Tuesday, 15 January 2013

Nord Westrom on "Provenance Puffery"


Nord Westrom (Provenance Provenance Puffery at upcoming Pre-Columbian art auction )  also discusses the question of the collection of antiquities ("art") being put up for sale by the Dodge gallery (see my post here on "Exceptional Pre-Columbian Art From Hollywood" )::
Nearly every one of the 148 items in the February 1, 2013, Pre-Columbian art auction by Antiquities-Saleroom has no dated provenance despite a press release that proclaims: “Provenance and pedigree combine to form a compelling reason to bid in Antiquities Saleroom’s Feb. 1 sale of premier Pre-Columbian art.” In the entire sale, only six works have a dated provenance, of which four are pre-1970. Nevertheless, the press release later notes: “Most pieces in the auction boast provenance from distinguished sources, including Sotheby’s, Christie’s, the Denver Art Museum and even Andy Warhol, who reportedly had a discerning eye for antiquities.” Yet, “most pieces in the auction boast” no dated provenance – more than 95%. 
He notes that the assurances of the online catalogue concern mainly the "authenticity" of the items being sold (meaning what, that they have a physical existence, or something more, and itf more, what? Left undefined by the sellers) and the celebrity-news editorializing of some of the "pedigrees". What is interesting here is that some of this has clearly been added by the seller to their catalogue since I copy-and-pasted the same non-provenance into my post just  few days ago. Nice to see the dealers taking note of criticism - but "(most famous gold authenticator in US!)" really does little to assuage doubts about how the item left the ground, and source country and entered the US market.

There are a couple of interesting comments about the terminology of "provenance" etc which it would be nice to see developed.

Note the discrepancy in numbers, when I downloaded the catalogue, the number of items on sale was  115 items, now it seems it contains 148 items, includung a confusing series of duplicate lot numbers for some reason. Certainly the "provenences" being amended after posting online adds to the impression that this online auction is being put together in a very haphazard manner.

So if Mr Dodge has more information about where those items came from other than what has been exhibited in the sales offers, maybe he'd like to put it all up front so we can see whether his extravagant claims about the collection's exceptional collecting histories are in any way justified, because belonging of this or that piece to this or that minor US "celebrity" really is in no way a substitute for a proper and verifiable collecting history proving licit origins beyond any doubt.




Benue Valley "Art" in Western Collections


Kwame Opoku discusses the catalogue of the exhibition, Arts de la valle de la Bnou Nigeria (Nigeria – Arts of the Benue River Valley) which is taking place at the Muse du Quai Branly in Paris, France from 13 November 2012 to 27 January 2013.
The exhibition which started in the United States of America , in the Fowler Museum, University of California, Los Angeles, (February-July 2011), went to the Smithsonian National Museum of African Art (September 2011-February 2012), then to Cantor Arts Center, Stanford University, May to October 2012) is now in Muse du Quai Branly Paris, France (November – January 27,1213). But this travelling exhibition will not be shown in Nigeria or any other African country. Neither the United States nor France would grant visa to Nigerians who want to see these objects of Nigerian culture. So for whom did the Westerners preserve Nigerian cultural objects?
Or, put another way, What actually is meant by "preservation" by western collectors, dealers and museums? It seems to correlate here with "taken away" by one group from another unequal group. What actually then, is meant by the term? 
This exhibition demonstrates the preponderant influence of the Western world over African art. The West has most of the excellent pieces of African art and has demonstrated that it can organize exhibitions on African art, such as Nigerian art, without the Nigerians and Nigerian scholarly input. These fine objects are African but the rest is Western. Who finally benefits from such exhibitions? No doubt one may find a few of the Nigerian elite who may even express their pride that Nigerian culture is being exhibited in the West but have they thought about the long term effect of such a trend? Have they thought about the negative effect of Western dominance in this as in other areas? Have they considered whether a country that is so dependent on the West to exhibit its culture can truly enjoy the advantages of independence? The West seems to have taken full control over the narrative of Nigerian Art History. Whoever directs Nigerias culture and cultural policy, directs the destiny of its peoples and that of many African peoples.
So this preservation effort is exclusive, divisive. Not inclusive and uniting. Very little intercultural collaboration seems from this to be involved. 
According to the authors of the Introduction, Marla C. Berns and Richard Fardon, most of the works shown in the catalogue were sold or stolen during and after the Biafran War when art traffickers and dealers profited from the porousity of the eastern frontier of Nigeria and the tragic poverty of a country at war. The authors add that in all probability most of the sellers of the objects were not aware that the sale of objects that were the property of their community required export licence. This raises the question whether these sales were legal or not at the various stages of actions that are now some forty years old. [...] In an interesting contribution on the development of the market for the arts of the River Benue Valley that completes the catalogue, Hlne Joubert concludes that the absence of properly regulated market has at least contributed to the preservation and conservation of these artefacts that are now to be found in European and American collections. It is this kind of reasoning; much beloved by Westerners, that annoys most non-Westerners.  Having stolen a huge amount of our artefacts, Westerners tell us: be happy, the objects now exist in Europe and America that would otherwise have been destroyed. One could thus justify most criminal and nefarious activities of Europeans in their colonies. What is generally missing in this catalogue is an indication that there is a sincere feeling of unease or guilty conscience among the owners and organizers of the exhibition for the massive illegal transfer of Nigerian artefacts from the River Benue Valley. There is no sign that efforts are being made or will be made to return some of these objects to Nigeria. The National Commission for Museums and Monuments has called for the return of artefacts that left Nigeria illegally for the West. We are not aware that the Commission has approached the organizers of the exhibition or the lenders of objects to arrange for the return of any of the objects.
"the absence of properly regulated market has at least contributed to the preservation and conservation of these artefacts in European and American collections". That rather speaks for itself...

Benue valley

Vignette: What EuroAmerican collectors term "art" is in fact just a fragment of a wider cultural reality.

Monday, 14 January 2013

Princeton, What Matters

.
Italian investigations of the fate of items of Italian provenance reportedly handled by former New York dealer Edoardo Almagià, (Hugh Eakin "Italy Focuses on a Princeton Curator in an Antiquities Investigation", New York Times June 2, 2010) had implicated a number of US collections (Princeton, Boston, Dallas, Cleveland, Toledo, San Antonio, Tampa, Indiana University and the Met). Several of the people involved in the handling of these goods were potentially facing criminal charges. Pretty soon after the Italians began formal preparations for an investigation, Princeton returned a number of items apparently involved in the case, surely suggesting a lack of documentation that everything was above-board and licit with regards their initial acquisition:
In December 2011, the University voluntarily returned half a dozen antiquities — some composed of fragments — to Italy, although it declined to release any information about how or where it had acquired the items. “There was no investigation of the University, and no allegations were ever brought against it,” a Princeton spokesman said at the time. The University returned eight other works of art as part of a separate agreement with the Italian government in 2007, in exchange for which Princeton students were granted special access to archaeological sites in Italy.
Although Princeton was less than forthcoming about what they'd given back and why, David Gill was able to deduce this from Italian sources. As has been announced in a college magazine, the Italians have now given notice that there will not be a case against Princeton's curator (Mark F. Bernstein, 'Curator no longer part of probe', Princeton Alumni Weekly, January 16, 2013). It seems that this is what interests the magazine more than how it is that Princeton's collection had contained such items in the first place (and what else they may have).

