Detecting under the Microscope: New Club Being Secretly Convened?

.

Mick Turrell organizer of "Leisure Promotions" commercial metal detecting and artefact hunting club, based in Newbury Berks has a newsletter for his members. One of them has passed it on to me and I was astonished to read the "Fortress detecting" attitudes it reflects. So much, it would seem, for the effects of thirteen years of "archaeological outreach", even in civilized Berkshire. Among other things, Mr Turrel writes:

I have heard whispers that someone is trying to whip up support for another organisation along the lines of both the NCMD and FID, but aimed at fighting back at those organisations that seem intent of attacking our hobby.

Well, they need to get in contact with Dave Welsh and Peter Tompa, to "Unite to Defend Collectors' Rights". This sort of thing seems right up their street. The justification for the need of these "Metal Detecting Minutemen" is that despite all the PAS "partnership" and sickeningly pro-collecting press releases in the national media, there is still - horror! - public criticism of the hobby and its effects:

We have had a relatively ‘quiet’ few years but the attacks are becoming more commonplace. For example, there is the Nighthawking Survey that showed that the situation had improved since the last survey, but it was still used to attack the hobby in the media. Then there is the Stewardship Scheme which has curbed the number of large rallies taking place by the restrictions being put in place. Fifty, or more, detector users in an event and the organisers need to give the archaeologists 6 months notice and it can be cancelled at the last minute leaving organisers with a huge bill. Do not think that this will not affect you, as it will shortly be reduced to just 30 detector users, thereby affecting most clubs as well! Then there is the small matter that we have a Code of Conduct, but that did not stop the archaeologists helping to rewrite it to their own specifications. If we suggested ‘helping’ the archaeologists to write a code for themselves, they would probably be quite upset by the suggestion so they will therefore understand why we would equally be upset. Then there is the ‘Voluntary Code’, which is not voluntary when connected with the Stewardship Scheme. If you do not follow it, the farmer could lose his funding. The attacks continue. How much more can we take before we fight back [?] I am not suggesting that our hobby is perfect, there are no doubt just as many ‘bad’ detector users as ‘bad’ archaeologists, but if they really do want us to work along side them, then this is not the way to do it. If it continues, then it would not be surprising if some in the hobby decide to fight back.

So creating a mutually agreed Code of Practice is "not the way" to go about working alongside each other? It is regrettable that Mr Turrel does not state what he condiders is. "Leave us alone, git orf are case" as NCMD's Trevor Austin once said? The people doing the Nighthawking Survey could not have bent over backwards any further in their efforts to stress that nighthawking was a quite separate phenomenon from "bona fide detecting", a superficial view which was a hat-tip to the prevailing mantras in the artefact hunting and pro-collecting archaeological milieus alike. It was nighthawking that was discussed in the media upon the report's publication, hardly therefore an "attack [on] the hobby". '

The Stewardship Schemes are no more no less than conservation schemes, put in place to preserve the resources of the British rural landscape. The accessible archaeological record in those rural landscapes is - whether artefact hunters like it or not - a finite and fragile resource which is being seriously depleted by artefact hunting. Any conservation scheme worth the name should be stopping, or at least managing and mitigating the losses. From our point of view, the Stewardship Schemes are not doing this to a degree which could be called satisfactory. remember that part of the money being paid to farmers is coming from European funds, and in most countries of the EU artefact hunting is not understood as "conservation' but looting of archaeological sites. Why should we be paying for English farmers to say they are 'conserving" something while they allow the looting of the archaeological resource? No, regulating rallies is NOT enough.

Go on, tekkies "fight back". Show us all how much entitlement you feel to carry on plundering the archaeological record for collectable artefacts for your personal entertainment and profit. Show the public (the real joint stakeholder in the heritage you covet for your personal use) what a lot of agressive oiks you have among you. Oppose the attempts by bodies such as the PAS to impose higher standards ("best practice"), please do, the sooner and more noisily the better as far as I am concerned. Then try and get some public sympathy. Come on, one, two, three, all together now:

"Git Orf Are Case!!
Stop the Gubn'mint Taking Away Are Rights
to Take Away Are 'Istry Fer Areselves!!".

