PAS to the Rescue?

.
On looking through the next batch of texts from US coineys opposed to smuggling-curb measures (gruesome), it strikes me that with the frequency that these people mention on an open access website which anyone anywhere can read the good ol' PAS over in England, it really behoves that organization as part of its outreach (even to the citizens of the good ol' United K.) to submit a comment. It COULD point out that what the PAS does has absolutely nothing to do with export controls (which is what the US' CCPIA is about). There really does seem an awful lot of misapprehension going around the international coin collecting community about that. If PAS wants to be a real "Friend of Numismatics", it should (I think) spend a few minutes for one member of outreach staff to try and correct that damaging misapprehension. Should it not?

So does the PAS think the US should apply import controls on dugup artefacts coming to the US borders with no documentation of legal import? Would it like to see the same measures applied to artefacts dug up in the UK and exported illegally without following the correct export licensing procedure? Or would it side with the ACCG over this?

Dr Bland was over in Dublin talking to CPAC Chair Patty Gerstenblith about this a week or so ago, a comment from him reminding her of the main points about the British position over export licensing might well be appreciated by the CPAC in their deliberations. It'd make a change from them having to plough through the irritating coiney whingeing.

"Effect of Vandalism Democratising"

Discussing the Parthenon Marbles in a crowded gallery in drizzly London, Michael Kimmelman, the chief art critic of The New York Times likens the scattering of bits of the Parthenon by collectors to:

the way that countless altars and other works of art have been split up and dispersed among private collectors and museums here and there. To the Greeks the Parthenon marbles may be a singular cause, but they’re like plenty of other works that have been broken up and disseminated. The effect of this vandalism on the education and enlightenment of people in all the various places where the dismembered works have landed has been in many ways democratizing.

Pure imperialism, the effects of this vandalism and the scattering of its debris on the education and enlightenment of people in all the various places where works and sites have been dismembered has not been at all "democratizing". It has robbed them of a chance to understand the past of their own land. They have been robbed of this chance by the foreigners who base their "rights" to take this stuff on arguments of power, and financial clout rather than morals.

I looked very hard last time I was in the British Museum to find the teacher's pack in Greek for the day parties from Athens primary schools that had come to London in their thousands to take advantage of the fact that entry to the BM is "free" and there they can see what the British public has so nicely made available for them to see of the monuments of their town. As part of the lesson in imperialist democratisation, they can all go then to the McDonalds as its almost like the one at home, before getting back on the coach for the trip home.

Kimmelman (whose views on a related topic were discussed earlier on this blog) is clearly encaptured by Cuno's neo-imperialist arguments and suggests that culture has no real owners, and asks - he thinks rhetorically - " Who Draws the Borders of Culture?". The answer is that we all do, the disjected bits and pieces thieved from sites and monuments by the richer and more politically influential stay where they are while the majority opinion is that they can (actually that they are not bothered whether they do or not). If however the majority opinion swings to the view that this is immoral, then the dismembered stuff should go where the majority opinion says it should.

While the media like the New York Times keep trotting out the arguments that set one type of nationalism ("Our Nation the Conqueror With a Cultural Mission in the World") against another ("This is the heritage of the past of this land"), then the issues will be fudged and public opinion is divided. This is very much in the interests of the collectors, but less so in the interests of the sites and monuments which are dismembered and scattered in the form of collectable fragments.

Vignette: School trips only for some.

UK Detectorist Forum Publishes Information Useful to Researchers

. One of the moderators from the UKDN detecting Forum (one "Puffin") decided it would be a good idea for the benefit of any metal detectorist within reach of the M6 who fancies a bit of nocturnal artefact hunting to post a Google Earth image of the "Staffordshire hoard" findspot near Brownhills nine km to the east of Cannock. "Puffin" says the site is "known to locals". Well, its known to more than that. It was pretty easy to put together the information legitimately available online (the farmer's name and therefore address, the photos of where the police set up a roadblock to stop people visiting the site and the background of the film that was put out on the internet of the digging - though the video makers tried to camoflage it). The location of the site was known in Warsaw a few days after the news broke. The image of "Google Earth" that accompanied that text was not - for obvious reasons - the actual site. So, are the police still guarding the crossroads? The site is an obvious place to search for artefacts, a low spur overlying the place where the old straight road from Lichfield a major nearby Early Medieval centre crosses a boggy stream valley. Probably an early estate centre lies just below the hoard find site. Anyway, why should it be just the metal detectorists who have access to this information? Here is the link for those with a desire to find out more about the place where this important piece of evidence about the landscape history of this part of the midlands was found, to do their own exploration of history - preferably without a metal detector and spade please. As the findspot of nationally important archaeological evidence I hold that Treasure findspots should automatically be scheduled with a suitable buffer zone around them to curb treasure-seeking around these findspots. . Vignette: Puffin without his metal detector (RSPB)

Labelling Preservationists

.
Over on the Wayne Sayles blog there is now a sympathy-seeking article about "attacks" on him by a group which he labels as "Mentally Fixated Ideologues" (MFI). Who are these people? We can only assume he means the preservationists who oppose the stuff and nonsense dealers in ancient dugups try to pass off as justification for the continuation of the 19th century indiscriminate market in antiquities. So, nothing new, more name calling by Sayles.

Is the stance of dugup artefact dealers and collectors as represented by Sayles in fact any less ideological than our own? Are not the writings of certain coineys evidence enough that they are fixated on certain issues? The ACCG bloggers (Sayles, Tompa, Welsh, Lueke, Hooker) clearly have a fixation on attacking "archaeologists", for example, which they indulge in at every opportunity.

Now MFI is not a term I'd come across before so I googled it. It turns out that the term is used primarily by the ultra-radical right in the US, and mainly to describe their President. A prime example is James Lewis, "Obama's Strike Three: The Iranian Bomb", or in his: "Is Obama steering the ship of state toward the rocks?". Both from "The American Thinker". Then there is Kelly O'Connell, "Global Warming hoax response reveals Obama’s shaky mental acumen". Now I thought Mr Sayles prided himself on his patriotism, on Flying the Flag. If this is where he read about the disorder (which apparently does not appear in any official classifications of mental disorders), just look at what he reads about his President.

