Ooo, those Tekkies

Over on Twitter when I questioned a (former) FLO's praise of a recent fluff newspaper article as a 'balanced' account of the issues surrounding collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record, I got into a discussion with a tekkie (Warren Astley, Detectorist, History, Archaeology (sic), Kitchen Fitter, Ex, Royal Artillary (sic); Coalville, Leicester, England) who said too that the article was 'fantastic' [emoticon]

Warren Astley@warren_astley·7 wrz
More finds are made each year through Metal Detectorist than conventional Archeology and its recorded be it from Clubs to individuals we all have a duty to protect our heritage and nurture new generation that are passionate about our past, there are certain individuals that dont.

My response to that (the FLO ducked out and the PAS copied in declined to engage) was to point out that this

"new generation that are passionate about our past" will not thank the present "me-me-me" generation with its tens of thousands of scattered ephemeral personal artefact collections by then dispersed) and hundreds of thousands trashed sites in the UK alone. They simply will not.

and then in response to the 'mine's bigger than yours' penis-comparing contest Mr Astley wanted to use as his argument, I happened to have written a blog post that related to what he had said:

Many thousand MORE artefacts are dug up during collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record in Britain than are currently being, or ever will be, recorded, this is a net loss of knowledge and utter scandal/ Quite a lot that do not, in fact it seems its the huge majority Worrying Statistics the PAS-supporters Will Not Share With You about EBay, 99.8% of artefacts sold by British artefact hunters and dealers are not reported to the PAS /So, Where is this"balance", when the PAS itself cannot bring itself to publicly and loudly air the massive shortfall between the fine words they themselves use of the artefact hunting community as a whole (a"responsible majority") and actual practice? It's public-funded nonsense. 

I also added that the mere digging of "finds"/objects out of an archaeological site by artefact hunting does not generate information. I asked "which produces a greater understanding of the past in all its aspects, please tell us. How would one understand the"finds" without archaeology? What is the PAS if not archaeology?". There was no answer to that relevant question. Instead we got this:

Warren Astley@warren_astley do @PortantIssues @exleicflo i@findsorguk 7 wrz
Most detectorist who have a passion for the hobby are also pretty clued up with regards to artifacts and there use time lines and also conservation , they also record there location and work closely with most FLO,s to protect our history.

Clued up? This one cannot distinguish "their" from "there" or make a plural of FLO. Anyway in the context of what I had said, I asked for clarification of  "there used time lines" and how "history" is  "protected"

when archaeological sites are dismantled to get (only) the collectables out and into your pockets? That's like the Buddha heads at Angkor?

Because of course that is excactly what it is. I then added the point just to expand on the 'greater understanding of the past in all its aspects' through achaeology and its methodology (the PAS and FLO still being absent):

Paul Barford@PortantIssues·7 wrz  do @warren_astley @exleicflo i @findsorguk
An actual archaeologist would in the same circumstances not only already be as 'clued up' on all these aspects but in particular record a good deal more than the bare 'location' of selected removed objects to protect ALL the information of which its location is just one small part.

That seems pretty clear to me (except I am still unclear what he meant by "there used time lines" and how you can protect something by trashing it with a spade). But before Mr Astley could respond, another tekkie (new to Twitter - he's a "will of the people, I'll never vote again" bloke apparently from N. Wales) joins in:

richard wills@rickwills40·18 min
Like to know how you do that on a field that's been ploughed . Most modern fields are ploughed , even pasture ,if you know your farming . Most finds are in danger of destruction and most definitely not in their original position .

Now, actually I do 'know my farming', and pedology/soil profiles. Many areas of land in western Europe fenced into fields or not, and certainly in North Wales in fact have not been ploughed in modern times, much of North Wales because the soil is crap and the slopes too steep - but they are detected anyway.

As for recording a good deal more about a pattern of archaeological evidence across the surface of a ploughed field that goes beyond just an x-marks-the-spot note of where the most collectable objects came from (which is, as I said, just a part of the whole pattern), I really do not know where the FLO is now. This is FLO work. That's what they are paid to do, explain to members of the public 'to raise awareness among the public of the educational value of archaeological finds in their context', no matter if that's a well, or a ploughed field. Or is that just words?

How do we do it in a ploughed field? Well, there's a lot of literature out there about fieldwalking techniques, gridding, sampling procedures nd so on. Lots of it. The PAS website of course does not link to any of it (even though I did spend a long time a number of years ago creating a bibliography of them for their forum - now gone). But there is a handy guide (as far as I can see not linked either on the PAS website - see a pattern here?) Our Portable Past, Guidance for Good Practice (revised version, published 20 February 2018).

Creating a Good Impression: PAS Statistics are not what they seem (1)

What was the PAS database set up to do?  Wikipedia has this to say:

In March 1996, during the run-up to the passing of the new Treasure Act, what was then the Department of National Heritage (DNH) (now the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS)) published Portable Antiquities. A discussion document. The aim of this document was to complement the impending Treasure Act, address the issue of non-treasure archaeological finds and to propose solutions for dealing with these. The general response to the DNH’s proposals was that the recording of all archaeological finds was important and that a consistent voluntary scheme to record finds should be established. As a result, in December 1996, the DNH announced that funding would be provided for two years for a programme of six pilot schemes, starting in September 1997.

The rest is history, even though '1984'-like, that history is altered by selective removal of information from the Internet. Paper however remains. Here's Roger Bland in 2008:

The document set out proposals for a voluntary scheme for the reporting of finds that fall outside the scope of the 1996 Treasure Act and sought views. All those who responded agreed that the recording of all archaeological finds was important and that there was a need to improve the current arrangements, and they stressed that this could not be done without additional resources. For the first time there was a consensus among both archaeologists and detector users that a voluntary scheme offered the best way forward [...] The principal aim of the Scheme is to arrest the large level of archaeological information lost every year by actively recording this material on a systematic basis for public benefit [...]  we will all be the losers if we fail to record their finds. 