Vignette: In 2012, will Britain be engulfed by a wave of populist pitchfork and torch protests spreading out from the epicentre of the "Leisure promotions" movement in Newbury Berkshire only to be crushed in a confrontation with the militant arm of the Young Archaeologists Club on the outskirts of York? And what part will the Portable antiquities Scheme play in the confrontation?

Metal Detecting Under the Microscope 1: Future of PAS in Wales Still Unclear

.
David Gill points out (PAS in Wales) that Wales' devolved government and government spending cuts have meant that in precisely six months time (April 2012), responsibility for the Portable Antiquities Scheme in that country will rest with the National Museum of Wales in Cardiff, and they will have to find an additional GBP 60 000 annually just to keep it running at current levels. He notes that there seems to be no mention of PAS on the Welsh Government website.

In a parallel blog opened today, I look at the way PAS has tended to shield certain aspects of the "metal detecting problem" in England and Wales from proper public scrutiny, empowering the history takers with metal detectors and giving them a false feeling of entitlement. I conclude that doing away with a Portable Antiquities Scheme would not only save money, but have beneficial effects in forcing a rethink across the British Isles about the future of the hunting for and collecting of archaeological finds from archaeological sites.

Na i PAS ar gyfer Cymru: No to a Welsh PAS

In a series of posts here over the next fortnight, I intend to apply the same arguments about the heritage issues raised by their activities to England's "metal detectorists", a milieu which prefers aggressive methods intended to deflect discussion and silence the critics to reasoned discussion. Perhaps the loss of the Welsh PAS will convince them that this is no way to guarantee their hobby any kind of recognition and support.

Take Your Cultural Property Campaign Home: Centres and Peripheries

.
In a comment to one of my posts, coin collector and dealers' lawyer Peter Tompa taunts:

Why don't you take your campaign against imports of unprovenanced artifacts to your home in Poland if this is so important to you?

One reason is that I simply do not see the scale of looting of archaeological sites here in Poland that we see in other countries. I have had good contacts with the metal detectorists here for coming up to two decades and in my view, the hobby here is quite a different one from that in the UK. Most people with metal detectors in this country are searching sites of the Second World War. That's what turns them on, any metal detecting magazine here (we have three main ones) will show this. Some of my colleagues write very alarmist articles about Polish metal detecting, but - frankly - "they ain't seen nothing yet". They have no idea (because they get most of their information from reading the mollifying pap put out by the PAS) just how what the "black sheep" are doing here to archaeological sites compares with what thousands of run-of-the-mill irresponsible detectorists get up to in the UK.

In Poland, the trade in illegally excavated antiquities is on a minute scale compared to that in the west, and quite often attempts to sell dodgy stuff come to the attention of the police, computers are seized, and sometimes people are locked up. There is a law, and it is comparatively well enforced, though there is not a complete clampdown. There is currently a loophole in Polish law with regard foreign-dug artefacts which is like that in US law, and Mr Tompa is right, one day this problem will have to be dealt with. But we've just had a revamp of the Cultural Property Legislation, a long drawn-out process and modifications will have to wait. But is the problem a severe one?

The Polish antiquities market is an interesting phenomenon, and one I have been studying ... how could it be otherwise? Without going into detail, suffice to say that there are interesting similarities and differences between this and those of "the west". Tompa obviously thinks I should spend my time campaigning against it and leave the Americans and British collectors alone. So, is the Polish antiquities market as serious a problem as those two?