Sales once again announces that he is going to "ignore" what the Other Side say about the efforts to prolongue the indiscriminate trade in artefacts. He has said so before ("Drivel control") so this is getting a bit repetative. Fellow ACCG board member Dave Welsh also publicly announced he would no longer take part in discussions with the Other Side ("until I see them in court"). Mr Lueke seems to have got tired of his propagandist blog, Alfredo de la Fe's anti-preservationist blogging is flagging, Mr Hooker is lying low still trying to produce the first ACCG newsletter. But Mr Tompa bravely soldiers on, churning out his anti-archaeological, anti-preservationist, anti-establishment opinions.

Basically I think Sayles fails to recognise that why his ideas and the actions of the organization which he heads (the ACCG) are discussed is because they are presented in the public forum. Sayles presents his view of the world to the world as a whole and one assumes that he does so in order that they can be assessed, evaluated, pondered and discussed. That is what the democratic system that I assume he supports is built on, surely. Mr Sayles does not shrink from saying what he thinks of the actions, words and opinions of those who hold different views on the indiscriminate trade in ancient dugup artefacts. He has not in the past been averse to denigrating his opponents, to misrepresenting their opinions, to calling them names (some since removed from his blog). Mr Sayles attempts to bring public opinion around to his point of view, starting with the more gullible coin collectors and numismatic journalists. This is achieved by manipulatingly using alarmist techniques (such as what I have termed the 'Article 1 lie', or climbing on the ACCP or Cunoesque band waggon) and trying to disseminate these views as widely in the media as possible.

Should that go unremarked? Should not the tactics used by individuals like Mr Sayles not be challenged? Surely the ACCG would welcome debate in which they can show the "fallacies" of the arguments advanced against them? Surely instead of running, or "ignoring" these comments, they should be facing the challenge of explaining where the preservationists are wrong and they are in the right? I think if Mr Sayles was at all sure of the truth and universal validity of what he propounds, he would be prepared to defend these views against all comers and do so in the public eye.

I would not be surprised to find that many US ancient coin collectors are great fans of Fox's Glenn Beck. Beck has a book out (Sept 2009) called "Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government" in which with facts and figures he tries to support his "conservative" views (the subtitle also sounds like the credo of the ACCG doesn't it?). I suggest that dealers such as Sayles and Welsh might take a leaf out of Beck's book and counter the points made against their position with facts and figures, attempt to engage logical arguments with logical arguments actually addressing the points made by the preservationists with more than their usual glib propagandist dismissals. One may not agree with the views of Mr Beck or the way he expresses them, or accept the "evidence" he marshalls to support them (I most certainly do not, what I have seen and heard of them), but he at least is not running from engaging with his critics. Unlike the artefact collectors of the ACCG who can only try to think up more names to call their critics, "goose steppers", "retentionists", "nationalists", "mentally fixated ideologues" - what next?

Hans Brinker, Horatius and the US ancient coin market

We saw earlier that in the view of the Executive Director of the US ancient coin dealers' lobby:

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild might be compared to the legendary Dutch Boy with his finger in the dike (sic).

Well, it might be, but the story itself is not a part of the Dutch heritage but a purely American invention imposed by them on the Dutch. It was a literary invention by the New York born writer Mary Elizabeth Mapes Dodge (1831-1905), for by her children’s novel 'Hans Brinker or the Silver Skates', dating from 1865. There is no trace of it earlier than that. Hans Brinker is an American conception of the völkisch virtues of the forebears of the Dutch settlers more than it is associated with attributes the Dutch assign to themselves.

We have heard ad nauseam from portable antiquity collectors (and the myth-making ACCG in particular) that no-questions-asked collecting of ancient artefacts is allegedly "a good thing" for society because it allegedly spreads knowledge of Classical values in an otherwise poorly educated public. So one might ask why, instead of a fictional Dutch boy made up by a New York writer, does Sayles not liken himself and his fellows to Horatius Cocles on the Pons Sublicius holding off the forces of Lars Porsena?

I, with two more to help me, will hold the foe in play.
In yon strait path, a thousand may well be stopped by three:
Now, who will stand on either hand and keep the bridge with me?
Then out spake Spurius Lartius; a Ramnian proud was he:
"Lo, I will stand at thy right hand and keep the bridge with thee."
And out spake strong Herminius; of Titian blood was he:
"I will abide on thy left side, and keep the bridge with thee." *

Of course the bridge was totally destroyed and Horatius was then left stranded standing alone on the wrong side of the river...

I suppose it is quite symptomatic that ACCG's Sayles and his coin gathering fellows envisage themselves reinforcing an impenetrable wall between them and the changing context of portable antiquity collecting in the twenty-first century, while a number of years ago other collectors urged the construction of a bridge - leading to the formation of the PAS and the attitudes that go with it. While I may have issues with the latter, it is obvious which type of strategy is likely to be most effective and workable for collectors in the long run. It is not the "cold dead hands/numbed finger in the dyke" one.

*Thomas Babbington, Lord Macaulay "Horatius" (http://www.tom.womack.net/epic/horatius.html)
.

“ANCIENT COINS FOR EDUCATION”, or schoolchildren used as pawns in heritage debate?

Over in the Ozark Mountains, the Executive Director of the US Ancient coin dealers’ lobbying group ACCG, collector and coin dealer is fulminating over a post made here. That's the one discussing the findings of a US journalist on the ground in Pakistan and Afghanistan where it turns out that among its other sins, the no-questions-asked market in portable antiquities is partly responsible for financing America’s enemy, the Taliban. Mr Sayles evidently regards it as “defamation” that I draw attention to this (Look at the URL to his blog post). On his blog over the weekend, Sayles wrote:

An insightful contrast presents itself in two "news" items that appeared recently online. I'll simply post the two links and let the reader decide which rings true and determine where the high road is.

One of the links is to a piece of text on my blog, while the other is a link to an article (Eleanor Chute, ‘Ancient coins enthrall, educate pupils’ April 25, 2009) from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette about ACCG poster-girl (and member of their “Education and Youth Programs Task Force”), Zee Ann Poerio of the St. Louise de Marillac School in Upper St. Clair, Pittsburgh and her involvement in the Ancient Coins for Education (ACE) programme.

