeological finds from the archaeological sites, thus depleting their information content, taking them away and keeping them in scattered ephemeral personal collections? Archaeologist Mark Lodwick too? Would they come out in public and say so? I'd like to hear it from their own lips, this is scandalous. Are these people members of the IfA? If they support others doing it, do they collect artefacts too?

Actually, I think the public have a right to know. How many of the people working for the PAS actually support artefact hunting and collecting, and in what form, and do these people have any collections of archaeological material (including coins) themselves?

I am told

"Some clubs do not record anything, so i think you should be at least grateful that we do, and all find spot data is collected by Mark Lodwick / Tresure items are reported within the allotted timeframe".

With regard to the latter point, adhering to the law has nothing to do with "detecting best practice" any more than staying at the scene of an accident which you caused when somebody has been seriously injured is "driving best practice".

Let us have a look at the claim made above that the "Wrexham Heritage Society" is a responsible recorder. According to PAS statistics, CPAT has managed this year to record a total of 29 finds in total (1st January - 7th August). They were reported by 17 finders in February, May and July, and all were found with a metal detector. Of them 23 were Medieval and Post-Medieval, and to judge from the year of finding, reporting is not exactly prompt. CPAT does not record metal detector finds from just one club, so these figures include Wrexham Heritage Society information plus potentially some other reporters. Although nowhere on the WHS webpage does it betray how many members the society has, on this video one can see at least twenty people at a club meeting. You can also see a table-top covered with finds made - it would seem - by the guy behind the table (note the lack of transparency on the labels associated with the objects; they only say what the item is, not where it was found nor the PAS record number). Now that looks like more than 2.4 recordable finds a year. So if 17 people reported 1.7 finds each to CPAT in the first part of 2011 in total, how can the Wrexham Heritage Society claim they are responsibly reporting ALL of their finds made with a metal detector? It just does not add up.

What we are seeing here is the same pattern that we see nationwide, a number of metal detectorists are reporting a bare minimum of what they find artefact hunting each year, and on their backs the rest claim "we are all responsible".

This is when the next comment I receive from Mr "IrateWrexhamMan" is that reporting finds to the PAS is "only voluntary, innit" - rather missing the point.

[The figures for Mark Lodwick by the way in distant Cardiff are not much evidence that the reporting of finds by the Wrexham Heritage people is keeping up with what they are taking from the archaeological record, 78 finds this first half year from the whole of Wales, including the heavily detected south, around Cardiff].

I think we may fairly conclude that if CPAT and Dr Lodwick "support" artefact hunting, they are not getting a lot of support FROM artefact hunters in return. The Wrexham Heritage Society metal detecting bloke then goes on to express the opinion:

I think you are very un unprofessional slating responsible metal detectorists.

I simply do not see any evidence here of a satisfactory level of "responsibility". I think it would be very unprofessional of my colleagues to support the sort of activity we see illustrated by the statistics, and call it "responsible artefact hunting". Whether it is technically legal or not, I personally regard it as unprofessional for an archaeologist to support artefact hunting and collecting of objects taken randomly from archaeological sites.

I'd say though that if they really were supportive of the activity and believed in what they were doing and saying, they'd be arguing their case. Where are their personal websites and blogs expressing these views? Why are they not over here sparring with me and the opinions I express which would be so much in opposition to their own ("more progressive") ones? Proving me wrong, preventing me "misleading" any readers that may stumble upon this blog (remember they reportedly dismiss this as the ramblings of a "mouthy twat"). The fact that the only people who actually come over here posing and threatening - but rarely engaging in any serious, open and informed debate - are metal detectorists and collectors, tells us a lot about the ability and willingness of the British archaeological establishment to actualyy defend what they are doing.

I will leave the last word to the metal detectorist in a "heritage society" who would obviously prefer to avoid any kind of substantive debate on the issues surrounding this manner of non-sustainable exploitation of the archaeological record:

i will report this blog to google ....

Vignette: Some Wrexham 'heritage'

More from the Wrexham "Heritage Society"

.
I got an irate message from a metal detecting organization which calls itself a "heritage society" based in Wrexam so decided to take a look at their website again. They've revamped it, it no longer says on the front page that they are "supported by the PAS" which is a relief. I am sure that the PAS does not actively support the collecting away of the archaeological record for entertainment and sale.

Further on in, there is the usual apostrophe abuse ("Metal detectorist's" what, "Landowner's" what?) and on one of the inner pages we find they think its OK what they do, because they take their metal detecting seriously (sic) and "Every member has third party insurance and are also a member of the National Council for Metal Detecting and bound to its code of practice for responsible metal detectorists". Not the official one agreed with heritage bodies then - which the NCMD does not (despite earlier promises) require its members to apply to their "serious" artefact hunting.