But of course the record of Treasure finds is assured by law. Then there is this from Margaret Hodge Minister of State (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) (Culture, Creative Industries and Tourism) 22 January 2008,

I cannot conclude a speech on the treasure system without also paying tribute to the excellent role that is played by the PAS. This scheme runs parallel to the treasure system and provides a network, as hon. Members have suggested, through which non-treasure material discovered by amateur archaeologists and other enthusiasts can be identified and recorded. The finder gets to find out more about her or his discovery; a bank of information is built up for the benefit of everyone through the publicly accessible database, and the finds can be displayed and interpreted for the benefit of the public [...] That is a really wonderful thing and represents a marvellous step forward in the democratisation of the study of our past.

and not just grabby artefact hunters and collectors. Cambridge seems not to have heard by 2014 that you are no expected to bowdlerise the account and pretend the Scheme was always there not to be a specific kind of record, but just to be a public showcase of everything they can get their hands on:

The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) is a national initiative funded by the Department of Culture, Media and Sport and host organisations. The scheme is based at the British Museum and was set up to work with - and extended - the 1996 Treasure Act by recording non-treasure finds made by members of the public.

So, despite what is happening now, the PAS was set up to deal only with non-Treasure finds made by members of the public, as the Treasure items by law are dealt with (and reported) under a different system. But the problem was that the 'success rate' was not big enough to impress. So, quietly, and without any public debate the PAS decided to quietly include Treasure items on the PAS database, which duplicates their report elsewhere under the Treasure Act (and apart from anything else uses up resources set aside for the PAS). This is just a cynical manner of adjusting' the statistics to make it look as if the PAS is having more success getting 'voluntary' reporting from artefact hunters.

Ask them how much and you'll find out that they have been contacted by "14000 metal detector users and others" (Bland, Lewis et al 2017, p. 112). Note that "and others" and then take into account that this was over a 20-year period (and in those statistics, compiled perhaps from annual reports, is the same detectorist coming to the Scheme once a year for three years and met once at a rally counted once, or four times?)

To be continued: Creating a Good Impression: PAS Statistics are not what they seem (2)

Reference:
Roger Bland, Michael Lewis, Daniel Pett, Ian Richardson, Katherine Robbins and Rob Webley 2017, ‘The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and Wales’, pp. 107-121 [in:] Gabriel Moshenska (ed.) Key Concepts in Public Archaeology, London (UCL) DOI: 10.2307/j.ctt1vxm8r7.12

Creating a Good Impression: PAS Statistics are not what they seem (2)

Continued from  Creating a Good Impression: PAS Statistics are not what they seem (1)

What happens to PAS statistics concerning the success of voluntary recording if we remove the records not made as a result of voluntary recording by artefact hunters? There are at least three groups of these extraneous data which are included alongside the figures (V) for voluntary reporting by artefact hunters:

A) chance finds made by members of the public who are not engaged in collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record (my mum with a samian sherd from her rose garden, Bob the Builder who finds a Roman coin in upcast of a storm water drain trench on a building site). There is in fact no easy way to separate  these finds out from the rest except manually, as the current form of the advanced search of the database does not filter 'discovery method'.

B) Material coming from two archaeologist-compiled existing databases that contain information that does not all come from public finds. In late March 2010, the  Celtic Coin Index was amalgamated with the PAS database (and there is no filter in 'advanced search' to exclude them from the general records). The CCI database added some 37925 records to the PAS database, boosting overnight the number of Celtic coins recorded there from a few thousand to nearly 40000.

The Iron Age and Roman Coins of Wales Database was a one-year research project (2003-04) of the Cardiff School of History and Archaeology run by Dr Peter Guest (and Research Assistant Nick Wells). It gathered onto a database information on published and unpublished Welsh finds of Iron Age and Roman coins (excavated assemblages, hoards, casual single finds and indeterminate groups of coins, among them those recovered by metal detector or field walking and reported through the PAS). In the end, details of 52,838 coins (the vast majority dating to the Roman period) from 1,172 find spots were collected. The information was published as a detailed corpus. In March 2010, the dataset of this project was amalgamated with the Portable Antiquities Scheme database ‘significantly increasing the number of coins available for study’ and again boosting PAS record numbers. It is unknown here too whether there had been significant overlap between these two databases. Again there is no filter to remove these results from the general statistics.

To summarise, in 2010 the PAS database was stealthily increased by 39097 records of 90763 objects by adding these two databases - duplicating information available at the time elsewhere.

C) Treasure finds, reported by law.  Fortunately the 'advanced search' does contain the possibility of filtering out Treasure finds included in the PAS database. There is a button near the top of the search terms form. Pressing it gives some pretty surprising results. It turns out that there are nearly a quarter of a million additional finds on the database from this source (234,487 objects in 13599 records). There are 980 multiple-object hoards represented (one with 52504 coins in it) You can sort the results by the time they were added to the record. While a few Treasure items had been incidentally added to the database from June 1998, it seems there was a change in policy and a concerted effort to add them from August/September 2007. (Statistical analysis of the database for Saturday 1st August 1998 until Wednesday 1st August 2007 Total objects recorded: 285810 Total records: 187454).

To summarise, from August 2007 to now the PAS database has been openly increased by 13599 records of 234487 objects by adding treasure finds - duplicating information available at the time elsewhere in the Treasure reports prepared according to the Treasure Act art. 12.

So let's fix it for the PAS. Their blurb today proudly reads "1,438,864 objects within 923,127 records". But that result is A+B+C+V. if we want to know V, we have to extract B and C (but can't do much about A). The result is:

"([1,438,864 - 325,250] objects within [923,127 - 52,696] records") =

1,113,614 objects within 670,431 records.

How does that 'V' look in the twenty-year perspective and knowing that there are probably 27000 tekkies out there? Not very impressive. Those revised figures presented on a twenty-year scale come out at 43522 records annually, or 55681 objects. Far from the massive success claimed. It's actually less than two objects each (and remember, these figures are A+B).