Sayles calls his own blog post “Where is the High Road?” and it is between the two points of view, that of a CNN journalist on the ground in the Middle East observing the illegal artefact trade at one end of the chain and a local Pittsburgh journalist at the other looking at the use of the effects of this trade. So where is the high road?

Well, it seems to me the reader of Sayles'blog is urged to agree with him that this "High road" is the route taken by the advocates of commercial destruction of the archaeological record of various source countries. This involves the illegal removal of material from their original contexts , and then from the country of origin necessitated by the need to obviate local laws (ancient coins are not found on any soil which is the territory of the United States of America, for example). These tainted artefacts are then split up amalgamated with others (including, yes, some from dismembered old personal collections) and sold off like potatoes by dealers who are only interested in protecting the status quo to protect their profits. These dealers and collectors are in denial about - and keep their customers and the rest of us in ignorance of - where these items come from and what damage to our ability to interpret the archaeological records is caused by their commodification.

Now they wish to bring innocent schoolchildren into the argument, staging the classroom use of these items in order to use their “educational” use as a pawn in the argument over the destruction of the archaeological heritage due to the no-questions-asked market (That’s what we hear from the UK "metal detectorists" too - “It’s OK, it educational innit?”).

Many of us (the author of this blog included) have experience of classroom outreach propagating knowledge of the past. Oddly enough, most of us manage to do it successfully without the students being involved in unethical and unsustainable practices. No archaeological sites were trashed without record so that our students get a "feel for the past". This seems not however to be a concern of the ACE. There is a revealing text available for its advocates: "Mark Lehman's guide to answering questions about the ethics of collecting ancient coins. Prepare yourself for these questions by reading this guide". Symptomatically the text is entitled: "How to address the collector/scholar vs. AIA "no one but the 'experts' should have access to antiquities" viewpoints…." and of course when we look into its contents, its the usual old stereotypical collection of glib mantras of this collecting milieu. The real issue about the unsustainable and irreversible damage done to a finite and fragile resource is not addressed. At all. In fact, the author of the text begins: "My first, and most important advice is to you is to avoid these discussions like the very plague - I cannot possibly stress this strongly enough". Well, I guess if they have not any kind of answer to questions about the central issue, the collecting advocate would be unwise to tangle with those who ask them.

Why do the lesson plans of the ACE contain no reference to the need for conservation of the archaeological resource - one of the central concerns in global archaeology today? There is not a word about this in the "resources" they provide teachers. What is interesting though is that, although the ACCG and its supporters are adamant that "ancient coins are not archaeological artefacts and should not be treated as such by international law", the ACE uses coins as archaeological artefacts in its archaeological simulations.

It seems to me that the people involved in the ACE are being used by the pro-collecting lobby as pawns in the heritage debate in the US. The pro-collecting lobby gains from it a series of photos of cute kids holding ancient coins (a tactic also over-employed in the UK by the PAS) , an assurance that ancient coin collectors (in reality largely dealers) are a bastion resisting falling standards of education in the US, and that - surely - advocates of collecting argue must be a good thing.

There are many ways in which students can have a "piece of the past in their hand" which does not involve the student in the process of the destruction of the historic environment of some far-off country. Many small bronze coins with fully documented provenance exactly like those used by the ACE come onto the market from the treatment of hoards under the British Treasure Act. These coins furthermore are associated with stories of law-abiding citizens doing the right thing for the sake of our joint knowledge about the common past - a far more salubrious tale to involve US students in than clandestine site-trashing artefact hunters and organized criminal gangs and the pillaging of the archaeological record merely for commercial gain. So why are they not used in the ACE programme? I guess when it comes down to it, the ones mixed with those stolen from the Balkan archaeological record are cheaper for the ACE propaganada purposes than those legitimately obtained from another.

The ACE has of course another aim. Mark Lehman says: "We profoundly hope these coins will serve, as intended, as a sort of "dragons' teeth" seed, sown in the hope and expectation of raising a whole new generation of collectors [...]" (the dragons' teeth of the myth as we remember were to give rise to an invincible army). It is quite clear that the ACE is intended to propagate no-questions-asked ancient coin collecting among the young and impressionable by giving the students participating the first object which the dealers supporting the scheme hope will encourage the kids to buy more, bulking out the ranks of no-questions-asked collectors (already estimated by the ACCG as comprising 50 000 people) in order to oppose the conservationists. Let us promote a desire to find out about the past, fine. Let us even promote responsible and sustainable portable artefact collecting as part of that, fine. But why in the twenty first century are otherwise responsible teachers engaging their students in a programme that simply refuses to address the central issue which is that irresponsible (no-questions-asked) collecting is compounding the existing problems we face regarding the protection of the archaeological record?

An additional point is that the average collector reading around the subject will come across information about the origin of the coins in their collections. they may choose to ignore the fact that by buying items of totally unknown provenance they are surely running the risk of buying items looted (stolen) from archaeological sites and smuggled out of their source countries (stolen) by organized criminal gangs and networks of various types. They may comfort themselves by thinking there are differences between one kind of "stealing" and another - and that ancient coins are not really stolen from the archaeological record because they "were made to circulate" and as heritage they "belong to everybody - so that means me". They take the deliberate choice to ignore the fact that through their buying practices, they may be keeping potentially stolen items in their houses. The kids who get unprovenenced ACE coins, which their FAQ indicates come mostly from the Balkan looting fields, are most likely uninformed that their nice teacher and that nice fat man from the coin collectors' club who knows so much about the emperors on the coins are giving them things to take home which are stolen property. Some of these kids (especially Zee Ann Poerio's students at the St. Louise de Marillac School in Upper St. Clair, Pittsburgh) will come from good families, maybe highly religious ones, to whom such a thing would be an anathema if committed deliberately. There is perhaps a very good reason why the participants in this propaganda exercise are kept in the dark about how those coins really came to the USA. Come on ACE, let's have some real truthful education about how the world works, less stuff-and-nonsense about "potato fields" and more about the criminal gangs through whose hands many portable antiquities on the market today are inevitably passing.

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...