Well, let us have a look at Mr Tompa's favorite collectable antiquity, ancient coins. Poland has a branch of eBay (a pretty dreadful place if you ask me). At the moment Polish dealers here have 63 ancient coins on sale there. Thirteen are Greek (Black Sea area mostly), nine Byzantine coins, 21 Roman, including some which might be local finds (?). What is interesting is that the majority of these 63 coins are being offered by one seller based in Gdansk (German Danzig) and from the range and condition, these look very much like they do indeed come from an old collection.

Alongside eBay is another major auction sitewhich has collectables, Allegro. If you look at the numismatic section you will find that all together there are 170 "Antyczne" (Classical world/Ancient) coins on sale today. Of these 14 are "Greek", 121 "Roman", 28 are "micellaneous (today mostly - and atypically - Indian and Chinese etc "cash"). A closer look shows several of these ancient coins to be fakes (some of them of types well known in the West), many collectors here are a bit green behind the ears and it seems many have much more money than sense or knowledge. There is a fair mix of dugups here, including the usual ubiquitous Balkan-looking stuff. There are some top-end coins offered by a Poznan dealer which I suspect may have "Munich" connections, there is a range of interesting fakes offered by a seller that never seems to run out of them - or people to buy them, and a new fake seller based in Spain trying to break into the Polish market and who mixes genuine cheap Balkan dugups with some pretty egregious pieces of pseudo-ancient numismojunk. There is a smattering of "Biblical coins" which appeal to the religious.

There are one or two smaller auction venues, but they have very few ancient coins on them today.

So, some 230 ancient coins are being sold in Poland today - some of them less ancient than others.

* * * * * *

Let's do the same thing for the USA. Ebay, there are today 15 870 ancient coins on sale in this category sold by US sellers alone. According to the eBay search engine, they fall into the following categories:

Roman: Republic (710)

Roman: Imperial (6,422)

Roman: Provincial (1,241)

Byzantine (1,059)

Greek (3,158)

China (1,004)

Persian, Indian, Asian (643)

Medieval (533)

Islamic (352)

Other (287)

Replicas & Reproductions (534)

Celtic (130)

Over on V-Coins, 155 Ancient [coin] Dealers are today offering 110,202 Items ($23,355,441 Value).

So, in just those two US venues today there are 126 070 ancient coins on sale.

* * * * * *

Let's just put that in a bit more perspective, looking at EBay.uk, selecting for only sellers based in the UK, we get the following results for "ancient coins" - total 3,603:

Ancient

Roman (1,698)

Greek (488)

Byzantine (197)

Persian/ Indian (77)

Islamic (83)

Chinese (43)

Other Ancient Coins (56)

Collections/ Bulk Lots (7)

the Roman and celtic coins contain a fair number that seem most likely to be local (British) dugups, though it looks as if "Balkan" coins are probably also showing up in some quantities. How many of these coins are instead actually from old coin collections is difficult to say. This would be a great topic for a graduate thesis.

* * * * * *

In answer then to Peter tompa's comments, I think there is quite a substantial difference between Poland's 230 and the US' 126000 coins on sale at this very moment, and this is by no means commensurate with the US being a bigger country (The United States has a population less than nine times the size of Poland, but an ancient coin market 550 times bigger).

So which is the market more worth paying attention to and discussing, Mr Tompa? Which market is doing the archaeological record more damage?

A YouTube Video About Artefact Hunting

.
Candice Jarman, among other things, reckons that...

Mr Barford's response shows just how little this self-proclaimed 'expert' (but in reality total ignoramus) knows about metal detecting.

Although I have spent a fair amount of time for several decades trying to understand the various aspects of this hobby and those who do it, there is of course a great deal I would still like to learn straight from their own words.