British Archaeological Jobsworthism Needs Outing

UK archaeological-
collecting partnership

More marginalising concerns by the establishment about the archaeological consequences of the current UK status quo on Collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record (aka looting), heritage Action:

So we remain convinced that a 2009 excavation measuring 10 x 14 yards, a 2010 follow up excavation comprising 110 yards of trenches and pits and a 2012 survey using patently inadequate metal detectors will NOT have revealed all that is there. It’s not good enough, as better equipped nighthawks have known very well ever since. We shall resist suggestions we’re hysterical or ill-informed.

HA: "The Staffordshire Hoard: no, we won’t desist or be dismissed as ill-informed…." 08/09/2019
British archaeological jobsworthism  needs outing... why aren't British archaeologists doing that in the case of artefact-hunting related issues? (Rhetorical question).

Some Awkward Statistics the PAS-supporters Will Not Share With You

As we all know, PAS pretends to be monitoring eBay for Treasure items (here too as 'public archaeology'), but they're not really making public comments about anything they have found there, have you noticed? This is part of something that I am (still) working on that has to be at the foreign publishers early next week. Still a draft:

"For the purpose of this paper, the UK portal of eBay (https://www.ebay.co.uk/) was examined by the present writer 18th August 2019. It was found that on that day in the section labelled ‘British antiquities’ on sale by dealers based in the UK only, there were 13825 antiquities (4563 small objects and 9262 coins - 20 Celtic, 5414 Roman and 3828 ‘hammered’ coins -Anglo-Saxon to Tudor). Some were being sold in short-term ‘snap’ auctions, while others would be displayed for 30 days or until they were sold. The number of sellers involved cannot easily be precisely established, but may be estimated as upward of 1200 at the time of the investigation, but was probably more. Fay (2013, 201-2) found that 52% of the artefacts and 74% of the coins on the portal when she monitored it were actually sold during the period they were on offer. The ones that were not sold are often relisted and many eventually find a buyer.
The material offered for sale in 2008 and 2019 consisted mainly of coins and small objects but in terms of their typology(Fay 2013 pp 202-3, 204-5, table 9) the selection on sale was not representative of typical excavated archaeological assemblages. In 2008, over 38% of the assemblage was made up of ancient jewellery, mainly brooches and rings, a further 23% can be described as domestic and personal objects (buckles and clothes fasteners are common), 22% as weapons or tools (mainly axes and arrowheads). The largest percentage was made up of small bronze items 32%, with flint and stone objects comprising 16% and pottery only 12% (and iron 4%).
Leaving aside the coins, the small objects on offer on eBay in August 2019 ranged in sale price (‘buy now’ prices only were analysed) between GBP5 and several over GBP1000. Of these, 70% of the objects were on sale for 5-40 GBP a further 18% were valued in the middle range of 40-110, while the remaining 12% were offered for higher prices. [aside: I regret now that I did not do the same for hammered coins as well]
Most of these artefacts were most probably authentic archaeological finds. It seems that where one can tell, in the low price range at least 3-4% have the appearance of foreign artefacts (with odd typology or patina) being offered as British finds, and a small percentage (about 1%?) being fakes. In the middle price range,  the number of object that may be strongly suspected as being foreign finds ‘laundered’ as British rises to at least 20% (though the real figure may be higher) – these figures mainly refer to the offerings of the larger dealers. There may be some fakes here too. Most of the more obvious fake antiquities were in the higher value end of the range (particularly above 100 GBP, with some on offer for considerably more).
Very few of the descriptions of the objects being sold contain even sketchy provenances and collecting histories – and few sellers indicate that any such information is available at all. None contain the information that there is a document from the owner of the property where the object was found assigning title. Particularly shocking is that only a few sellers (in fact eleven) give the information that the objects they are selling have been recorded by archaeologists (the PAS see below), this means that only 22 items out of the total of 4563 small objects have been recorded (0.48%). Among the coins and tokens, it is even worse, only five (0.05%) have been recorded (none Roman, one Celtic, the rest medieval and later).
The considerable number of artefacts being offered through venues like eBay are of course are those that were collected in the field during artefact hunting but superfluous to the collecting needs of those that found them. The numbers on open sale hint at the size of the accumulations of decontextualised archaeological material making up unknown numbers of scattered and ephemeral personal collections of archaeological artefacts in the UK. Even if not every one of these items is sold immediately, or is not in fact an authentic artefact (and perhaps not all items marketed as British finds in reality come from British soil), this shows the scale of the market involved, and the damage being done to archaeological sites all over the country by collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record".

Look at that, for all the fluffy talk about a "majority" of "responsible" artefact hunters out there and a "minority' of irresponsible ones....  only eleven sellers in a thousand give the information that the objects they are selling have been recorded by the PAS - 0.48% of the artefacts and 0.05% of the coins. The overall statistic is that of these groups of British-found artefacts being sold to collectors, is that 0.195% are recorded, that means 99.80% are going onto the market totally unreported. That's 99.80%, don't anyone try to tell me that artefact hunting with metal detectors is producing archaeological knowledge.

And why are those figures "awkward"? PAS?

Looking Dodgy: Aberrant Dead Sea Scroll Now Known to Have Another Singularity

The Dead Sea scrolls 'have given up fresh secrets, with researchers saying they have identified a previously unknown technique used to prepare one of the most remarkable scrolls of the collection' (Nicola Davis, 'Dead Sea scrolls study raises new questions over texts' origins' Guardian Fri 6 Sep 2019) Analysis shows that an alum sizing layer under the writing on the Temple Scroll differ from the methods used to prepare the other Qumran scrolls

The results suggest the writing surface is largely composed of sulfate salts, including glauberite, gypsum and thenardite – minerals that dissolve in water and are left behind when the water evaporates. However, the researchers say these salts are not typical for the Dead Sea region, raising questions of where exactly they came from.