There are some interesting videos on their website, one showing twenty members in a hall somewhere - note the military style drill with the shovel, maybe this old bloke fancies himself as one of the UK Minutemen? The group goes on about their preserving the things they find from environmental hazards, so note the very carefully controlled environment these fragile metal objects are displayed in. They do not seem to be labelled with findspot either, do they? Note the sorry apology for weekend entertainment - sitting in the corner of a field at a "fair" - is enlivened with a "PIRATE Treasure hunt" (at 1:26 mins). Some other videos posted by Steve Morris on the WHS website include the usual ones by Norfolk Wolf, the hand-waving Mr Brun explaining archaeological sampling techniques for the heritage society's members, and my favourite metal detecting video star, Mike Pegg (is he a WHS member?).

The inappropriately-apostrophied "members' photo gallery" page includes a very notable section: C.P.A.T. Gallery :

"This section of our Gallery has been created for our local Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust team to place artefacts of interest, and give you, the viewer a brief history of the items".

Eh? All very nice, but the archaeologist members of the WHS do not include a mention of a single FINDSPOT for any of the objects. Note the same gallery passes as the PAS gallery. This is just naked artefactology, not archaeology. So I don't know what the Clwyd Powys Archaeological Trust (presumably those who are reported as bad-mouthing me) are up to here. Apparently, if what the WHO member says is true, the Clwyd Powys archaeological mob can curry favours with the artefact hunters by attacking people who disagree with this manner of treating the archaeological record merely as a mine for collectables, but I bet they can't come on here and justify with archaeological arguments what they are doing to our faces. I dare you.

"Swansea Archaeologist Honoured"

.

Peter Tompa accuses David Gill of "embarrassing people", but Swansea University sees his contribution to cultural life in a somewhat more rounded manner: Swansea Archaeologist Honoured:

A Swansea University academic has received a prestigious award for his work to raise awareness of the threats posed by the international antiquities trade. Swansea Archaeologist Honoured A Swansea University academic has received a prestigious award for his work to raise awareness of the threats posed by the international antiquities trade. Dr David Gill (pictured), Reader in Mediterranean Archaeology at Swansea University, has been selected as the 2012 recipient of the Archaeological Institute of America’s (AIA) prestigious Outstanding Public Service Award.

See the rest here: http://www.swan.ac.uk/news_centre/latestnews/swanseaarchaeologisthonoured.php

[What I suppose his critics should take into account is that David is too modest to mention that he also has archaeological achievements outside his blogging and dodgy-antiquity-chasing activities].

UPDATE:

See now: Richard Youle, '("US honour for tracking raiders of lost artefacts", Swansea Evening Post June 17, 2011) and on the same theme:

Robin Turner, ‘Indiana Jones in reverse’ wins archaeology ‘Oscar’, Western Mail Jun 18 2011.

and the BBC: Dr David Gill recognised for illicit antique fight.

Closed to Debate in Bangor

.
I was talking about British archaeologists who support collectors and collecting the other day. In the Moneta-L message discussed in the post above this, ACCG employee John Hooker has obligingly supplied another example, this time from Wales. Interestingly he does so in the context of pontificating on the alleged "bad judgement" of "people with established reputations" to engage in the debate on the archaeological heritage and the illicit trade in antiquities. He warns, "This can result in a rapid loss of hard-earned reputation". As an example he appends a name-dropping anecdote:

I once directed Prof. Raimund Karl to one of Paul Barford's blog entries. Ray was shocked, as he had communicated with Paul Barford years ago. Ray is not only a long-time correspondent of mine but is an archaeologist specialist in both Iron Age and heritage matters and is the "head of school" at his university. He has an impressive CV for his positions in Austria, Germany and Wales. I cannot say what he said, but he had provided me with the quotable:

"There certainly are some fundamentalist archaeologists, too, who condemn any trading of antiquities regardless of the specific circumstances of the individual case, but those can reasonably safely be ignored."

He said that he already has said the same (in German) on television.

Well Karl lists as one of his research interests "heritage management" though does not reveal on his webpage whether he collects any antiquities or coins.

Professor Karl might find it interesting to pay more attention to the heritage debate in his adopted country. If he did, he would find that it is not exclusive, it does not "ignore" people whose views do not fit into the mainstream, but there is a much more open engagement. This is what English Heritage Conservation Policy Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (online here) establishes . I am sure prof Karl will be well familiar with its content and implications (I am sorry I have not seen the corresponding document for Wales, it probably says much the same).