An interesting sidelight on this case... The address of the dealer's former business premises is given in some of the discussions of surrounding issues. If you Google it, you see that it's in a little side street off Lexington Avenue which on Google Earth looks like one of the seedier parts of downtown Bombay.  No flashy New York gallery here, but apparently a little shop in one of the grubbier areas of the town, with nowhere to park the limo.
 
See: Gill, D. W. J. 2012. "Context matters: Princeton and recently surfaced antiquities." Journal of Art Crime 7: 59-66.

Cambodia MOU Meeting


There will be a series of meetings of the Cultural Property Advisory Committee to review the proposal to extend the Memorandum of Understanding Between the Government of the United States of America and the Government of the Kingdom of Cambodia Concerning the Imposition of Import Restrictions on Archaeological Material from Cambodia from the Bronze Age Through the Khmer Era (MOU) [Docket No. DOS-2012-0063], including an open session to receive oral public comment on this proposal (Wednesday, February 27, 2013).

 The Department of State announces:
If you do not wish to make oral comment, but still wish to make your views known, you may send written comments for the Committee to consider. Again, your comments must relate specifically to the determinations under 19 U.S.C. 2602) of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act. Submit all written materials electronically through the eRulemaking Portal (see below), ensuring that they are received no later than February 6, 2013 at 11:59 p.m. (ET). [...] As a general reminder, comments submitted by fax or email are not accepted. [...] To submit comments electronically, go to the Federal eRulemaking Portal (http://www.regulations.gov), enter the Docket No. DOS-2012-0063 for Cambodia, and follow the prompts to submit a comment.
What is interesting is that, due to the notable failure perhaps of previous contributors to the public debate to refer to the specific articles cited in earlier invitations to comment (which may have led to huge piles of them simply being rejected before they reached the CPAC), the new requirements are:
All oral and written comments must relate specifically to the determinations under 19 U.S.C. 2602 of the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act, pursuant to which the Committee must make findings. 

It will be interesting to see how many US coineys will be writing and expressing their opinion on the same basis as they oppose import control measures in the case of countries like Greece and Italy - or whether their "passionate interest in the past" extends as far as taking an interest in the preservation of the archaeological record of other countries from what their own legislation defines as "pillage" and smuggling of recently "surfaced" finds straight into the USA. Or will they maintain an embarrassed silence? So far there are apparently no public submissions at all. How can this be?

Vignette: The feet may be in Cambodia still, but in what country are the knocked-off fragments of the rest of this monument? (Chasing Aphrodite)

Sunday, 13 January 2013

PAS Partners Better Equipped than "Our Boys in Afghanistan"?

.
At the Brownhills site:
Dr Della Hooke, vice president of the Birmingham and Warwickshire Archeological Society, said [...] she was stunned by last month's discovery. She also said the new finding could also prove wrong some theories as to how the items got to the field. Dr Hooke said: "It's absolutely amazing. In the last search they used top-quality equipment to go over the area, which they use to find underground stuff in Afghanistan. They were absolutely certain there was nothing else down there. "Nobody really knows why the hoard is there. It could have either been a deliberate burial on a boundary perhaps after someone died or buried quickly by someone who had stolen it who was making an escape on Watling Street.
"That's really the only thing that was there at that time. The land there would have been woodland and heathland. 
Well, and a royal vill of course.  Heritage Action points out that the equipment at metal detectorists disposal is far superior to the equipment HM Armed Forces are issuing for assuring the safety of what the Daily Mail would call "Our Boys" occupying Afghanistan. 

I see now the local authorities are planning to build a viewing platform to gaze across the (once) treasure-filled fields, making the site even easier to find at night.
'More gold and silver found at Staffordshire Hoard site', December 18, 2012

Not a Whimper from British Archaeologists


Heritage Action ('Judge embarrasses archaeos') have spotted this:
Speaking during the trial of some nighthawks in Northampton, Judge Richard Bray regretted they could only be prosecuted for Theft and said “I think there should be some form of cultural heritage act which could be used to protect sites of archaeological importance”. He has a huge point. If you steal something of cultural importance that happens to be worth only tuppence the only crime you’ve committed is the crime of stealing tuppence, whereas the harm you’ve caused can be immense. So who can argue? There should be a specific offence of cultural theft. Trouble is, ALL metal detecting without reporting what you find would need to be included. [...] What remains to be seen though is whether the Archaeological Establishment gets behind his call or whether it defends the right of metal detectorists to be free to choose whether they steal historical knowledge or not.
That was posted a couple of days ago. So how many British archaeologists have been saying, "yes, yes, that's what we think too"?  Do we take it from the silence that British archaeologists are all, every lady/man-jack of them perfectly happy with the law as it stands, or jobsworths too apathetic or scared to speak out?

"Exceptional Pre-Columbian Art From Hollywood"


LiveAuctioneers are selling "Exceptional Pre-Columbian Art From Hollywood", 115 items, on February 1st. The consigner is named as "Antiquities-Saleroom" but on closer inspection this turns out to be a new incarnation (why?) of "Artemis Gallery". That's Bob and Teresa Dodge ("Artemis Gallery also works closely with The Denver Art Museum, Sotheby's, Christie's, Arte Primitivo and many other market leaders to help with authentication and evaluation of antiquities"). This current auction is billed as follows:
An online-only auction featuring two of the finest Pre-Columbian Collections we have seen in years! Coming straight from award-winning Hollywood insiders, including musuem-quality artifacts from virtually all important ancient Pre-Columbian cultures - Moche, Chavin, Inca, Maya, Colima, Nayarit, Veracruz and many more! Highlights include a Mayan Vase (ex-Andy Warhol), monumental ceramics de-accessioned from The Denver Art Museum and some truly important examples you are unlikely to see again! This is an important sale of well-provenanced and exceptional art from the ancient Americas. All items offered for sale in this auction have been legally acquired, are legal to sell, and guaranteed authentic/as described.
Now, if we look at what Bob and Teresa Dodge reckon is "well-provenanced", it can be seen that their definition of the latter is somewhat loose. Very few items are axscribed to a particular site  (except maybe on stylistic grounds) so what do they understand by "provenance"? A geographical region smaller than Alaska? If we look at collecting histories, that's a bit dodgy-looking too. Let's take the first few numbers:

Provenance: Ex-private Los Angeles, CA collection
Provenance: Ex-prominent Los Angeles, CA collection
Provenance: Ex-prominent Los Angeles, CA collection acquired at Christie's
Provenance: Ex-private Hawaii Collection
Provenance: ex-private Los Angeles, CA Collection 
Provenance: Ex-Private Hawaii collection
Provenance: Ex-private Mratz Collection, Los Angeles, CA.
Provenance: Ex-prominent Hollywood, CA collection
Provenance: Ex-prominent Hollywood, CA collection, ex-private German Collection.
Provenance: Ex-prominent Hollywood, CA collection, ex-L. Kalina Collection.
Provenance: Ex-Sarkisian Collection, Denver, Co
Provenance: Ex-Sarkisian Estate, Denver, CO
Provenance: Ex-prominent Hollywood, CA collection.
Provenance: Ex-prominent Hollywood, CA collection.