It also raises the question of whether that scroll really was found (as the Bedouin artefact hunters who sold them to a local dealer in or about 1956 said) in the Qumran caves at all. It is not a properly grounded artefact.

‘Forging Antiquity: Authenticity, Forgery & Fake Papyri’

Part of the 'Forging Antiquity' Project

‘Forging Antiquity: Authenticity, Forgery and Fake Papyri’ 19 September 2019, Macquarie University Sydney, Australia

Every interpretation of the past involves some creative imposition and, yet, folk understandings of the historian’s task admit no room for this rich dynamic between known and unknown, us and them. The idea that the past is made and made through our engagement with it seems to threaten the integrity of our sense of where we come from and who we are. The stakes are even higher when it comes to antiquity understood as material remains, as object of art or inquiry. Particular ire is reserved for those who compromise the guarantee of truth and immediacy offered by the physical reality of the material by adjustment, appropriation, or downright fabrication. Looted or forged artefacts packaged up with false declarations of authenticity and fictional accounts of provenance speak to the criminal underbelly of our engagement with the ancient world. These objects exploit the vanity of our confidence in scientific technique and expertise. Deviant artefacts upset traditional assumptions about the protection afforded the past by the academy. They open up the past to contributions made by marginalised groups and to creative interventions which demonstrate how porous, how live, and how important the past is today. From Thucydides to the New Testament, Zoroaster to hieroglyphs, from Egypt to e-Bay, this showcase will highlight research undertaken as part of the Australian Research Council-funded Project ‘Forging Antiquity: Authenticity, forgery, and fake papyri’, featuring presentations from Macquarie staff and students, and our overseas partners.

Speakers and paper titles

(all speakers from Macquarie University except where noted)

Richard Bott, ‘Assumed Authenticity: Expertise, Authentication, and the Sheikh Ibada Fakes’

Malcolm Choat, ‘Constantine Simonides and his New Testament Papyri’

Lauren Dundler, ‘#antiquitiesdealers – The Construction of Dealer Persona in the Internet Antiquities Market’

Isabelle Marthot-Santaniello (University of Basel), ‘The challenges of Writer Identification on papyrus’

Vanessa Mawby, George Topalidis, and Penny Blake, ‘Theopompus (of Chios?) and his Hieroglyphs: Constantine Simonides and 19th century Egyptology’

Rachel Yuen-Collingridge, ‘Forgery as an act of creative decolonisation: Constantine Simonides between Thucydides and Zoroaster’

'Forging Antiquity: Authenticity, forgery and fake papyri' is an Australian Research Council Discovery Project. Here's their blurb:

To forge is creative, but forgery now means creating a fake. ‘Forging Antiquity’ explores this ambiguous dichotomy by situating an examination of forged papyri within an historical analysis of the development of forgery, authentication techniques, and public debates over forgeries from the 19th century to the present day. By contextualising technical study of fakes within analysis of strategies of authenticating ancient papyri, traditional and emerging de-authentication practices, and the cultural context of forgery, its outcomes will provide a tool for future assessments of authenticity, illuminate the parallel development of the professional personae and skills of forgers and authenticators, and contribute to debate on who has the authority to pronounce on the past. The project is supported by an Australian Research Council Discovery project grant from 2017–2019, and is a collaboration between Macquarie University and the University of Heidelberg.

There is a small gallery of fake papyri, illustrating the sort of material there is today on the market eagerly bought by collectors.

Canadian Court’s Decision on Provenance a “Big Warning to Art Dealers”

“If the [art] buyer receives a provenance that is not accurate, they will be able to obtain legal remedy,” Leah Sandals, 'Court’s New Morrisseau Forgery Decision a “Big Warning to Art Dealers”...' Canadian Art 5th September 2019

An Ontario Court of Appeal decision, released September 3, ruled that Maslak-McLeod Gallery of Toronto had breached a contract with art collector Kevin Hearn when it sold him a Norval Morrisseau painting with unreliable—and likely false—provenance documents. Though the decision did not say the painting Hearn purchased was an outright forgery or fake, the appeal judges did say it mattered that the provenance was false. [...] the Gallery’s provision of a valid provenance statement was a term of the purchase and a warranty, not mere puffery,” the new appeal decision states. [...]
“I would describe this decision as a big warning to art dealers,” says Jonathan Sommer, the lawyer who represented Hearn in court at the initial trial. (Matt Fleming and Chloe Snider of Dentons LLP represented Hearn during the appeal.) “What the court of appeal has said is that accurate provenance is one of those things that for the art world is extremely important.” To be clear, Sommer adds, “If the potential purchaser of a painting comes in and asks for provenance,” Sommer adds, “you better make sure it’s right or you could end up like McLeod did here, being liable for civil fraud—which will not only cost you your money but cost you your reputation too.” Alternatively, if complete provenance or guarantees of authenticity are not available, art dealers must be clear about that, using language such as “attributed to” and also being willing to reduce prices significantly. At the same time, Sommer is clear about art buyers’ need to be vigilant about what’s on offer: “I will always advise people to get dealers to put their money where their mouth is, with full provenance statements and guarantees of authenticity—or no sale.”

Republic of Yemen becomes a State Party to 1970 UNESCO Convention

Republic of Yemen became a State Party to the main international treaty to combat cultural racketeering, the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transport of Ownership of Cultural Property. Deborah Lehr:

"Now that #Yemen has taken the important step of [becoming a state party] of the UNESCO Convention, we call on the international community to do its part to help protect the country’s heritage for future generations”.

Especially Israel. Look at the number of Yemeni artefacts on eBay being sold from Israel.

UK Chancellor 'Declares End of Austerity'

HMG Complacency

Dearbail Jordan, 'Chancellor Sajid Javid declares end of austerity' BBC 4th September 2019   

The government has declared it has "turned the page on austerity" as it set out plans to raise spending across all departments. Chancellor Sajid Javid outlined £13.8bn of investment in areas including health, education and the police in what he said was the fastest increase in spending for 15 years.