Artefact hunting with metal detectors is an erosive form of exploitation of the archaeological record which is the common heritage of everybody, not just individuals who want to take bits of it away for private entertainment and profit. It therefore follows that everybody should be fully informed about this type of artefact hunting, who does it, how and why, and more to the point what its actual effects (both positive and negative) on the archaeological record are. To what degree are we informed about that? The metal detecting forums are for the most part closed access, members-only, so one has to register first with them before being able to see what goes on behind their closed doors. What have they got to hide? (Please register with one and see). There are books and promotional videos as well. I'd like to look at one of the latter here, Steve Timewell's Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (2008) which is currently available on YouTube. This purports to cover all the issues. Quite significant however are the parts of the issues surrounding the exploitation of archaeological sites as a source of collectables for private entertainment and profit which they do not cover, can you spot them?

Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 1), Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 2),
Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 3) what you can expect to find... [Paul Murawski] 6:39 - "Collection of interesting and valuable finds".

Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 4) at 0:25 "95% of metal detecting is based on this kind of item" (sic) - but they are still artefacts aren't they? What is not collectable still may be used as archaeological evidence if we know where it came from and in what relationships with other material, but in most cases this "95%" never gets seen by the PAS FLO. Most of it gets chucked away well before that stage. Then a boring bit on beach detecting - "some people make a living out of it".

I think it is worth noting what Norfolk Wolf says in this segment (at 4:20):

"When I get on the field I'm looking for ... well I'll be hearing nails, I'm looking for pottery, I'm looking for oystershells, this is a sure sign of habitation. Once you've found this pottery and the naily areas, then you can go to town,

Let us consider whether Norfolk Wolf (John Lynne) has a huge collection of ancient nails to rival that which the excavation of that site would produce? Does he have boxes and boxes of pottery and oystershells systematically collected and catalogued from these sites, or did he make a collection by selection ('cherry picking') the archaeological finds, keeping just the most collectable non-ferrous artefacts? This illustrates the point that there is a very clear difference between what can be recorded about a site from what a collector takes from it when looking for geegaws to add to a collection, and what an archaeologist gathers as part of the investigative process. This is a fundamental reason why the data recorded as a result of artefact hunting can in no way be treated as archaeological data and severely restricts their use for archaeological (and many other) purposes.

Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 5) Accessories... then (6:43) "legal responsibilities". (8:35, "there's also a code of conduct to protect the reputation of the hobby" - sic!) - NB this is the NCMD and FID codes ! The key point discussed (9:27) is "filling in the holes" (!)

Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 6)
0:20 hobby "really rewarding financially"... but then mostly glib PAS fluff. Yuk. This continues on:

Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 7) Note that what Trevor Austin says about sites found by artefact hunting and collecting through detector use will NOT be protected from further exploitation appears under the heading (0:29 of the previous part) "it is vital that our heritage is protected..."

Then the obligatory disclaimer, (1:06): "you do get the odd nighthawker [...] these are not detectorists; these are just crooks, they're out for the money and they give the detecting fraternity a bad name. I've got no time for them whatsoever". Then there is "joining a club" and (6:50) Commercial artefact hunting rallies ("on prime sites" - 7:06). [Norman Smith commercial rally organizer who makes no money for himself from this you understand ... 9:01].

Complete Guide to Metal Detecting (part 8) [2:30 - 4:52 Dave Evans about recording on commercial artefact hunting rallies].
Storing and cleaning finds: (6:05) "it won't be long before you are finding all manner of things and some of them could be of considerable value".
(6:12) "You can have your own museum display in your own home". Note that what is shown is Lincoln Museum's cases, not a well-displayed and curated private collection, could they not find one to film? Also I note that they did not add "you could donate the most important of your finds to the museum".

Worth having a look at and a think about, ignore the tiresome muzak and repetitive use of the same settings and shots.

US Collectors' "Rights" Advocacy Group, Stand for what? (part 2)

This post continues the thread of the post above it, and concerns to what degree the actions of the ACCG prevent or encourage the looting of archaeological sites as a source of collectables. This seems especially important to discuss at a time when the ACG is actvely fomenting anti-preservationist attitudes in connection with the renewal of the Italy MOU currently under discussion. Somebody had suggested that the ACCG was in fact "pro-looting" to which ACCG board member Californian coin dealer Dave Welsh took exception in somewhat aggressive terms. So I was interested to see how he would answer the following question.