Italian Public opinion turning against ‘tombaroli’

In Italy, reports Philip Willan ('Art hit squad takes on tomb raiders after relics looted ') “robbing tombs and other buried archaeological sites has long been a popular rural pastime. Like tax evasion, it was known to be illegal but not particularly frowned upon. The homes of wealthy professionals often contained a secret hoard of archaeological treasures and many felt they might just as well be in private hands as gathering dust in a museum storeroom. In recent times, attitudes have changed and there is a growing awareness that the unscientific excavations of the tombaroli are stealing the country's history, as well as an assortment of its antiquities.”

This change in public attitude has resulted from a persistent application of strategies adopted by the Italian government which has made life increasingly difficult for the looter. Firstly there is more open discussion of the problem in the media, there is also closer monitoring of archaeological sites, effective prosecution of offenders, with tougher penalties planned, and especially the aggressive prosecution of museum curators and middlemen who trade no-questions-asked in illegally excavated antiquities which is drying up the market for their goods.

This seems to be reducing the number of illegal excavations. In the 1990s, the carabinieri art squad responsible for dealing with this problem would discover about 1000 illegal digs annually. Recently it was down to just 37. Of course it may well be that part of the reasons for this may be that the looters had already destroyed most of the accessible part of the resource they were so mercilessly despoiling - it is after all finite.

An important element in the fight against these exploitive culture criminals is that the psychological climate had changed and Italian public is more aware of the problem and efects of looting. Maria Bonmassar, a spokeswoman for the Italian culture ministry. said: "In the past, if people found antiquities while digging the foundations of a house they would try to conceal them. Now, there is an awareness that this is a part of our cultural patrimony."

It seems to me there is a lesson here for the supporters of the PAS of England and Wales as the "only possible" approach to cutting down the exploitation of archaeological sites as a source of collectables. Becoming "partners" with the tomborolli and artefact hunters and thus misleading public debate about the nature and effects of the activity they are doing archaeology a disservice. The reduction in looting postulated (though hardly demonstrated) by the recent "Nighthawking" report in the UK pales into insignificance besides the Italian achievement.

Willan's article suggests that a key element was cutting through the network of dealers selling to foreign markets and prosecuting those at the no-questions-asked receiving end. It is heartening to see that the UK might be considering the first steps towards such a regulation of its own markets.

As a matter of accuracy, while reported as current news, Willan's article is largely a rehash of an earlier article Anguillara Sabazia 'Italy's crackdown on art looting keeps plunderers in check, for now' (The Associated Press, e.g. Herald Tribune July 5, 2007 ).

Photo: Sicilian Carabineri doing their job, obviously here after arresting a metal detector using plunderer.

Roman coin hoards, some US numismophilic erudition

One of the justifications that the collectors of ancient objects in general, and US ancient coin collectors in particular are always parading before their critics is how “educational” it is, how much the possessors of ancient coins “learn about the past” from handling lots of contextless pieces of old metal with pictures and symbols on them and how much of that new “knowledge” they disseminate by writing about them and publishing their websites. In fact the actual number of academic publications produced by this milieu is relatively low compared to the size of the collecting community and the huge amount of archaeological damage done by the supplying of the market for contextless artefacts.

I thought it would be instructive to have a look today at what a “heap-of-contextless-ancient-coins-on-my-table” US collector can learn from their ancient coins taking an example of the meaning of hoards. Let's take Roman coin hoards.

Now there is a huge literature on coin (and other) hoard and non-hoard finds, both archaeological and numismatic. They range from catalogues and monographs to theoretical studies. One would have thought therefore that coin collectors, even US ones, would be able to get hold of some of this literature and digest its contents. Not so it would seem.

Californian coin dealer (he calls himself a “professional numismatist”) and pro-collecting advocate (officer of the ACCG) Dave Welsh is one of those propagating the “contextless coins for education model”.

In his provocative “Preserving Numismatic Context from Destruction by Archaeologists" (Dec 15 2007) he stresses that what he calls “Numismatic context” which apparently “is not by any means the same thing as archaeological context” is a specific methodology which can be applied to heaps of totally contextless coins from a no-questions-asked dealer piled on a US table . “It is instead mostly concerned with the systematic study of dies and die-links, and also with the study of coin hoards and their dating. In studying coin hoards, numismatists are only interested in the location and contents of a hoard, and the accuracy to which it can be dated by non-numismatic evidence. Other aspects of archaeological context make very little or no contribution to numismatic knowledge.” For Welsh the study of coins is the study of the associations within and between hoards (sounds like archaeological context to me, but that is by-the-by).

I was therefore struck by something he wrote the other day (A plea for a semblance of sanity Moneta-L, Fri Jan 16, 2009) He writes that it is wrong to think that “eliminating coin collecting” [more of that elsewere] “would diminish looting of archaeological sites”. He then produces a justification of that view, basically saying that ancient coins do not come from archaeological sites at all. Well, they do not in California anyway, but he’s talking about the Old World, where:

“individuals who have interviewed prospectors for ancient coins in countries like Bulgaria relate that the best places to search for coins are the borders of ancient battlefields. Before a battle soldiers would hide their few valuables (usually a small purse of coins) to retrieve after the engagement.”

Well, that’s it. Welsh says that the coins today on the market (the ones he sells for example) are not a product of artefact hunters looting ancient settlement sites and cemeteries. He says (Moneta-L Smuggling and Reality Moneta-Ly Wed Sep 21, 2005) “The facts of the matter are that historical sites are very unrewarding places” (sic) to look for collectable coins. (I guess Mr Welsh does not get out much in the countryside of california with his metal detector, so I guess we can excuse him for not really knowing what he's talking about, though there are metal detecting forums he could join). This he says:

"was clearly demonstrated by 2002 statistics for UK Treasure Act finds. Archaeological excavations produced only three per cent of the coins discovered. Almost all discoveries were in out of the way places such as woods and fields”.

So collecting coins does not damage archaeological sites, a position he has steadfastly maintained a number of years, trotting out the same, unchanged, arguments. (By the way of course these “woods and fields” in Britain contain ancient sites which is why the artefact hunters who are reporting their finds to PAS are there in the first place looking for ancient artefacts to collect and sell !)

The Californian numismatist makes clear elsewhere (Above the laws? Unidroit-L May 26, 2008 ) that he thinks that not “every place in the vicinity of an ancient battlefield, and every field or wood in which a small cache of coins was concealed during antiquity, should also be considered to be an "archaeological site" and part of the "archaeological record." (I wonder what he thinks constitute an archaeological record, a material record of man’s activities in the past?)