So, the PAS will be getting the funding it needs to keep up with the increasiong rate at which the British public are finding finds then, and saving that information for posterity. Yes?

But the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, accused Mr Javid of "meaningless platitudes". "Do not insult the intelligence of the British people," he added. He accused the government of "pretending to end austerity when they do nothing of the sort".

Still, they are putting 20000 new riot police on the streets, so everybody can feel safe when the Government reaps the rewards of their treatment of the country.

The Bosnian Metal Detectorists and an 'Ice Age Advanced Civilization'

Photo Nicola Scheyhing

Nicola Scheyhing @PrehiStorytellr visited Bosnia and Herzigowina and found herself visiting the so-called 'Bosnian Pyramids' at Visoko... (for those that don't know, natural hills misidentified as 34000 year old man-made monuments created by an advanced civilisation and now promoted in the name of boosting tourism). These 'sites' are visited by 60 000 people annually. She tweets on the experience (and I learn what "orgonite" is - wow).

Visiting the site, she says: 'there was a possibility to visit „the excavations“, but just with a guided tour, which was [... ] possible with a „voluntary donation“ of five Euros. This was also „voluntarily asked for“ at the other two spots and is used to fund the „investigations“....', but then:

Nicola Scheyhing @PrehiStorytellr · 16 godz.
Even a group appeared from the „investigation area“, carrying metal dectectors. They spoke with a group of Italian women, so I understood that they were there for looking for traces of a settlement structure. 34 000 years old. Via metal detector.

What are archaeologists doing wrong that anybody using a metal detector as a primary tool can claim to be an "archaeologist" and get away with it?

Secondly, a claim for an advanced civilisation in the mountain areas of southeastern Europe 34k years ago, I do not think we can expect the average member of the public going to this site to work out that this is somewhere in the middle of Marine Oxygen Isotope Stage 3 (cf 'Ålesund interstadial' times), but perhaps the term Last Ice Age (Würm glaciation) might somehow impinge on their consciousness and pique their curiosity? Or is that expecting too much of a modern school history curriculum?

Detectorists: A peculiarly British Band of Knowledge Thieves

I do not see how any archaeologist can say this:

Wendy Scott @exleicflo · 5 min
Very good, balanced piece on detecting by Ben Macintye in yesterdays Times. @findsorguk #recordyourfinds

Ben Macintyre, 'Detectorists: A peculiarly British band of time-travellers' Sunday Times 31.08.2019

Here's her photo of it, as the Times want you to pay for their "quality journalism" online, all well and good if that is what you are getting for that money. In this case this text is far from "balanced", or even factual:

I think Mr Macintyre is trying to be funny (and when will we see again factual articles on heritage theft with photos of real heritage-takers and not the fictional pair in this article?) The text gives a fluffy-bunny account of the Chew Valley Hoard find and then the Coil to the Soil Rally where the topic is not the destruction of part of the archaeological record but a drug-laced cake. The leitmotif? "Here are two sides of the metal detecting coin, important history and a gentle sort of British madness". Believing firmly that the situation is considerably more multi-aspectual than this  dichotomous dumbdown pap, I really think we could have deserved better from the Sunday Times - as I said in two tweets replying to the ex-Leicestershire FLO:

Paul Barford @PortantIssues · 3 min   In what way would you say this is "balanced"? It is also not true that you need a detecting permit in Scotland, is it? It is not only nighthawks that sell artefacts on ebay without them being PAS-recorded is it? We have again a black and white, a "balanced" text would pay an equal amount of attention to the "grey" area, the many tens (?) of thousands that do not report much of what they find (he says there are 50k tekkies - if so MASSIVE underreporting - is that not worth being the main topic of a 'balanced' text?)

I doubt it will get much of a reply, FLOs are trained to say fluffy things about 'metal detecting', few of them like being asked to actually think through what they say. Until they do start telling the public like it is, until journalists STOP writing fluffy crap, the problem of the massive destruction of the archaeological record under British archaeologists - apparently wholly unconcerned - noses will continue. That's the real British madness.

It's Not Working, Dr Fischer

Paul Harper, 'British museum returns Babylon treasure looted from Iraq after US invasion', Metro Friday 30 Aug 2019

The British Museum will hand the tablets back to the Iraq National Museum. Hartwig Fischer, Director of the British Museum, said: ‘We are absolutely committed to the fight against illicit trade and damage to cultural heritage. ‘This is an issue which concerns us all. I am delighted that we are able to assist in the return of these important objects to Iraq.’ [...] The British Museum displays extremely valuable looted treasures.  

It is not the British Museum that is handing these objects back, but HM government, the BM is just a box where they are stored. The BM has done nothing much about illicit trade of objects on the British antiquities market, they once made a pretence at monitoring EBay for illegally-handled treasure items from the UK, but that today is nothing more than an old news item, hundreds of dodgy objects go through eBay with no reaction from them (I reported some items a few months ago, the PAS/BM staff told me in effect to buzz off and chase it up myself with the local police station of the home of the seller in the UK - letters on file if you doubt that). Likewise the PAS actively promotes artefact hunting as some form of  white-guys' "citizen archaeology". It's just the brown skinned folk in places like Iraq they will criticise.  Likewise their cunies and sculptures in that big long gallery in the BM were dug up by white guys and taken away from the brown guys when they could damage the cultural heritage of archaeological sites all over the Middle East, and now their own self-proclaimed 'empowerment' has been taken away, they are jealously making sure nobody else can try to reap the same benefits.