So in three of them (less than a quarter) we have a vague reference to the name of a collector, in the rest none whatsoever. No upfront mention of the date of export from the source country, route or what paperwork attended it.  One of the collectors named above figures quite prominently in other Artemis Gallery sales (for example here), apparently he had very eclectic acquisitive patterns, and seems not to have been averse to Ban Chiang bronzework, offered by Artemis without any explanation of how they left Southeast Asia which is all the more suspicious given the circumstances of other cases of Ban Chiang metalwork  reaching the US. In such a case therefore knowing the name of the former owner hardly helps us to assure ourselves that the original purchase was wholly licit without any other information (which is utterly lacking).

So, this assurance "legally acquired, legal to sell"... Is that: "they-can't-touch-you-for-it legally acquired, legal to sell", or "all-the-verified-export-and-collecting-history-paperwork-is-here legally acquired, legal to sell"? In the case of the former, is mere legality (or rather non-illegality) the main issue when buying antiquities? "Prominent dead Californian private collector" tells nobody anything at all about how the item was dug up, entered the market and entered the US.  What if a "prominent/private dead Californian collector" bought an object or two from messers Grebkesh and Runn, the prominent and very private dodgy dealer from Wisconsin who bought them direct from Juan Haquero who shipped them out of the source country hidden in a shipment unexamined by ICE because mislabelled as garden gnomes?

I'd be a bit leery of buying from a dealer who calls Denver Colorado "Hollywood". Suggests that there may not be much meaning behind some other words he uses too.

Vignette: Coin Elf or Artefact Gnome? 

Saturday, 12 January 2013

US Museum Belatedly Honours a "Very Basic Principle"

.
From an ICE press release:
TOLEDO, Ohio — A rare Etruscan black-figure kalpis, which has been traced back to 510 B.C., will be returned to the Italian government following a transfer ceremony Tuesday at the Toledo Museum of Art. A June 2012 agreement between the United States and the Toledo Museum of Art followed by Tuesday's transfer ceremony is the culmination of an extensive investigation by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) to restore the true provenance of the kalpis [...] According to court documents, the kalpis has been valued at more than $665,000.
Hmm. I doubt very much they've actually 'restored" (sic) the provenance, though they might have gone further in establishing the collecting history than the Museum of Art at the time of its acquisition:
It was smuggled out of Italy after an illegal excavation prior to 1981. It was then sold in 1982 to the Toledo Museum of Art by art dealers Gianfranco and Ursula Becchina, who had earlier purchased it from convicted art smuggler Giacomo Medici. The Becchinas misrepresented the true provenance of the vase to the museum by providing falsified documentation.
Which the Museum was too dumb to spot and not bothered enough about where the items really came from to attempt to verify?
Following a January 2010 lead from HSI Rome, Cleveland-based HSI special agents launched an investigation into the true provenance of the artifact. Working closely with law enforcement officials in Italy, HSI special agents were able to definitively establish that the documentation provided to the Toledo Museum of Art was falsified and part of a larger scheme by the Becchinas to sell illegitimately obtained cultural property. Gianfranco Becchina was convicted in February 2011 of illicitly dealing in antiquities by a court in Rome. That conviction was appealed by Becchina and remains in the Italian court system.

The usual feelgood waffle was spouted at the ceremony, but I liked the comment of U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio Steven M. Dettelbach:
"I want every museum, every business and every school child here in Toledo to see and understand that today is about living up to a very basic principle. When you find out that something is not rightfully yours – no matter how special, no matter how beautiful or no matter how costly that thing might be – you give it back". 
I think this "very basic principle" extends to attitudes of collectors and dealers, not just in America, to the ripped off, knocked off, hoiked out and carted away heritage of others from right across the ancient world.

ICE Press release:  'Transfer ceremony clears way for looted ancient vessel to be returned to Italy', Toledo, OH January 8, 2013.

Vignette: The table was too small to display the logo on the tablecloth, so - to get it in the self-congratulatory picture- ICE hung it on the wall.

Anuradhapura style Sandakada Pahana "found" in the UK - now for sale



Anuradhapura style Sandakada Pahana "found" in the UK - now for sale:

Although the object was "found" in the UK by a member of the public in their garden and is more than 300 years old, it does not feature in Britain's Portable Antiquities database which legitimates "finding" portable antiquities in England and (for the moment) Wales. If findspots in the UK are deemed by Bonhams to give such artefacts legitimacy, then why do they not insist on only handling items whose "finding" has been responsibly reported?

SAFE: Say YES to....

.
The rationale behind SAFE (Saving Antiquities for Everybody):
1. An antiquity loses its informative value when torn from its original context without proper scientific excavation.
2. Looting, smuggling, and trading illicit antiquities destroy information about our shared cultural heritage.
3. We promote respect for the laws and treaties that protect cultural heritage and property.
4. We encourage legal and ethical behavior among collectors, dealers, and museums to stop the trade in illicit antiquities.
5. We envision a world in which looting and destruction of ancient sites and the marketing and collecting of undocumented artifacts is unthinkable.
This is of course where the dealers and self-centred could-not-give-a-damn collectors  of those freshly surfaced (undocumented) artefacts start to feel uneasy about SAFE.

As part of its ongoing programme of bringing light to antiquity issues, SAFE Has a series of "Say YES to..." campaigns aimed at US public opinion.

Even though it is a state party to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property, in fact US law is totally inadequate to coping with the fact that the huge voracious US antiquity market operates in flagrant disregard of its article 3. Some 90% of the world's antiquities can pass through US dealers' hands without anyone ever asking where they came from and how they arrived in the US. The few percent that actually come under the laughably-inadequate and anachronistic "Convention on Cultural Property Implementation (the term is used loosely) Act" only have such desultory protection temporarily as the result of five-year agreements with specific Convention states-parties, or their prolongation.

At the moment there is a lot of discussion in the blogosphere and mainstream media of artefacts looted in the 1970s in Cambodia which somehow have ended up in the USA. The US has a bilateral cultural property agreement with Cambodia, let us see what this actually means for the Koh Ker statues in several US public collections and private hands. In fact the CCPIA is totally irrelevant to these cases, nobody is even considering using this piece of  legislation to do any implementation of the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property. The reason for this is that the legislation is a piece of 1980s US robber-baron do-good-poser rubbish, intended to create a good impression, but not in any significant way effect anything. American politicians would like to see the nation cast in the "Truth and Justice and the American Way" role of global policeman in antiquities issues, but we have all seen over the past few years just how seriously they and their justice system treats antiquity issues, bot concerning cultural offences committed against their own heritage as well as that of anybody else.