Welsh returns elsewhere (HR 1047 Unidrot-L Tue Oct 19, 2004) to his view that battlefields are not archaeological sites

“The valuable coins, as numismatists have long recognized, tend to come on the market in groups that suggest they were originally found in a hoard. People didn't often bury these hoards in built up areas. […] coin hoards were concealed in remote places, just like a pirate burying a treasure chest. They are often found today out in areas that have never in the memory of man been anything but a pasture or forest. Many small coin hoards are also the result of soldiers burying their purses before a battle, and ancient battlefields are sought after by detectorists both for weapons and for coins. I have not read that ancient battlefields are considered archaeologically significant sites”

(battlefields are indeed the subject of archaeological investigation – including in the USA)

Again, just a few months later (Rarity? Of Ancient Coins? Unidroit-L May 8, 2005)

“concentrations of small low value coin hoards that are often found in the vicinity of ancient battlefields […] are no doubt soldiers' purses, concealed to be recovered after the battle by those who did not survive to do so. Here there is some context, but who has any interest in it? When has any archaeologist ever
excavated an ancient battlefield?”

One example Dave Welsh should know about is Kalkreise, very carefully searched in recent years, it’s probably the site of the loss of Varus’ troops in the Teutobergerwald. Although coins (quite a lot of them) were found scattered on the site, there were no hoards found on the edges of the battlefield. Maybe Welsh can show us a properly investigated battlefield of the Roman period where they are.

This insistence on a “coins buried before a battle” model by this "professional numismatist" and coin dealer is interesting. I don’t know where it came from, I suspect some early antiquaries may have thought it up as one of their speculations. It however does not function in the current literature on Roman coin hoards as the sole, or even main model for hoard deposition and loss. We have many examples of hoards deposited in settlements or religious sites. So where does the US “professional numismatist” get this idea from?

Well, it seems quite frequently referred to in the community that supplies coins to the public. Here’s Ancient Coin Store (J. Jones): "Soldiers and citizens often buried their coins before battle, and as people were driven from their lands or even worse, killed, the coins would remain where they lay for hundreds or even thousands of years and more”.

Then there is a continental (Italian?) firm MoneteRomane.Eu “The coins come from Viminacium, […] it is not difficult to find the coins near constructions and monuments. It moreover must hold account that the roman army often was engaged in war and before a battle the riches came later on buried for being recovered from the legitimate owner, often the soldier did not make return house and its assets remained hidden until the days ours”.

An eBay seller called ‘grandma’s vault’ says: "Before the age of national banks, Roman Soldiers buried their coins in fields for recovery after years of battle. Most of these soldiers never made it back.”

Amazon seller Beverly Oaks LLC “Lot of 10 - Uncleaned Ancient Roman Coins” “Before the age of national banks, Roman Soldiers buried their coins in fields for recovery after years of battle. Most of these soldiers never made it back. Farmers & locals also buried their coins to keep them safe from invaders, bandits and tax collectors. Now, 2,000 years later, YOU can own these coins. These are amazing addition to your collection or as gift.”

Aurelian Antiquities Otisville, NY tells the same story, but in the form of an on-line article: The Loss and Subsequent Discovery of Ancient Roman Coins By D. H. Oomen ’ “If the Roman soldier knew when a battle was going to occur the soldier would bury his pouch of coins to protect it from falling into the hands of the enemy as well as to unburden himself of the pouch and the possible consequences of carrying it into battle”.

A rather overpriced “Roman Empire 20 Coin Emperor Collection” says: “in fact, most Roman coins are from hoards that were buried by soldiers before they went into battle. If a soldier didn’t survive the battle, his life savings were lost until some lucky coin hunter unearthed the valuable coins several years or even centuries later.”

Back to bulk lots, A.T. Goodman: “Uncleaned Ancient Roman Coins Gold Found Just in from Europe!!!” “These uncleaned ancient coins were found north of modern day Greece in the region of the ancient town of Philipopolis”. Aww go on, say it, don’t be coy, you mean in the vicinity of Plovdiv Bulgaria! Anyway he writes: “Many hoards were buried by Roman soldiers before they went off to battle. However, many of the soldiers did not return and thus their money (these very coins) were left in the ground only to be discovered millenniums later by archeologists.” (Archaeologists, eh? Not “coin hunters” then?)

Here’s another coy one (Richmark imports): “This hoard of uncleaned Roman coins has just arrived from Europe” (guess where?) “Because there were no banks at the time, coins were often buried for safe keeping. Countless hoards were buried by Roman soldiers before being sent off to battle. Alas, many of those soldiers never returned and their money remained in the ground only to be discovered millennia later”.

We find the same trite generalizations on coin-collecting forums. Thus Frederick M. S. ‘Origin of Coin Hoards?, Reprise, etc., Moneta-L, Wed Nov 21, 2001: "the number of coins buried just before a battle would probably be in the tens of thousands in and around the vicinity of a battle site.” But wait a minute… in reply to this, the REAL professional numismatist T.V. Buttrey (Dec 5, 2001) correctly noted:”One way in which the army handled this problem was not to pay out full salary in cash, but to keep running accounts of what was owing. The soldier could claim against the credit on his account.”

Well, yes the Romans weren’t stupid. One would have thought that all those avocational erudites handling all those contextless coins to “learn about the past” might have looked at a few books about how these coins were used. One of them of course was as salary for the army. There are many good books on the Roman army for example which inform their reader about this (I guess though you have to actually read the book). The Roman soldier did not carry all his life’s savings around in a big bag on his hip, by the end of his service if he’d avoided gambling and whoring it away, that could have been a pretty heavy bag. The person really learning about the past use of the coins they collect (a) would have come across the terms seposita and deposita and know who looked after this in the army (signifer), they’d have come across the story of the revolt of Saturninus against Domitian and so on. I’d also (b) have thought that since on their forum Ted Buttrey as early as December 2001 was telling them about this (or giving them a hint that here was something to read up about), we’d not be seeing the same myths perpetuated without it being extensively commented on by other forum members - busily "learning" away from each other about coin-related aspects of the past...