Friday Retrospect: The Ethical Collector

 

'The Ethical collector' (First published Monday, 11 August 2008)

Avoiding 'dodgy antiquities', human
remains sold as 'ancient art' (sic)

The hobby of collecting portable antiquities is attracting more and more negative attention in the world's media, as well it might, certain elements within the antiquity trade and those who financially support them by buying matrial no-questions-asked are causing immense erosion of the archaeological record. Those who have the most to lose, including dealers who do not wish their source of supply questioned too deeply, fight vehemently to maintain the status quo. They try by all means to make this a struggle about "ownership rights" rather than conservation. Any attempt to criticise the current situation usually results in the questioner being labelled an "extremist", or "radical" who can only be out (really) "to ban collecting". Hence the aggressive posturing of the collecting lobby that characterises this debate in archaeology to an extent seen in no other.

Are all collectors however oblivious to such criticism as the battle-hardened combatants of what is being increasing portrayed by the diehard nay-sayers as a “war” over personal rights? Are there no collectors who are able to see that there is some, maybe a lot, of justification for the concerns that are expressed by conservationists and others about the current status quo in the portable antiquities trade and the milieu of collecting?

Presumably those ethical and responsible collectors who do their utmost to acquire only legitimately-sourced material and exclude any of unknown or dubious origin from their collections, must feel disgruntled that they are being tarred with the same brush as their less scrupulous fellows all over the world who – nobody can doubt, and whether they admit it or not - are the consumers of increasing quantities of looted and smuggled portable antiquities.

A while ago it became fashionable in collecting circles to persuade the world that the Good Collector has a beneficial influence, an effort still going on in collecting advocacy circles today. There is not a collector of portable antiquities in the world who cannot trot out half a dozen 'reasons' why portable antiquity collecting is a good thing for history, culture, international well-being, clothing the poor, feeding the hungry, bringing relief to the downtrodden. The definition of the type of good collector being referred to by R.J. McIntosh; T. Togola and S.K. McIntosh 1995 seems to have been forgotten. Troubled by the loss of context in the case of many of the items coming onto the market these authors insisted among other things that

the Good Collector casts a jaded eye upon those dealers who insist that their reputation take the place of details of provenance.

This is because dealers are habitually secretive about where the objects they sell actually came from and how they got into their hands. they have, it is true, their codes of practice (sometimes even called codes of ethics), but many of them avoid using wording which actually would restrain the dealer from very much at all. See David Gill's discussion of that of the Ancient Coin Collectors' Guild for an example of the type of problem. The reputation of a dealer in any case in the antiquity buying world is usually built on a dealer's reputation not to sell fakes, rather than ability to obtain legally provenanced artefacts and provide watertight documentation of that fact.

It is therefore the dealers who are most concerned for there to be no move towards an establishment of more a definition of what would constitute ethical collecting (where obviously the provenance and proveninience of the traded items is of paramount concern). As we have seen time and time again, it is often the dealers who set the agenda, define what the collector can and cannot buy, what they can and cannot expect and what they can and cannot believe about their relationship with the archaeological record. To a large extent it is the pressure of the dealers' lobbies which is responsible for the impasse in which we find ourselves today over collecting and its erosive effects on the archaeological record. McIntosh, Togola and McIntosh 1995 therefore add:

the Good Collector will actively demonstrate a willingness to join with like-minded collectors to self police the art market. As a necessary part of this action, they will wrest the dialogue about the ethics of collecting and about relations of source and market nations from the trafficking syndicates and their apologists, where that dialogue about essential ethics is presently lodged

That was thirteen years ago. Where are those Good Collectors now? Why is the non-dialogue still in the hands of the dealers and their supporters? It is interesting to note that ethically-conscious hobbyists have not (38 years after the UNESCO convention) yet created their own code of honour, a code of ethics which sets their part of the collecting milieu apart from the hoi polloi who unquestioningly buy material of unknown origin. Why not?

In May 2008 there was some discussion of these issues on portable artefact collecting forums, and as part of this I put forward as material for discussion some suggestions what an archaeologist might consider such a code would need. The discussion went on for a few weeks, but nothing was formalised. (It is of course symptomatic who on these lists were for and who opposed to the idea of portable antiquity collectors creating such a code of ethics for themselves.) It seems worth setting down here for further reference what I thought at the time such a code should address.

1) Obviously for the archaeologist the important one would be that the responsible collector thinks at all times of the effects of their activity on the finite and fragile archaeological resource. If in any doubt about this, they'd not buy the offered item, no matter how nice it would look in a glass case.

2) From this follows that the responsible collector would not buy objects which have clearly or potentially come from recent/current illegal digging,or illegal export. The responsible collector would not regard the 'good collector' ('offering it a safe home') argument as a sufficient reason to support illegal activity, or to enter such items in their collection. If the dealer cannot provide independently verifiable proof that the object was legitimately obtained, it does not belong in a responsible collector's collection.

3) The responsible collector would recognize their role as a custodian and do their utmost to ensure the well-being of the items in their care.

4) The responsible collector would not split up assemblages of objects belonging together (grave group for example) by buying or selling just one or a few items from a larger associated group. Neither would they dismember and sell separately parts of one complete object.

5) The responsible collector will keep (and add to) in a permanent and ordered form the documentation of individual items, former owners, export papers, conservation reports etc. and pass them on to the next owner. [Obviously it would be ideal to suggest that the responsible collectorwould only dispose of finds to another responsible collector so they know that the carefully curated chain of documentation will be preserved].

6) Each object (or coherent associated group of objects) will be kept separate from others and be identified and catalogued in such a way that itcan be linked with the associated documentation.

7) If the object needs conservation, the responsible collector will have all but the simplest operations carried out by qualified persons and get a full report from them. If they cannot afford this they would avoid buying objects in poor state that need this kind of conservation. The responsible collector would keep photographic records of objects prior to repair and restoration, and be honest and open by describing in writing in their records the amount of repair and restoration undertaken.

8) The responsible collector will liase with the archaeological community where possible about the objects they own. They will endeavour to find out more about the objects they possess (curate) and what they mean. Significant objects (within reason) not be withheld from study. [The codes of ethics ofUS and some European archaeologists hinder this, but only if the objectsare "illicit"]. The responsible collector will endeavour to research their finds and their context and not just pile up some interesting curios.