I am not sure how many of those "fundamentalist archaeologists" who "condemn any trading of antiquities" whatsoever there really are in the United Kingdom. It seems that such a position would be more prevalent in US circles (but again not as a general rule, even in AIA circles). I know of a few examples, two British (that post invited collectors to list others, such a list never materialised) and it seems to me that there can be very few others. This is even if we accept that for some reason they are afraid to raise their voice in criticism of the laissez faire policies represented by the PAS in Bloomsbury, partnering English and Welsh (for the moment) antiquity collectors.

Certainly I would not agree with them. In order for there to be an "illicit" market in antiquities, it means there is a licit one. I cannot see why any archaeologists ("fundamentalists" or not) would argue against the sale of Grand Tour antiquities like that sarcophagus side from the Adams interior at Lansdowne House discussed in the press a while ago. It was discovered, hoiked out and cut up long ago, and it has been well-documented by those who curated it and there is no question about the ethics involved in its acquisition (there were no ethical guidelines or such qualms in the Grand Tour years). No harm, either real or potential, is being done to the archaeological record by the sale of objects such as this with such well-documented collecting histories. This is licit antiquity (or as some would have it "ancient art" collecting) and I see nothing wrong with it. The only thing that for me is vaguely controversial is that one might perhaps question whether public funds should not be raised so that something like this would not be shut away in a private collection but a public one - but by purchase and not coercion, but in fact I see nothing wrong with an item with such a documented pedigree of private ownership remaining as such another generation or so. We might also debate whether the heritage is enhanced or depreciated by the fact that this object has now left the interior and setting of Lansdowne House, though of course there is nothing anyone can do about that if it is a result of the owners falling on hard times in the past, one may regret - as I am sure they do - that they had to sell it, but cannot criticise them for it.

It is not just Grand Tour artefacts that are on the market licitly. It has come to be accepted in most circles that the date 1970 (the first accessions to the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property) is a valid nominal cut-off point for licitness of antiquities. Anything documentable as having "surfaced" on the market before then can be treated for most purposes as if it were kosher - whether or not its acquisition in fact was. That seems reasonable to me (even though in fact there were earlier international documents highlighting the damaging effects of the illicit trade and clandestine artefact hunting on archaeological sites, and the 1970 Convention is far from a perfect tool).

I suspect that it is not so much "fundamentalist archaeologists" who are against the free circulation of artefacts which "surfaced" pre-1970 (leaving aside the rather extreme position of Zahi Hawass in Egypt).* If you look more carefully at the debates on "repatriation", while they may be supported by archaeologists, to a great degree the campaigns are being conducted by people from other areas of public life and for several different purposes. This is why I do not consider so-called "repatriation issues" to be an integral part of the set of problems which I discuss on this blog. The inclusion of this body of separate issues in the portable antiquity collecting debate confuses the issue. While there may be to an extent (a small, I would say, one) some justice in what people like Cuno say about these issues when seen in the context of "pre-1970 repatriation" debates, I see no absolutely grounds for applying them wholesale to the ongoing commerce in and collection (either private or public) of items more recently "surfaced" (from underground). Mixing the two only allows the "collectors' rights" (sic) lobbyists to confuse the public. (And I think they are doing this deliberately and dishonestly.)

I personally think that "pre-1970 repatriation" issues are only marginally related to the issue of the expanding international no-questions-asked antiquities market and artefact hunting and collecting. I am certainly against "fundamentalist" calls to "send it all back" in general, though think the issue should be openly discussed on a case by case basis.

I certainly do not agree with Raimund Karl's reported position that the views of any "fundamentalist archaeologists" about antiquity collecting and commerce should be simply "ignored". I think we (especially other archaeologists and heritage professionals) should encourage them to participate in the wider debate as it is only through an exchange of views that the core issues can be isolated and dealt with. Another archaeologist supportive of collecting, Gabriel Moshenska of UCL has pointed out in a recent forum discussion that the "metal detecting debate" is as much about splits within the archaeological community about what is important and what is not. One may disagree (as I do) about what he considers in that paper as "staggeringly unimportant", but that is where debate begins - not with simply dismissing an opposing view as something that "can reasonably safely be ignored". Let us see some more archaeologists in the UK taking the 'artefact hunting and preservation debate' bull by the horns and facing the issues instead of just running from them.


* It would be interesting to count how many archaeologists were at the Cairo Conference last year