Well, that is not so. March 6th 2003, T.J. Buggey wrote: "I think we must remember the origin of the uncleaned coins. Many that are found are the result of major defeats of Roman armies. The pre battle burial scenario, some may be due to settler's hysteria with an oncoming horde - I guess that would make it a horde hoard. Many of these would not be associated with key archaeological sites." Again someone (“rasiel" (Ras Suarez) Moneta-L Thu Mar 6, 2003) Pointed out : “this is the "wisdom of the crowd", […] every ebay uncleaned coin auctioneer states soldiers buried their money before going off to battle.” Andrew McCabe (Moneta-L Wed Jan 14, 2004) notes: "Collectors rather romantically assume their coins were […] buried by a soldier before going off to battle but these are probably the least important mechanisms for coins to exit circulation." So that, one would have thought put the romantics in their place... But no, the US coin collector obviously is a slow learner.

The "before the battle" model refuses to die, dealer Robert Kokotailo (Moneta-L Dec 23, 2004) “One of the things that commonly happens in times of war, is people bury money to keep it safe, and we can be reasonably sure large numbers of these coins got buried just before the battles were fought”. Dealer Dave Welsh again (Re: Comment Requested on Potential Import Restrictions, Moneta-L Aug 10, 2005) “Coins were usually buried under circumstances relating to battles, invasions and other stresses much less common in Italy than in other provinces”. Rasiel (Re: Smuggling and reality Moneta-L Sep 22, 2005) again stresses “despite ebay uncleaned ad boilerplate most coins retrieved by detectorists are _not_ the recovered hoards of long-dead roman soldiers burying theirpennies just prior to battle.” And again the same author (Re: Claudian denarii Moneta-L Fri Nov 25, 2005) “the assumption that hoards were buried by soldiers just prior to battle is an urban myth perpetuated by ebay uncleaned coin ad boilerplate”.

Nathan Elkins in several papers (here and here for example) has recently examined the origin of many of the coins on the US market and concludes that they are accumulations selected from the products of metal detecting and digging over of archaeological sites in many parts of Europe (especially the Balkans) and the Middle East, and not for the most part "hoards". It is odd then that this model has been evoked yet again in the past few days to say where the coins on the US market are coming from.

So why is this still popping up? Is it ignorance, a failure to check facts up and think them through? Or is it a willful disregard of the facts? The sellers of the products of metal detecting archaeological sites in [south] eastern Europe are trying to convince their clients that its “OK to collect” these things because they “do not come from real archaeological sites”. We all know that they do. They come primarily from settlements, urban complexes and forts on the limes and beyond. These sellers are misleading the public with their romanticized and speculative “before the battle” scenario.

It is noticeable that there is a division between serious collectors and REAL numismatists, who are quite clear that the "before the battle model" is a myth and dealers who insist on propagating it in the face of all the evidence to the contrary. After all if all the Roman coin hoards in Britain were the remains of battles, there was an awful lot of fighting going on all across the country throughout the whole Roman period - for which there is no other (not a scrap) evidence. A lot of these hoards show signs of thesaurisation rather than being bulk payments, which is what you would expect of the putative soldier's moneybag. There is not a scrap of real numismatic evidence that the coins on the US market were soldiers' "before the battle" deposits. And it is my bet that people like Dave Welsh know full well that the foolishness they are spouting is numismophillic nonsense.

It is clear that by these tactics, dealers like Dave Welsh and the ACCG are trying to mislead the collecting public and the others to whom their outreach is directed by the same misleading propaganda which bears absolutely no relationship to where the coins currently on the US market really are coming from. The ACCG and a hardcore of vociferously couldn’t-care-less US collectors have stuck to the same story despite having been presented with ample opportunity to find out how true a picture it is. Are these the people we can “build bridges” with?
.

Missing the point - again

On the collectors' "Unidroit-L" forum, Jim McGarigle (Polymath Numismatist) responds to the posting there of a link to Svetlana Guineva's article 'Italy to send back stolen antique coins confiscated in Verona' from the Sofia Echo mentioned above. McGarigle writes:

If these were coins stolen from a museum I am glad they were returned but if they are coins that were recently unearthed - what a waste of the police's time and the taxpayer's resources. 3,800 coins valued at $35,000 EUR so we are talking about coins valued at about $12 USD each roughly. No national treasures here!

The point is however not the "treasures returned", but catching those that are destroying the real treasure, the archaeological resource from which these twelve-dollar geegaws were all snatched, trashing history as the diggers dug. Is it a "waste of police time and taxpayer's resources" to protect the archaeological record from deliberate destruction? To some extent it is, because this is destruction that should not be happening, and could to a large extent be curbed if there were more controls on how the loot can be turned into cash. It is the failure of those at the other end of the market, the consumer, to be choosy about who they do business with and how that contributes to the costs (often considerable for poorer countries which should have other priorities) of policing sites to try and curb this looting.

3800 coins is a minimum of 3800 individual and destructive holes in the archaeological record. Anyone who has ever been on an archaeological site will know that it is much more, in every ten "bleeps" of a metal detector (and thus ten holes dug to get the source of the signal out of the ground) on a typical lowland Roman site in Britain (at least) you'd be lucky to get one collectable coin. So those 3800 collectable coins seized on their way to a foreign market represent a considerable amount of destructive activity in the ground at the source sites.

The Verona-bound coins however returned to Bulgaria last week. Devoid of context, they could perhaps be used for handling collections for local schools as part of an educational effort teaching Bulgarian kids about the rich historical heritage that foreign collectors want to take away from them. Maybe the ACE would like to help them set it up? Would they be "comfortable" with that?
.

"Collectors' Responsibilities" as seen in Ohio

The Portable Antiquities Scheme exists to promote a responsible attitude towards collecting of portable antiquities in England and Wales. It helps ensure that collected items and those offered for sale come from a known and licit sources and have been recorded. This aims to curb the market in illicit goods without unduly hampering legitimate collecting. The US portable antiquity collecting lobby has until now openly expressed admiration for this scheme. It has been one of the kingpins of its lobbying ‘program’ that creation of similar systems of dealing with collecting would greatly benefit collectors.