Nevertheless, that is no excuse for inaction. Two wrongs have never made a right. SAFE is attempting to raise US public awareness of the importance of the type of measures employed by the CCPIA to help curb the transfer of ownership of illicit antiquities, and though I would like to see the latter scrapped in favour of a modern legislation which takes a far more rigorous approach to US responsibilities, I support these campaigns and look forward to them being stepped up in the near future.

About Say YES to Cambodia's heritage, our heritage
To preserve and safeguard the cultural heritage of Cambodia.

The Angkor Temple complex in Cambodia stands as a testament of architectural, historical and artistic achievement by Khmer civilization. Built in the jungles of Southeast Asia between 800 -1220 AD over 100 temples stand today. Although the Angkor Temples are the best preserved and therefore well known remnants of Khmer civilization there are also thousands of other ancient sites, such as cemeteries. These sites are looted for bronze, ceramics, gold, semi-precious stones and other materials. Unfortunately, widespread looting of these sites to feed the demand of collectors all over the world has caused irreparable damage. We at SAFE feel strongly that the best way to understand objects of Cambodian history is within their archaeological, architectural and historical contexts, scientifically examined and professionally preserved. We know we are not alone in our desire to save the vast cultural riches of Cambodia and we urge anyone interested to please join this cause.
This is an initiative of SAFE/Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE), a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving cultural heritage worldwide. http://www.savingantiquities.org
Join us!
Also:
Say YES to Egypt's heritage
Say YES to Greece's heritage
Say YES to Italy's heritage 

SAFE on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2442559641

Friday, 11 January 2013

"Superfluous" Antiquities


Yannis Galanakis has another interesting and topical post on the CHS Bulletin webpage: “Insignificant”, “superfluous” and “useless”: legal antiquities for export?, December 31, 2012. It is about the definition of which antiquities were deemed superfluous to past Greek national collection needs (and thus could legally be exported). Recommended reading for all those afficionados of "the old collection" and "partage".

Thursday, 10 January 2013

Syracuse: "Operazione Archeoweb"

.
The Cultural Heritage Protection Carabinieri unit of Sicily have handed over some coins to the "Paolo Orsi" Archeological Museum, Syracuse. This gropup of 4035 coins in gold, silver and bronze, together with 63 bronze artefacts (pendants, brooches and rings etc.) were confiscated as a result of the judgment by prosecutors in Modica of a case begun in 2005-6, known by the operational label "Archaoweb", aimed at the suppression of criminal sale of archaeological finds on e-bay. The operation consisted of systematic monitoring of websites all over the world where it was found newly discovered archaeological objects that have generally been clandestinely excavated using metal detectors were being sold. In the first phase of the operation, 25 people were arrested and nearly nine thousand artifacts were seized. the case was still going on four years later (see Dave Welsh's Jan 19, 2009 post 'Seizure in Palermo' on Unidroit-L ) when "a Palermo resident in his fifties was charged with "possession of archaeological artefacts belonging to the State as well as purchase of property suspected of illicit origin, being unable to offer any proof of the legitimate possession of archaeological material he was preparing to sell through eBay". From his home in Palermo, police seized 573 archaeological artefacts of Sicilian origin and of different ages, mostly ancient Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Arab bronze coins. There were other small objects such as bronze fibula, rings, arrowheads and clay fragments of the Greek and Roman periods. The prices asked for these artifacts ranged from a few tens of euros to a few hundred euros.

The material given to the museum includes 52 Byzantine gold coins, Roman silver denarii many-republican ones, silver tetradrachms from the ancient siceliote poleis, silver and bronze coins dating back to the Roman Empire and many other medieval. The gold coins are believed to have been from an unreported hoard plundered by looters in an unknown location in eastern Sicily.





4, 000 Roman coins recovered and given to Siracuse museum

Despite the Language, Getty Head was Looted

.
Discussing the latest Getty admission of guilt (and its language) Derek Fincham reveals:
My rule of thumb when visiting a museum is, if they don't tell you about the history of an object, there is very good chance it was looted.
It would be interesting to know if he'd support the use of the same maxim for items in private collections and dealers' stock.

Derek Fincham, 'Getty Announces Return of Morgantina Terracotta Head', Illicit Cultural property, Jan 10th 2013.

Tuesday, 8 January 2013

The Hype and the Reality: Antiquities Bust Show Ends With a Whimper


The US authorities have another damp squib antiquities case on their hands. It's instructive to look back at what they were crowing about back in July last year (Kiran Khalid, "Feds: Global antiquities smuggling ring dismantled", CNN July 15, 2011: ICE Press release "ICE makes arrests and seizes cultural artifacts stolen from Egypt", July 14, 2011) and set it in the context of what has now been happening. For that, see Rick St Hilaire, U.S. v. Khouli et al. Update: Motion to Defer Prosecution Completes Rapid End to Antiquities Case, 08 Jan 2013. Has the demise of Zahi Hawass and the decline of US influence in Egypt anything to do with this being dropped, or was it lack of any real concrete evidence to support the overreaching initial allegations?

Both Mr Alshdaifat (Holyland on V-coins) and Mr Khouli (Palmyra Heritage) are in business, one assumes that Mr Lewis still has his collection (the evidence against him always seemed a bit suspect to me, no wonder he's not going to have his day in court, his lawyers were probably looking forward to making mincemeat of the prosecution's arguments). Despite what prosecutors were claiming, no alleged "ring" has been broken up, no "money laundering" charges were ever discussed. In the end, what we get is just all a big New York farce, coming right on the back of the Weiss fiasco (and what about the Flamenbaum case?). 
 
Once again, let me say that Ayman Ramadan is not now and never was a "fugitive" except in the imagination of a few US tough-guy world-policeman wannabes. The guy is not an American, was in Dubai doing his thing, and of course cannot be indicted for that under any US law, any more than can any foreign dealer named in the 'Tarby' fossil case.  

So, what happened to the rocking horses?
 

 

Egyptian ex-minister cleared of accusations of corruption



Faruq Hosni, who was Egypt's culture minister for more than two decades under ousted president Hosni Mubarak, was cleared on Saturday of corruption charges, a judicial source said. A criminal court in the Giza suburb of Cairo "found Faruq Hosni not guilty on charges of corruption and illegal enrichment," the source said. In September, state media reported that he had been accused of illegally acquiring 18 million Egyptian pounds (nearly $3 million). Hosni was also accused of "abuse of power in the exercise of his duties".