9) Human remains. For reasons beyond the interest of archaeology and protection of world cultural heritage, collecting these items is clearly un-ethical. The trade in human body parts is subject to different laws indifferent parts of the world and obviously the collector has to respect this.

10) A related point, the responsible collector would respect and display sensitivity towards the nature of certain types of object and religious sanctions of some types belonging to societies still in existence.

11) Fakes, a responsible collector finds out one of the objects they bought is fake. What does he do? Destroy it? Sell it clearly described as a fake? Certainly once this has been ascertained, the object should not be allowed to function as potential historical evidence (The Lie BecameGreat/Muscarella type problems)

12) Disposing of unwanted items. Perhaps things nobody would buy even on eBay. Overcleaned Roman coins for example. Flint knapping waste they acquired once but no longer want in their growing collection. What would a responsible collector do with it? (including preventing it getting into a situation where it contaminates the archaeological record).

Reference:
R.J. McIntosh; T. Togola and S.K. McIntosh 1995 ‘The Good Collector and the premise of Mutual respect Among Nations’, African Arts 28, 60-69.

More on the Heathrow 2011 Cunies Repatriation

Jonathan Taylor @JonTaylor_from the BM expands in a twitter thread, stitched here for the record, on that repatriation yesterday of some seized cunies:

The Times

Over the next few days (because I'm working on something time-critical) I want to expand this in a few different directions. First, some background. /Today we were able to return a seized consignment of 156 cuneiform tablets to Iraq. They come from some of the most badly looted sites : Umma, Larsa and Irisagrig. There must be similar consignments elsewhere in the world. [photo] [see my post here] /They were incorrectly declared on entry to the UK (from UAE) in February 2011. Described as handmade miniature clay tiles (cf. the Hobby Lobby tablet description). Implausible valuation. /HMRC’s [HM Revenue and Customs*] Fraud Investigation Service took action. They were seized from a freight forwarder near Heathrow Airport in June 2013. An investigation is still underway. / Once the objects become legally Crown Property, the British Museum makes arrangements for return to Iraq, in cooperation with the Iraqi Embassy. At no point do such objects become part of the collection. / Iraqi Embassies work to recover looted heritage. They return it to Iraq. In Baghdad, Iraq's Ministry of Foreign Affairs transfers objects to the Ministry of Culture, and thereby to the Iraq Museum. / According to agreed procedures, British Museum provides expertise to law enforcement authorities, produces materials to facilitate registration and cataloguing, and submits a summary article to Iraqi journal, Sumer. / Middle East department has helped return several groups of material to Iraq. Also to Afghanistan and Uzbekistan. Colleagues in other departments do similar work. The Circulating Artefacts project based in the Egypt and Sudan Department is very active and important

See also: Kaya Burgess, 'British Museum returns biggest ever haul of looted artefacts to Iraq'  The Times August 30 2019


*where my dad used to work PMB.

Twittery Meme

'The Dirt' produced a meme, I think it can be applied elsewhere too:

Visit PortantIssues on Twitter

More Cunies Repatriated, Mystery of Source of Supply Endures

Remember ten years ago how the US dealers' lobby (Tompa, Sayles, Welsh the rest of these has-been clowns) were solemnly assuring us that the items looted in Iraq during the US-led invasion and occupation were not reaching the western market and nastily attacking those who said otherwise? Well, it seems that we are becoming aware of more and more of them that did, simply illustrating how much those self-proclaimed "experts" (I use the term loosely) actually knew. Here's another batch:

Jonathan Taylor @JonTaylor_BM · 12 godz.
Today we were able to return a seized consignment of 156 cuneiform tablets to Iraq. They come from some of the most badly looted sites : Umma, Larsa and Irisagrig. There must be similar consignments elsewhere in the world.

In the context of the latter remark, Chasing Aphrodite reminds us of this case from six years back: 'The Rosen Connection: Cornell Will Return 10,000 Cuneiform Tablets to Iraq' (Chasing Aphrodites  November 3, 2013)

The tablets were donated and lent to Cornell by New York attorney Jonathan Rosen, one of the world’s leading collectors of Near Eastern antiquities. [...] The source and ownership history of the Cornell tablets is unclear, as is the cause for their return. Neither Rosen nor the university will say where they were obtained, what their ownership history is or why they are being returned.[...]  Cornell has been criticized for accepting the Rosen Collection by scholars who suspect the tablets were looted from Iraq in the years after the 1991 Gulf War. Federal investigators suspected the same thing, records show.

Among the tablets is the private archive of a 21st century BC Sumerian princess in the city of Garsana

The source of the Garsana tablets was the subject of a 2001 investigation by the Department of Homeland Security[...] The 1,679 tablets were valued at less than $50,000 when they were imported, but the donor received a $900,000 tax deduction when they were given to Cornell in 2000, the records said. Ultimately, there were no findings of wrongdoing because investigators could not determine precisely when or where the objects were found, the records show. Harold Grunfeld, attorney for Jonathan Rosen, said all of the tablets “were legally acquired” and that the federal investigation found “no evidence of wrongdoing.”  

There seems to be a pattern emerging here, but some elements are still obscured by the failure of the media to give information about the people supplying these items to their last possessors.