Tell me please Dave Welsh, what is the official ACCG position here? Let us say that intrigued by the news reports, I get in touch with some of the defendants in the Blanding case and we exchange correspondence. I write that I have always wanted to have an Anasazi knife, that its one of my unfulfilled ambitions in life. My Blanding correspondent says they've one available from a site they’ve found on BLM land which nobody knows about and she can pack it up and send it to me through the post... I make my Paypal payment from Poland and get my Anasazi knife – from an ‘unscheduled site’ - through the post. According to the ACCG, have I done anything wrong ?

After all, US law does not apply to me here in Poland does it? The US gubn’mint should not try to tell me what I can and cannot buy with my legally and hard-earned cash. And learning about the Anasazi by having little bits of their material culture in my home surely is my fundamental right because I want to be a Polish “cosmopolitan internationalist”. Furthermore there are no Anasazi today, why are the White Americans telling me I cannot have a bit of "their" land's heritage? Now these are ALL arguments I have heard ACCG members make about artefacts from Turkey, Egypt, Greece, Bulgaria etc. Tell me, according to the ACCG, is it legal or illegal for me to buy that knife? This is a serious question, and much hangs on your answer.

Question two, should Polish customs be interested what is in that package, and if they suspect that a citizen of Poland has been engaging in illegal transfer of property from the US (because on the package it says "Ancient Native American artefacts, handle with care"), are they not to investigate? What if the US government alarmed by the scale of looting on public land in the Southwest had specifically asked countries in the EU like Poland to keep an eye open for archaeological artefacts which might be looted? Should Poland refuse?

Please answer - ask Wayne Sales to give the definitive ACCG answer if you need help. A refusal to answer could be taken by list members to mean that in reality the ACCG has no idea what is right and wrong. And please do not try the "a knife is not a coin" - a coin is an artefact, whether you like it or not. That is - after all - why you bring a coiney battle with the US govrnment onto the Ancient Artefacts discussion list.

Apologies to list members who got this far about the length of this post. This by the way is a question specifically addressed to the ACCG, non-ACCG-members please do not respond, please give them a chance to show us what they have to say. In any case we really do not want more slanging matches here.

"dishonorable liar"? Please answer my question about an Anasazi knife from BML land at Blanding and we will see who is being dishonourable.

Thanks

Paul Barford

That was posted at 10:19 on the 11th April. Until my access to the list's archives was blocked yesterday at 01:32 on the 13th, it had not been answered. Perhaps they were still thinking about it, perhaps it is too long for a short attention span to actually get through. Or maybe the ACCG is considering a way to get out of answering it... Getting me thrown off the Ancient Artefacts list for daring to ask it might be one way that came to mind, enabling them at best to later give a delayed and glib answer that will then go unchallenged. I would not be surprised to find that this was the sort of tactics a group like the ACCG might employ when faced with uncomfortable questions about what it stands for.

Nevertheless it is a question I think this US advocacy group should have been asked precisely on a responsible collectors' forum, one they intend to recruit to their campaign - and their refusal to answer the question I posed to my face promptly and fully should be seen by them for what it is.

Earth Hour (1): in the dark

An hour with the lights turned out to make a statement. I previously had joked about "blogging by candlelight" but was saved from that inconsistency by the Internet server packing up for an hour or so last night (I'd like to believe they'd turned it off, but such breakdowns are too frequent lately to believe that). So the Barfords bumped around the flat in the dark, trying not to make toast or turn the kettle on and struggling to read by candlelight. One of us went out for a walk. Out there you could see none of the neighbours bothered, or even noticed sitting there with their lights blazing in front of their plasma TVs and computers. I guess we'll not be hosting "World Environment Day" in the near future.