In the past few weeks, ACCG officer Dave Welsh has recently been regaling members the Council for British Archaeology’s Britarch discussion forum with his assorted thoughts on collecting and how bad it is that certain “extremists’ have unreasonable ideas that responsible collectors should stop buying artefacts of undocumented origin. In his opinion, indicating that the responsible collection of artefacts would be to stick to those that are properly provenanced and have a documented licit history is “an extreme, completely impractical and unreasonable approach."

The Chairman of Heritage Action, Nigel Swift asked him recently about his attitude as a dealer to the PAS "Advice for people buying archaeological objects from the UK”, pointing out that they propagate a similar approach to provenance as those who Welsh labeled as “extremists”. The self-appointed spokesman for US collectors stressed his "support" for the PAS and made his position clear "I regard a "full provenance" as essential insofar as that term applies to acquiring objects which British law requires to be reported". One presumes he has in mind the Treasure Act. This completely ignores the fact that the PAS and their advice are independent of the Treasure laws, but are to do with encouraging voluntary responsible behaviour in accordance with best practice. Ignoring the fact that this is the primary aim of the PAS really does not qualify one as a “supporter of PAS”.

Pressed for an answer, Mr Welsh then said "I do support PAS and its advice. However, there is an essential difference between that which applies to British subjects governed by the Treasure Act and PAS, and that which applies to all buyers in other nations". That is simply not the case. The PAS is entirely a voluntary scheme for responsible collectors and does not "govern" anyone. It asks collectors them to act in a particular way as a matter of personal responsibility - nothing to do with the law. The text of the “Advice” was however addressed to buyers abroad too requesting the same degree of personal responsibility as British citizens.

In the course of this discussion, Welsh revealed that as a US antiquities dealer he regards himself exempt from any compunction to follow PAS advice for responsible buyers of portable antiquities on the entirely spurious grounds that he is not British and therefore postulating that the advice wasn't meant to refer to him and his fellow collectors abroad. According to this view, Britain cannot possibly have any opinion on or wishes about what others should do when acquiring ancient objects of cultural interest from its soil. Surely this is something that Britons do have a right to decide themselves and not, Mr Swift correctly argued, a subject of negotiation over the other side of the Atlantic. There is no question of the foreigners having a different relationship to portable antiquities coming from British soil than Britons. Either buyers agree with PAS's advice about responsible purchasing of portable antiquities and conform, or they don't.

Referring this discussion over the Portable Antiquities Scheme and the "Advice for people buying archaeological objects from the UK” on the Unidroit-L list, Welsh was greeted by fellow antiquities dealer Eftis Paraskevaides with the words “Congratulations for exposing this verbal excrement”. Iranian chemical engineer Farhad Assar asked “Who is this "Mr. Swift"? Is he part of human race?”. John Rieske a collector who hails from Ohio (calling himself ‘Lysimachos’) however was more forthcoming about his attitude to PAS urging to collect British artefacts responsibly:

Mr. Swift (via Unidroit-L) So you think that everybody, no matter where they live should abide by your laws (British, I presume) even though I live in different country from yours. Oh! how wonderful! Now I guess we must abide by your traffic laws (driving on the left? How reprehensible!) and your court
system (which sucks BTW, [not that ours is great.]) It is the job of the citizens of a country to enforce their own laws through the establishment of responsible law enforcement, rather than shifting the onus upon citizens of other countries. You are in violation of many of my countries laws, possibly including libel and certainly in driving left of center. Do I have the right to demand that you cease and desist because I and my nation disagree with your laws? Of course not. So keep you laws to yourself and place your blame where it truly lies: with the criminals.

So there we have it, according to the Ohio collector addressing Nigel Swift's remarks, there is no reason for the PAS to try to encourage good practice among buyers of portable antiquities. He says if the British cannot stop sales of illicitly obtained artefacts through responsible (sic) law enforcement, the US collector is entirely justified in buying any of it they want because it is the fault of the British for not looking after it properly. This collector too seems unaware that the PAS is not a "law".

Does the blame for irresponsible collecting lie as Mr Rieske asserts “with the criminals” or those that aid and abet the criminals by buying illicit property from them without asking any questions?

The PAS advice seems quite straightforward to me:
“Five things to ASK :
Have you legal title to sell? Where was the object found? When was the object found? Was there a legal obligation to report the find? Has the object been recorded?If a seller cannot satisfactorily answer all or any of these questions or if you have doubts whether an object is illicit or not, then our advice is do not buy it”.
Oh and they remind foreign buyers they need an export licence to legally export archaeological finds from the UK.

What actually is so unreasonable about that when seen from Ohio?

Is Looting of archaeological sites the 'fault of archaeologists'?

.

In a famous reply to comments by Ricardo Elia, Colin Renfrew (1993) formulated the notion that “Collectors are the real looters” . By this he means that the international trade in illicitly obtained and illegally exported archeological artifacts is supported and maintained by demand from collectors that purchase such artifacts without regard for, or even enquiring into, the manner in which they were acquired and reached the market. Collectors of course deny strenuously that this is the case. I have to admit that the logic of their arguments totally escapes me. A piece of a Nok terracotta only becomes worth digging up under the hot Nigerian sun if there is somebody in the region eager to pay the “subsistence digger” money to pass it on to the international market. A cuneiform tablet is just a lump of clay to a middle eastern peasant, but can be turned into cash if they can find a purchaser. It only becomes worth venturing into the Cambodian jungle with a hammer and chisel and a big bag to visit the overgrown temple if there is a man who will buy all the little heads of smiling Buddha which have been ‘harvested’ to end up in western galleries at extortionate prices (Brodie 1998).

In retaliation for conservationists pointing out this obvious and uncomfortable truth, collectors are trying to reapportion the blame. Three of the most commonly used ploys have been rehearsed recently on archaeological forums in the English-speaking world.

1) “If you give us the stuff we want we’ll stop buying dodgy items”. In this model, the portable antiquity collector asserts that the dog-in-a-manger archaeological “elitists” trying to spoil their fun have hidden away plenty of “redundant” collectables which they should release on the market to create a regulated market.