AFP, ' Egypt ex-minister cleared of graft: judicial source', Jan 5 2013

Sunday, 6 January 2013

Looted Pot in Cardboard Box


Plundered pot (AP Photo/Interior Ministry)
A very rare complete ceramic pot from the late second century BC was seized by Spanish police after it was found in an antique shop in the town of El Campello, eastern Spain. Officers seized the object during a routine inspection and arrested the shop owner for allegedly receiving and handling the plundered antiquity. The vase was allegedly taken from an Iberian era archeological site in the Spanish province of Alicante. Inspectors found it in a cardboard box during a routine search of the shop in the eastern town of El Campello. The vase has painted decoration on it "that tells the story of a hunter who had managed to kill a wild boar, one of the rituals of the time that proved a youth had attained the status of manhood [...] while fragments of vases from this antiquity exist in Spain, this was the first to be found whole". Probably financial as a trophy piece as well as historical...

AP, 'Spanish police seize ancient plundered vase from an antique shop', Windsor Star, Jan 5th 2013. 

"More Staffordshire Hoard Treasure May Still be Buried Out There"

.
Get your metal detectors out folks and get a pat on the head from the arkies, "More Staffordshire Hoard treasure may still be buried" out there, as a January 5, 2013  Express and Star article says.
Artefacts found at the Staffordshire Hoard site could lead to further discoveries of Anglo Saxon treasure in the area, according to experts. A total of 91 new items were discovered at the site near Lichfield last November – 81 of which have been deemed treasure and part of the same world famous hoard by Coroner Andrew Haigh. During a treasure inquest, county archaeologist Stephen Dean and national adviser on medieval metal for the British Museum, Dr Kevin Leahy, gave evidence. Dr Leahy, who is also finder and part-owner of the hoard, said that some of the items that were not deemed to be part of the original hoard were still from the Anglo Saxon period, two of them being made from copper. He said: “The findings are beginning to suggest there was a sequence of events. “The copper alloy items are quality items, although they’re only made from base materials. “They can’t be associated with the same hoard, however, as they are different in nature and made from copper, not gold or silver. 
What? The Treasure Act used to include "Any object, whatever it is made of, that is found in the same place as, or had previously been together with, another object that is Treasure". Is that no longer the case Mr Leahy. In what way were these objects NOT found in the same place as the hoard? In what way has MR LEAHY become a "part owner" of the national Treasure? 
“These are very important findings, as they suggest there was more than one event on this site. Anglo Saxons clearly visited the site more than once to bury items.” 
So if the finding (only now, after the original investigations were said to have exhausted the site) are showing there was a "sequence of events", what is the actual evidence that Mr Herbert discovered just one hoard, or that all the items for which he got a treasure reward came from the hoard he discovered, and not a second or third one?

 Surely these are questions that should have been resolved by proper multi-directional archaeological fieldwork before, not several years after the Treasure Inquest? We all know why they were not of course, British archaeology is just not organized to respond to finds like this produced by current policy on artefact hunting and collecting. What then should be changed, British archaeology and the way it is funded and works, or archaeologically-damaging policies?
Archaeologist Mr Dean said the possibility of further Anglo Saxon activity was now to be investigated in greater detail. 
A bit late now one would have thought. British archaeology has clearly dropped the ball on this one big-time.

Heritage Action on the fate of the Other Staffordshire Hoard Objects

.
In the post above, I discussed the archaeologists' statement that there is probably a lot more gold out in the fields of Hammerwich. I'd also like to refer to what our friends Heritage Action have to say on this one:

The Searcher magazine has just tweeted that “More Staffordshire Hoard treasure may still be buried” [...] It's all speculation of course but since speculation is in vogue perhaps we may be allowed to speculate that The Searcher Magazine is likely to be required reading for virtually every nighthawk in the country – and you’d therefore have to be in serious denial not to accept that this story will attract further visits from thieves. Not that it matters particularly if one assumes, given the inarguable capabilities of the latest metal detectors, that some of the nighthawks have already cleared the site of the bulk of the items originally missed.
So when are we going to actually see some "heritage action" from the establishment jobsworths that get lots of money for talking about heritage, but from whom we see precious little action when there is a problem (such as artefact hunting and collecting or the illicit trade) to actually be resolved?What, apart from some embarrassed hand-wringing and foot shuffling will we be seeing from them?

PAS and the "Dispositif"

.
A few weeks ago there was talk here (but only here I suspect) about a new device available in France which apparently electronically blocks attempts to use metal detectors on an archaeological site. Farmer John Browning in Icklingham apparently also at one stage had electronic systems installed to deal with his plague of nighthawks. What has Britain's multimillion pound Scheme for dealing with artefact hunters done about investigating blocking mechanisms to protect seriously threatened and desperately sensitive archaeological sites like the Brownhills/Hammerwich "Staffordshire hoard" findspot and adjacent areas from unauthorised and clandestine intrusion? Has any British professional heritage organization (apart from Heritage Action that is) been in touch with the French producers of this device (or anyone else) to obtain a few for testing? I do not know, but I'd gladly bet what the answer is.


Saturday, 5 January 2013

Britain's Archaeologists Left Lagging Behind

.
See today's update on this Heritage Action article for a suggestion that it's about time British archaeologists took off their rose-tinted specatcles and put their thinking caps on:
metal detecting technology is leaving the thinking and actions of The Archaeological Establishment far in its wake. Something needs doing.
And who's going to be doing it? The jobsworth establishment archaeologists who pretend everything is under control and there is no problem?  The Portable Antiquities Scheme? Because it seems to me that there can be no doubt to anyone else, that what HA are saying is 100% logical.

Study Reveals Looting of Archaeological Sites as Massive Global Problem


A report, entitled Archaeological Site Looting in "Glocal" Perspective: Nature, Scope and Frequency, has just been published of a study conducted by Blythe Bowman Proulx (assistant professor of criminal justice in the L. Douglas Wilder School of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University). It finds that pervasive looting at archaeological sites is widespread and frequent. The numbers suggest serious implications for the preservation of the world's cultural heritage and in understanding or rediscovering human history. 

Proulx collected information through a structured questionnaire sent electronically to field archaeologists throughout the world and designed to collect first-hand information about looting at archaeological sites, with the objective of developing a picture of the nature, geographic scope, and frequency of looting and site destruction within local and global contexts. She received responses from 2,358 archaeologists around the world.
Based on their feedback, looting activity occurred in 87% of the 118 countries that were reported as primary locations for archaeological fieldwork. Most respondents (97.9%) reported that looting was occurring in the general area or country where they conducted fieldwork, and "78.5% reported having had personal on-site experience with looting at some point during their careers".
Proulx is quoted as saying that the results mean that her study:
"lends empirical support to the claim that looting is an iterative problem that is both globally and temporally pervasive, not confined to certain areas of the world or particular types of archaeological resources... Looting - and, consequently, the role it may play in the antiquities trade - can no longer be dismissed as simply exaggerated, nor can concerns about looting be cast off as the mere products of scaremongering archaeologists with over-blown imaginations and thinly veiled preservationist agendas".
It is not entirely clear what the lawyer understands by the term "preservationist agendas", or why they would be "thinly veiled". Surely we should all be concerned about the preservation of any kind of valuable resource, the more so if it is as finite and fragile and affecting us all as the historic environment. I see no reason why anmyone with any concerns about its preservation from wanton destruction would need to "veil" their concerns. I think we should be all of us, conservationists, be shouting them from the rooftops.