It is not as if there was no publicity. It seems that many of those with their lights on in Warsaw were making a self-centred statement that they could not care less. Very much the same I think as the antiquity collectors who refuse to recognise that indiscriminate collecting is a major cause of the looting of archaeological sites for saleable items. That they continue to collect in the same way as in the nineteenth century is also a powerful statement about their self-centred attitudes to the world around them.

I am betting that very few ACCG members over the Ocean had their lights off last night. The way they allow the finite and fragile archaeological resource to be gobbled up to feed their personal obsessions does not create the impression of them being particularly environment conscious. I could be wrong of course, after all, holding a piece of the past in your hand by candlelight (or better still, olive-oil-lamp-light) is indeed a way of "experiencing the past" as it was experienced by those for whom those objects were made.

Vignette: from Wikipedia.

Why not?

Archaeologist Trevor Watkins of Edinburgh University has an interesting idea which he aired on the Archaeology Theory and method Discussion List, since the archives are only accessible to members, with his permission, I post his thought-provoking comments here:

Where a particularly iconic artefact or group of artefacts should be curated and exhibited has become a matter of public debate in recent years. The Troy treasures, excavated by Schliemann, taken to Greece, exhibited in London, but finally donated to the German people and housed in Berlin, until they were spirited away to Russia, are a case in point. How could it ever be resolved where they should exhibited and which modern state should 'own' them? [...] when they were shown in public for the first time in Russia after they had been examined by an expert group of international archaeologists, they were at once claimed by the Turkish, Greek, and German governments. The USSR response was that they should be considered Russian, as part of the restitution for USSR losses at the hands of the Nazi forces in World War II.

I think that it is very significant that the public, and archaeologists, have accepted that a visit to Lascaux II, or to the facsimile of Altamira, is equivalent to seeing 'the real thing'. I heard a lecture by Paul Bahn yesterday evening in which he said that he found the replica Altamira more useful to visit, because you can walk around on an even floor, with the painted roof at a convenient distance above your head, and the lighting of the replica allows you to see more and see better than you can in the original cave.

Museums now have the ability to make replicas that are indistinguishable from the real thing - which even feel like the original and weigh like the original. I wonder if the answer to all these claims for the return of objects could not be resolved by making replicas, and then swopping them about. Thus, Nefertiti could spend a year or two in Cairo, while her body-double sits it out in Berlin; she could then head back to Berlin for a period, passing her double in mid-flight. Within a decade, no-one but the curators of the two museums would know which of the two was where. And the evidence is that most of the public would be perfectly happy. In fact, if I could
see the Elgin Marbles when I was in London, but also see them together with the other sculptures that Lord Elgin left behind, and in the shadow of their original and intended location, I would count it a gain.

So I would propose that national museums make bi-lateral agreements (a) to have replicas made of these artefacts of contended national ownership, and (b) that originals and replicas then be exhibited turn and turn about without any notification to the public of which was in front of their eyes, the 'the real thing', or the authentic replica.

Interesting concept.

"Doing the Romans", while doing no damage

A practical exercise designed by teacher Philippa Holden at Brushwood junior school, Chesham, Buckinghamshire (Alice Woolley Extreme pots, the Guardian, Tuesday 14 July 2009) seems an imaginitive way to help people learn about the past and how we know what we do about it. It was done in a totally sustainable manner without damaging archaeological sites and assemblages.

It certainly makes the ACE’s “archaeological simulations” over in the USA with decontextualised foreign coins of dubious provenance buried in sandboxes look a bit tame and futile. Ms Holden said:

"The aim was to give the children the means to think for themselves, to discover things and then figure out what they might have been used for, and what room they were in, [...] I'm into not just teaching them facts. I wanted them to think about it".

In other words using evidence. I guess that is why the ACE will not be doing anything like this for a while. After all, they cannot really have the kids, the new ancient coin collectors of the future thinking too carefully (about the contexts those coins might have been found in and what that might tell us, and what is lost when we lose that information), can they?