The repatriates that were stored in the British Museum had been seized at the airport as long ago as 2011 where they were being shipped fallaciously labelled as 'miniature handmade tiles' ('British Museum returns biggest ever haul of looted artefacts to Iraq', Times August 30 2019)

Chew Valley Hoard Fiasco: Some More Questions

it's [now] land under plough

A northern FLO that insists that, unlike the rest of the British public - who are not allowed to know where their heritage has been ripped from - he knows where the Chew Valley Hoard was found. He says so, in a discussion on whether the finders were searching, as was reported in the first accounts of the discovery, on 'unploughed' land. Now, I think the BBC video, apparently made on 25/26th January 2019, shows the site was at that time under grazed (or mown) pasture. But the FLO assures us this is "missinformation" (sic):

Benjamin Westwood Google earth images clearly show it's land under plough

I admit my first thought on reading that was 'NGR'. But later four numbers kept going through my head: 2528, 2546, 2571 and seven months. Then a grammatical point: present simple. Present simple, the land is under the plough, but the point is was the land ploughed when the video was made? To my eyes no. Jude Plouviez denies that this is the case, she sees that video with different eyes:

Thanks Benjamin Westwood, yes I agree it was from ploughed land, never believe what you read in the Daily Mail.....

Or see on BBC videos? But note the past simple. Present simple/past simple. I wonder whether we are missing something here?

To what does the figure 2528 (BBC and most other accounts) refer? The tekkies say that the day they took the bucket in the boot of their car to the BM, they'd counted out the coins. Is 2528 the number of coins they initially deposited, written down on a piece of paper and read out to the journalist? But Gareth Williams reports he'd seen (at least) 2546. So, did someone count wrongly? Or are we seeing a reflection of something else? And the FLO's present simple actually means something that we should know about the collection history of this group of objects?

Imagine it, you are two people involved in the antiquities trade, you work for Hansons, you know how much just one coin of Harold II is worth, you know how much just one coin of William I in good nick is worth. Then you find a hoard of them, but they are under grass, hellishly difficult to dig, the fine stonefree soil is a bit claggy. It starts raining, piddling down. Thunder. You are wet through, but still you keep searching and digging. In January it gets dark early, you keep searching and digging, and digging. 'It's mayhem' you later say. In the end, you call it a day and go home with the claggy coins in a bucket, which you later deliver to the Museum (Mr Staples said of the dig: "We didn't leave the site until we thought we'd got all the coins...). But how can you be sure, digging hastily (why?) in those conditions?

But, even though the coins are in the BM, there is not a public announcement that summat's bin found. Oh no. Because then "the nighthawks" will be there - the story goes. But if the five finders thought they'd got all of the hoard (which is what they now say), the the nighthawks will just find empty mud-filled holes in that field, won't they? It takes seven months for the finders and the BM to admit what they've got. Why, what changed?

Imagine it, what would you do? I suspect a lot of us at the earliest opportunity would take a few days off work to get back down there and check that every single coin had been gathered. I think most people would go there several times, tell the landowner about latest progress in the BM, cleaning those muddy coins, what's there, how much it's going to be worth... the farmer jumps for joy too. And from time to time, there'd be a trip to the BM with a few coins that had been fond after the main batch. Hence the changed numbers. That would seem to be a logical explanation, would it not?

But all that digging. In the grass. Now, if at the end of January, we see a field under grass, it means there was no winter crop there. Later on in the year, its still going to be grass. Longer grass, more matted grass. Difficult-to-get-yer-coil-to-the-soil grass and troublesome-to-get-your-spade-in grass. Yeah? Are you with me?

One way to make the search easier, and be sure its easy to dig would be simply to plough it. This is what many tekkies ask farmers to do before they organise a commercial rally on a farm that is 'difficult'. The ploughing brings more deeply-buried artefacts up to the surface and makes hoiking and pocketing them easier. There are many references on the forums about this being common practice,. But of course it can completely trash the upper part of the archaeological deposits just below the part previously plough-disturbed. OK, the FLO says that the Chew Valley Hoard paddock is NOW 'land under plough'. Was it in January 2010, and on which Google Earth time slices is it also shown as ploughed land? Could the FLO answer that question honestly? Or just tell the public where this place is so we can judge for ourselves. How much additional damage was done to the archaeology of the site between January 2019 and now and by whom?

Hansons Antiquities Department specialists, Adam Staples and Lisa Grace

Here's the metal detecting duo featured at Hansons

Historica is a new specialist Coins and Antiquities department at Hansons Auctioneers and Valuers, running quarterly auctions of treasures from our historical past.
From gold, silver and bronze coins, to weapons, tools, jewellery, dress fittings, horse trappings, religious items and ceramics, these items will offer a true glimpse into the past.
Department specialists, Adam Staples and Lisa Grace commented, 'at Historica, we have a real passion for these items and priding ourselves on quality and authenticity, we aim to service a growing public interest in our heritage.'
Adam and Lisa have worked in the field of antiquities and coins for almost 36 years between them. From 'Finds Advisors' on metal detecting forums to regularly writing articles for ‘The Searcher Magazine’ (a metal detecting finds publication), bringing a wealth of experience to Hansons.
Adam and Lisa have worked with museums both at home and abroad, even visiting Croatia twice to work with archaeologists searching for a Roman battle site. Furthermore, they have spent five years identifying and recording finds for the 'United Kingdom Detector Finds Database' which records our heritage for future generations. They have also recorded finds with the Portable Antiquities Scheme, the Fitzwilliam Museum and Oxford University Archaeology Department's Celtic Coin Index, uncovering several previously unknown types of coin along the way.

Chew Valley Hoard Fiasco: Time Discrepancy

I have already drawn attention to the aspect of 'numbers' in the ongoing Chew Valley Hoard Fiasco, nobody can get the number of coins right. There is also a huge time discrepancy. By law, the finders have 14 days to report potential Treasure. In this case, "all" the coins were in the British Museum the day after they were hastily hoiked from the ground in a raging rainstorm. Yet it took seven whole months for the public to learn that part of the archaeological heritage was above-ground. Since it all about getting knowledge of 'Treasure' finds in the public domain, why does the Treasure Act place all of the obligations on the finder to report to the authorities representing the public interest, but zero obligations on those authorities equally quickly to inform the public, in the same public interest?

Why do the BM and Coroner feel empowered to sit on this information, hiding it from the public, and even when that information is made public, hiding part of it from the public? We expect transparency from finders, where is that reciprocated in what the 'authorities' do?