The text of the report is available in the January 2013 issue of the American Journal of Archaeology as an open access forum article.

As a continuation of the article, members of the [one assumes from the content, US] public are invited to complete a similar survey about the looting of archaeological sites. It's rather superficial though and makes no allowances for the fact that there is a good chance that the coiney section of the "members of the public" could well decide to sabotage it - since there is no question concerning whether the respondent is an antiquity collector or dealer, rather negating it as a source of information.

Friday, 4 January 2013

Antiquities Bust in Fayoum

.
As reported in Al-Masry Al-Youm, two brothers were arrested by the tourism and antiquities police for the illegal possession of 50 ancient Egyptian artefacts in Fayoum on Thursday. The authorities were alerted to the fact that they had previously "been spotted in several areas in Fayoum that are famous for the antiquities trade":
The police began to watch them closely, and then caught the suspects in an ambush. The antiquities that were seized include 25 Greco-Roman coins and 10 statues, including busts of the gods Amon and Osiris and statues of the gods Horus and Anubis. Six Greco-Roman wooden masks of different sizes and colors were also seized. The suspects confessed to the police that they intended to sell the artifacts. They are currently awaiting trial.
'Two arrested in Fayoum for possession of artifacts' Al-Masry Al-Youm, Thu, 03/01/2013

University of Leicester Hosts Minelab in Family Fun Day



Free family day of history and archaeology events - University of Leicester

Join archaeologists and historians from the University of Leicester and elsewhere for a family day of free public events on Saturday 12 January 2013. There will be talks by well-known archaeologists from series such as Time Team, historical re-enactments, 'hands-on' activities, exhibits, a chance to find out about local and national organisations, the latest news about the University's search for Richard III - and you can even bring your own archaeological finds along to learn more about them. All events are completely free and the day is suitable for even the youngest historian or archaeologist. 'The Past Beneath Your Feet: Archaeology and History in Leicestershire' [...] has been generously sponsored by Minelab.[...]
Found something? Bring it along
Whether you spend every weekend with your metal detector or you just dug up something interesting in your garden, if you have found an archaeological artefect (sic) and want to know more about it, bring it along on 12 January. Experts from the Portable Antiquities Scheme will be on hand to look at what you've unearthed.  
and the nice men from Minelab will be there to tell you how to find more... and more. And the archaeologists from Leicester University will be out there in the crowds warmly shaking hands with all those folk who "spend every weekend with their metal detector" emptying the archaeological record into their pockets, and thereby doing their bit to put money into the pockets of the metal detector suppliers. That is exactly what university academic archaeology departments are there for, isn't it?

Hat tip to Chris Cumberpatch. 

 

Who is this? What is it?




Since 2003 it has proclaimed its aims to be:
1. To advance knowledge of the history and archaeology of England and Wales by systematically recording archaeological objects found by the public.
2. To raise awareness among the public of the educational value of archaeological finds in their context and facilitate research in them.
3. To increase opportunities for active public involvement in archaeology and strengthen links between metal-detector users and archaeologists.
4. To encourage all those who find archaeological objects to make them available for recording and to promote best practice by finders.
and
5. To define the nature and scope of a scheme for recording portable antiquities in the longer term, to assess the likely costs and to identify resources to enable it to be put into practice.
I am sure all its many supporters will say that the portable Antiquities Scheme has met every one of those five aims and more. But is that actually true when you take off the fluffy-bunny-let's-all-be-pals rose-tinted partnership spectacles? Clearly the PAS has put a lot of work and money into the first aim, but there are four more. They gave up on the fifth (claiming falsely that they had resolved this problem) a couple of years ago, what about the other three then? To what extent can they honestly say that after figfteen years and fifteen million pounds of outreach the British public as a whole has become aware of any of these things? Like the "value of finds in their context", what actual concrete measures have been taken to promote that and what success has it had preventing the removal of finds from that context? A question still to be addressed is whether "strengthening links between metal-detector users and archaeologists" is indeed a means to "increase opportunities for active public involvement in archaeology" nationwide. Metal detecting is artefact collecting, and artefact collecting is not archaeology any more than collecting costume Barbie dolls is "ethnology". What about that "promoting best practice by finders" when there is no real definition of that which is acceptable to all? (the official Code of Practice which is the first step in determining that is roundly rejected by most metal detectorists and even some heritage professionals have been found to prefer to refer to the NCMD code when liaising with metal detectorists).To what extent has actual best practice been promoted among the artefact hunters of Great Britain at the expenditure of fifteen million quid? Is this "best practice - to the highest standards" or a "lowest common denominator" one? Does it mean where and how artefact hunters collect objects and information, and what they do with them afterwards, or is it that they merely can be encouraged to help build up the "wottalotta-stuff-we-got" database?

What has changed in British artefact hunting in the last fifteen years, has it become more transparent, reflective, geared towards sustainable management of the archaeological record? Or has it simply become legitimised and popularised by te "wottalotta-stuff-we-got" approach hiding behind Aim One?

Thursday, 3 January 2013

Symes Artefacts Sold Well


Laura Gilbert ("Art Unwashed") has a thought-provoking post ('Sold! Antiquities that Surfaced via Robin Symes, a Name Mentioned in Illegal Trade Cases, Bring Prices Above Estimates at Christie's', December 27, 2012) about attitudes in the antiquity collecting world:
The name of London dealer Robin Symes, which has been associated with people tied to illegal trade in looted antiquities, apparently doesn't dampen collectors' appetite for artifacts that passed through his hands - at least judging from the Christie's antiquities auction in New York earlier this month.

ASBO for Thieves who Looted Coins from Ancient Roman Site

.

Metal detecting thieves who looted coins from an ancient Roman site in Northamptonshire have been handed Britain's first ASBO (anti-social behaviour order) banning them from metal detecting. The question is of course whether looting any archaeological site for collectables, destroying our ability to use certain archaeological investigation methods in their study for everybody's benefit is not in itself an anti-social act. Most civilized countries of the world would say it is, only Britain and the US disagree with world opinion.




ASBO:  Darren West
has been banned from
using metal detectors
(photo copyright newsteam)

ASBO: Peter Cox
has been banned from
using metal detectors
(photo copyright newsteam)



If you see  anyone looking like either of these men using a metal detector in a field near you, do not approach them, but inform the authorities.