Doing that requires more than collectors and the trade can do by themselves. A cooperative effort involving archaeologists, academics and governments is needed. […] Why won't archaeologists take an interest in establishing a regulated licit numismatic market? That would do more to eliminate looting than you could imagine.” (Dave Welsh

In an earlier post we are told:

If it were feasible to establish internationally controlled antiquities auctions, in which objects (whether surplus to museums, or recently found by archaeologists and others) would be sold with provenance after they had been duly examined and recorded, that the illegal trade in unprovenanced antiquities would be greatly diminished.” (Dave Welsh)

And:

There are many millions of redundant, unstudied antiquities in storerooms that no one has any real interest in, nor seems to have any idea what to do with. […]The motive for archaeologists to agree to such cooperation is to understand human social dynamics clearly enough to realize that this is the ONLY possible approach that can actually bring looting of archaeological sites under control. Provenance/provenience will command a sufficient economic premium in a regulated licit market to make cooperating with the authorities the only economically rational choice for those who discover antiquities. That motive will even cause those who presently loot sites to start policing them so that they can be reserved for cooperative licit excavation, if something like the Treasure Act/PAS scheme can be adopted in source states such as Iraq. (Dave Welsh)

The basic message then is that “archaeologists must agree to this, there is no alternative”. [The rather odd idea for a PAS-clone in Iraq is worthy of discussion in its own right....].

2) “If you don’t guard the sites properly, stuff will be stolen”. In this model, the portable antiquity collector asserts that archaeologists and conservationists are simply not doing enough to keep illegal diggers off sites in most of the source countries. It is this lack of site guards (presumably like the Antiquities Police of Egypt or the guards which were present in Iraq prior to 1990) which is the cause of the looting.

The looting of sites should be treated not through laws, but through proper security measures. Would you leave money lying around unattended and rely on laws to prevent it being stolen? It is irresponsible to expose a site without providing a guard and/or security systems to protect it. If money is not dedicated to that, or volunteers employed, then it should remain undug. There is the technology to provide proper protection for even very large sites”. (John Hooker)

And:

The only solution to the looting problem is better methods in the countries where this is happening, and that can never be a total solution. All it can possibly do is to lessen the instances of it back to pre 1970 levels, or perhaps a little better than that”. (John Hooker)

Or:

I simply do not know how many times I must repeat myself that unless the governments of the source countries take some harsh measures to guard every one of their archaeological sites, the illegal digging will go on forever and you and people like you CANNOT do anything about it”. (Farhad Assar)

It is a good job that we have not reached such a desperate situation as to need to post armed guards to defend every environmental resource we value, in the bluebell woods, nature reserves and wild places. We only need them to keep poachers out of game reserves. What does that say about the antiquities market?

3) “Archaeologists must sort out foreign social problems to curb looting”. Then we have those who say looting will take place as long as there is poverty in the world. If the portable antiquity collectors do not buy these things and give them a good home, they will be “sold for scrap” and “turned into tourist trinkets”. [While this argument may apply to metal (uncorroded copper alloys, lead, silver and gold) it does not apply to Nok terracottas, Southeast Asian Buddha heads and sculpture fragments, or cuneiform tablets]. Anyhow, the adherents of this line of argument are clear, the archaeologist concerned with the circulation of illicitly excavated archaeological material in the markets of the developed countries must deal with all the other social problems in the region.

If you genuinely care about the ancient heritage of people in poor and/or developing countries […], then please begin educating those people properly, not by dumping on them your unwanted rubbish, but through the opportunities you create for them to get the same level of education you, yourself, received. Then, and only then, they may begin to think that there is some sense in saving their ancient dog- or cat-bones, coins, vases, jewellery, bronze sculptures, palaces, etc. In other words, find the root causes of the irreversible damage to the archaeological sites all over the world, including the effects of illicit and clandestine digging, and do not put the blame for what is going on in this respect at the doors of coin collectors and dealers alone. (Farhad Assar)

And:

If the advocates of protecting the historical assets of all nations are sincere about their good intentions, they must begin by educating the poor and providing for the needy in those countries in order to encourage them to appreciate and protect their cultural heritage. Then, private collecting and dealing will begin to slow down, become unprofitable, and eventually die out. (Farhad Assar)

I suspect these collectors pride themselves that by buying artefacts dug out of foreign sites they are doing their little bit to solve the problems of world poverty (but see Brodie 1998), as well as giving the displaced artefacts a "good home". Nevertheless I agree that an important approach is education of local populations persuading them that their cultural heritage has a value and is worthy of their attention and care. Mind you, what in that situation they will then think of all those that took advantage of them now and took lots of it away for their own foreign collections may only be imagined.

These three arguments have a common theme, its not the collectors’ fault that there is a market for antiquities, they claim that there is nothing they or anyone except the archaeologist or governments can do to stop it. If the archaeologist or foreign government will not adopt what collectors like the ones cited above insist is the “obvious” solution, then it is not the fault of the collector that no progress can be made with the destruction of the archaeological heritage by exploitation as a source of collectables for various people's entertainment and profit. It seems to me however that there is some rather obvious special pleading going on here.

References
Brodie Neil 1998, 'Pity the poor middlemen' Culture Without Context, Issue 3, Autumn 1998.

Renfrew, Colin 1993 Collectors are the real looters. Archaeology 46(3):16-17

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....

Article 10

In 1970, in the context of protecting world heritage, UNESCO adopted a Convention on the Means of Prohibiting the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. Its aim was to reinforce international solidarity in the fight against the traffic of cultural property by setting up a system of co-operation between States, and creating ethical standards which would be applied to the movement of cultural property. By June this year, 116 countries had ratified the UNESCO Convention.

Article 10 states that:

The States Parties to this Convention undertake:
[...] (b) to endeavour by educational means to create and develop in the public mind a realization of the
value of cultural property and the threat to the cultural heritage created by theft, clandestine excavations and illicit exports

I am trying to think what major educational intiative the government of the United Kingdom (became a party only in 2002) has instituted in the last decade or so which actually addresses the latter question. It seems to me that the public information campaigns and British media have tended to concentrate almost solely on the "benefits" (sic) of artefact hunting and collecting as a relatively effortless source of new information about where exciting (but largely contextless) finds come from, very little about the other side of the coin which is the unreported removal of thousands of artefacts from the archaeological record and the unregulated antiquities market. These seem to be topics British archaeological institutions are rather shy of broaching in public discussions. No wonder some continentals are calling artefact hunting with metal detectors "The British Disease".