ASBOs, UK Metal Detectorists and the Heritage Debate

.
Talking of ASBOs "we WILL meet" is the message with which a UK metal detectorist has been repeatedly harassing my friend Nigel Swift on the phone since a South Coast metal detectorist irresponsibly and maliciously publicised his home address on a metal detecting blog a couple of weeks ago [for a similar incident see here]. This particular person (the one with a detector, not the one with a social conscience) appears well known in his local area and in a recent case an ASBO was awarded. This metal-detector-waving heritage hero ("passionately interested in the past" no doubt) is the one that recently published a comment to Heritage Action's blog in a discussion of finds reporting statistics: "[I] hope you all DIE soon". 


People like these are precisely the sort of people the PAS wants to grab more and more millions of public quid to make into the "partners"  of the British Museum, archaeological heritage professionals - and to whom they want us all to entrust the exploitation of the archaeological record. Take a good look and decide what you think about that as a sustainable heritage management "policy".

Turkey: Ertuğrul Günay interviewd

.
There is an interview in Hürriyet Daily News with Turkey's Culture Minister Ertuğrul Günay. While the most obvious characteristic of the text is ("Fortress Turkey" against the world) national pride (it stresses how the Minister claims that his current policy of attempting to get illicitly obtained antiquities back to Turkey is causing panic in foreign museums), it contains much else besides. Including these two segments:

Turkey is accused of double standards and has been sent the message that it also has archaeological artifacts in its hands that it will need to return.

I have no problem with that. If there is international legislation that says all artifacts are to be exhibited on their original soil, we will return everything. But we are in a different situation. Pieces came from Saida and Sur [in Lebanon] – they were Ottoman lands. We have not stolen them from other countries; we have not exploited a lack of awareness or abused some so-called agreements. Our scientists who went there worked legally, like Osman Hamdi Bey and brought back some artifacts. However, if one day there is an international legislation that says, those artifacts that are from lands that are no longer within your borders, we’ll do it. But if we return 200 [artifacts], then the world will have to return back 20,000 artifacts to Turkey.

So you are committed to remaining strong against the anti-Turkish lobby.

Very much so. Actually this lobby is not only against us but against the awakening of all Eastern Europe and Near Asia. Western museums are very concerned about the establishment of a joint policy in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. There is nothing stolen in our museums or in Greece’s museums. But European museums are full of artifacts from Turkey, Greece, Iraq and Syria. That’s why they’re worrying.
There is also passing reference to banning metal detector use, the meaning of which is unclear.

UPDATE September 1st 2015
Ertuğrul Günay was the Minister of Culture and Tourism of Turkey between 29 August 2007 - 24 January 2013. He was replaced three weeks after this interview by Ömer Çelik (in office January 24, 2013 and August 28, 2015).

Tuesday, 1 January 2013

Deaccession in Northampton Still Contested


The deaccession of the Sekhemka statue in Northampton is continuing to raise emotions, though the protest group's facebook page and webpage/blog suggests that they've rather run out of ideas. What is the best way to raise public interest and stimulate informed debate in heritage and antiquity matters?

Has Part of the Staffordshire Hoard been Stolen?

.
Archaeologists continue to ignore the questions raised about artefact hunting. I bet they'll be too busy sticking their heads in the sand to answer this one too from Heritage Action this morning: "Has part of the Staffordshire Hoard been stolen?" - oh, and anyway, does it really matter to them, us or anyone else? They've got lots of bling out of the field, isn't that what British archaeology is all about? Do not hold your breath waiting for an honest answer to that one, not from the Portable Antiquities Scheme, not from English Heritage, not from anyone. [Embarrassed silence, feet shuffling].

2012, That was a year, that was (part two)

.
The second part of my review of the year in antiquities issues seen through the prism of the PACHI blog continues in much the same vein as the first, though there definitely seems to be more action in what has been happening over the past six months.


The beginning of July began with a bitter taste as the Americans running the Save ElHibeh campaign were not interested in proper disdussion of the issues raised (by Peter Tompa) and though I had been very supportive of their efforts in general, threw me off their Facebook page for linking to it. Since no other heritage blog was discussing the case, I am left in the dark about what they actually achieved in the end . Maybe somebody can enlighten me (see here). One of the things this blog is about is how most sides of the antiquities debate cling to stereotypical one-sided views which merely aim to justify their position, one would have at least expected a group of US academics to attempt to pretend at least to a more pluralistic and nuanced approach to the tangled complex of issues, but like everybody else they simply shut out what they did not want to hear. 

 Still in America, there was a surprise ending to the Cabinet W case when it turned out that those dodgy-looking coins seized in New York were indeed (Sicilian?) fakes and  Dr Arnold Peter Weiss was sentenced ... to write an article about how dodgy the coin trade actually is. Perhaps fitting, though many questions about this case remained unanswered - at first under the pretence that it was still 'ongoing', six months later it seems that this was not a true reflection of the situation. Subash Kapoor was to be extradited to India from Germany and the long saga began.  The Khouli case also developed, I discussed the Dead Dad Provenance for some of the artefacts concerned (based on material presented by Rick St Hilaire). The University of Chicago Persian antiquities crisis continued  and is still unresolved. The Cyprus MOU was extended. There was some interesting discussion in the NYT of the smuggling and then theft of the Aleppo Codex. A stolen sarcophagus was found in London in the effects of a deceased antiquities dealer. (Imagined) threats to cultural heritage were used in political black propaganda, when rumours were spread that the Islamist government of Egypt was calling for the dismantling of the pyramids.

July was the month that the PAS-inspired Treasure grabfest TV programme was scheduled, and this blog covered the runup to it (e.g., the appearance of its Webpage ) as well as a running commentary on the programmes themselves which made up a substantial number of posts in July. My popular but premature drinking game did not even approach the full awffulness of the final product, and I covered the many negative comments this ill-advidsed programme atteracted. Even the CBA distanced itself from it in the end. A most disappointing showing.  

August the Kapoor case continued to hold our attention, as were the Koh Ker statues which had been floating around the antiquities market. Several posts on both this month. Greece, Turkey were among the countries still applying pressure to get help to protect their cultural heritage. More information emerged about those sarcophagi in Jerusalem (The London Connection and Israel Bought Smuggled Coffin Lid). Jordan however was maintaining an embarrassed silence about those silly lead codices. Cleveland Museum of Art bought some stuff which produced a flurry of blogging in several places. The Tarby case continued , I began to worry that the lawyers engaged by the dealer were getting a head start on the US government lawyers. Over in England an artefact hunter acting illegally got a rather lenient sentence.There was also some discussion of the scam involving the NCMD and the UK Detecting Code of Practice which many UK detectorists blatantly reject and ignore.

September was a busy month. I actually attended an international coin fair here in Warsaw, met a couple of foreign dealers, including one who's been handling the Spengler coins, sat the other side of the table for a while too - gave a bit to think about. In a notable case, a US Dealer's heirs lost title to some of his coins which lacked documentation of how he got them, it would be nice to think that the principle might in future be extended to undocuemented dugups. Dr Weiss produced his essay suggesting that in the case of buying dugups, "US Collectors Should Lead by Example", I gave the essay a 3- for effort and content, while the editor of the trade paper where it appeared stressed that if people collected more ethically "Collecting Ancient Coins will be Different, but will not die out". Coiney lobbyists on the whole refrained from discussing the issue, except one who saw a 'Conspiracy' behind the case outcome.  Florida fossil dealer Eric Procopi's lawyers kept the US Gubn'mint lawyers on their toes in the Tarby case. There was at last a more sane judgement in the loopy Chabad-Lubavich Library  case. It was in September that a Harvard scholar went prematurely public with an unprovenanced papyrus which purported to refer to Jesus' wife which this blog was among the first to argue from the beginning was a fake, a verdict that over the next few days became more and more generally accepted (though for other reasons than the ones I gave in a series of posts). There was continued concern about the situation in Mali. 

In Britain there was an EES webinar about the antiquities trade, marred a bit by technical difficulties, but a whole range of ideas were presented and discussed (I never finished my third post on that, sorry).  In a related matter, there was (and still is) also a fuss over the deaccession of an Egyptian statue in Northampton. The metal detectorists got quite a bit of cover too. Their non-Green "partners" in Bloomsbury were supporting their call for a BAN on composting green waste. The Crosby Garrett Helmet was loaned by its private owner to a Royal Academy Blockbuster exhibition before being whisked away to hiding again in December. I pointed out that the promnised rethinking of the Treasure Act that the loss of this piece to the national collections prompted seems to have stalled and become another one of those antiquities issues that the British have become so accustomed to sweeping under the carpet hoping that nobody remembers about them. Anyway, still on a Crosby-Garrett theme, the Christies lady was again in the news this month. There was a new definition of that cover-all label "nighthawking" from Glasgow ("the Glasgow Fourth") which disturbingly was reformulated (toned down) on their website when the implications were discussed - so much for the Glasgow Project leading the way in getting tough with culture crime. English Heritage was caught making some PAS-inspired   stupid comments on the Chesil Iron Age Mirror Grave in September. Sadly enough, they didn't reformulate them when the implications were discussed.

September was the month when a crowd of shaven-headed Polish artefact hunters spent a couple of days taking advantage of Britain's loopy-liberal historical environment 'preservation policies' (I use the term loosely) and the hospitality of the Crown Estates on a private all-Polish artefact grabfest. Their aim is to get the preservation laws back home changed more in line with the British ones. They however seemed less than keen either to appreciate their position here or take the opportunity to discuss this in any detail, preferring a hostile silence. Ich wybor, to nie mój problem. On the subject of another rally, I drew attention to an old video Focus on UK Metal Detecting: Just Three More Years which had been made with apparent reference to something I had earlier said, the lack of responsible recording was what I was drawing attention to, but the original post made two years previously had some very revealing comments added in September 2012. Worth a look by thinking people. My blood boiled when I found out that two metal detector users (Scott Mitchell and Allan Oakley) have admitted stealing coins and other artefacts from a protected Roman site in Baylham (Baylham Rare Breeds Farm), near Needham Market which I know very well. The site is regularly done over by nighthawks, including some who are very violent men.
    In October, we saw the first anniversary of the US cutting UNESCO funding - which has still not been reinstated. At the same time a collector was for some reason named UNESCO Goodwill Ambassador. The big, and surprising, news was that the previously obdurate SLAM had apparently belatedly decided to do the decent thing about the Ka Nefer nefer mask (the details of the deal have not yet been revealed). In this month too, the ICE held a media circus to celebrate some repatriations of Mexican stuff, thogh increasingly critical voices are becoming associated with these events, such as questions whether such hoo-haa only serves to deflect attention from the smuggled antiquities that ar being missed as they pass through the US borders. Also how many convictions are associated with these "repatriations"? In a surprise development in the Tarby case, Florida fossils dealer and professional palaeontologist Eric Procopi was arrested, were his lawyers doing too well? Anyway with the new problems this produced, the dealer at this point engaged a new lawyer. A US tour guide was US Tour Guide sentenced heavily for fossils theft in Alaska.  An American woman caught leaving Macedonia with coins and antiquities in her luggage was sentenced, though not without a huge amount of revealing emotional special pleading back home. In Basel an alleged portable antiquities smuggling ring was bust, and in Iraq, antiquity smugglers are still being arrested. Violence and looting in Bangladesh was followed by an influx of dealers. In Pakistan, police resources are stretched by trying to prevent looting.

    The court case concerning the ACCG's Baltimore Illegal Coin Import Stunt reached what seemed to be the end... (oh, yes, you've guessed it - see below). The US Coineys continue to act as though they have drawn a battle line, and continue their shameful personal attacks on anyone who thinks differently about irresponsible collecting, even fellow numismatists. US dealers and collectors were trying desperately to overturn a New York court ruling that obliges them to reveal the name of consigners. The fate of this bid remains unknown. In another case involving provenance and commerce, Rabbi Menachem Youlus ws finally sentenced for fraudulently misrepresenting the origins of Torah scrolls he was selling, a verdict it seems many readers of this blog were impatient to learn.

    A map of reported looting hotspots seems to show that Britain is particularly badly affected by this problem. It is also exporting it, a Lothians man went metal detecting in Poland and found coins,  apparently oblivious to the local laws.   Two Treasure cases were in the news in October, the Sandridge solidus hoard where some leaked (but subsequently hidden) videos revealed some interesting activities associated with this find. The other case was the attempt to raise the cash for the Bredon Hill Hoard which actually had an archaeological context. the cash was raised and the hoard was not scattered by being sold to dealers and collectors.  There was a discussion here with a rather cantankerous Dutch tekkie on metal detecting ethics , and a few comments on find recovery rates by artefact hunters, and another case of illegal artefact hunting targeting a known site. Discussion of the "Glasgow Fourth" continued with one artefact hunter announcing that he'd get loads of archaeologist "partners" to denounce the definition of illegal behaviour and he would publish them all. Needless to say, to judge from what subsequently happened, not a single archaeologist sent him a publishable comment opposing what the Glasgow team had said. There is also a discussion of a survey of metal detectorists by Suzie Thomas, published on the Glasgow Trafficking Culture Project's website. Finally at the announcement that the popular and successful TV archaeology programme "Time Team" was coming off air , the hostility of some artefact hunters towards archaeologists in general was revealed by some of the reactions.
     
    Throughout this part of the year, I continued to demonstrate - with verifiable reference to real-life cases - that the idealistic rosy picture painted by both artefact hunters with metal detectors (as well as no-questions-asked coin dealers and collectors across the seas) about their aims and activities fails totally to correlate with the far more complex realities of both milieux. It is only by wholly ignoring these issues that anyone can even begin to contemplate calling these people their "partners" - but that is exactly what the British establishment does, and most likely will continue to do.

    Vignette: a long-missing, twice-stolen hippocamp turns up. 
     
    Creative Commons License
    Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.