"Coiney" concept of "Comedy"

The no-questions-asked acquirers and handlers of heaps of decontextualised ancient coins on transatlantic table tops clearly have a distorted sense of humour. Yesterday Heritage Action discussed the story of the quarrel between two UK metal detector using finders about how the reward for the Dallinghoo Hoard should be split. It raised some perfectly valid questions, how it was "ludicrous it is to be paying metal detectorists millions of pounds in rewards for doing what they all swear blind they would do without any reward anyway" (see what "metal detectorist" Darke is quoted as saying). Heritage Action further raises the question of why on earth in the grip of a recession, the British are spending further millions of money from the public budget "encouraging and supporting them in a hobby that other countries deem illegal and would simply send them to prison for" (if carried out in the manner of this find). Heritage Action adds:

If you pay tax or care about the archaeological record, or think the first should go towards protecting the second not in facilitating its erosion away into the hands of a few thousand nameless and entirely unregulated private individuals (most of whom tell no-one what they have found or where) it’s definitely worth a look.

It is interesting to see what reaction this met in the transatlantic collecting community (who claim to care about the preservation of the archaeological record). Apparently all they could muster to contribute to any discussion of the issues was: "Some things are just too funny to parody". Really? Personally, I do not get the "joke". Saying something is laughable and not explaining why is a pretty transparent tactic.

The monetan poster goes on to say "(although we might try to do something with gambling money being called tax!)". By "gambling money" one can only infer that the author believes that in England and Wales, Treasure rewards are paid from Heritage Lottery Fund money, which is by no means the case, the HLF are no longer even the principal source of PAS funding as it was in the late 1990s. Perhaps "monetans" interested in the workings of the British Treasure Act need to keep up with the news of how it actually does work.

[*What is odd though is that the ACCG Museums Fund (aiming to help British museums acquire numismatic treasure finds) does not mention the HLF in the information about why the collectors think the fund is necessary, though it mentions the Headly Trust for entirely transparent reasons. What is significant is that the author of the Monetan post is closely involved in the ACCG fund's operation.]

UK Artefact hunters disagree over Treasure award

.

"The battle over Boadicea's gold: Treasure hunters fall out over who deserves £500,000 reward for coins found in field"

Photo: Michael Darke and his former metal detecting companion Keith Lewis (Mail on Sunday).

"Lorry driver Mr Darke was alone when he found the first few coins in a Suffolk field and believes he is entitled to the lion's share of any proceeds. However postman Mr Lewis, who helped him recover the bulk of the hoard, believes he deserves just as much as the other man. The pair now face a legal battle over how to split a reward of up to £500,000 after a coroner yesterday ruled that the coins were Treasure [...], allowing the finders to receive their full value on their sale to a museum. [...] It was in March last year that the 60-year-old from Woodbridge, Suffolk, found ten Iron Age coins buried in a meadow at nearby Dallinghoo. He gave up searching because it was getting late and the weather was bad. He called Mr Lewis, 54, for advice and invited him to join the dig the following weekend. Within an hour of arriving in the field, the pair had unearthed the remains of an Iron Age cooking pot containing another 773 gold coins - the largest such haul found in Britain since 1849. Yet more were found later. […] Mr Darke had permission from farmer Clifford Green, 66, to use his metal detector on the 200-acre farm in return for splitting the value of any find. But Mr Lewis, of Great Blakenham, who has known Mr Darke for 15 years, is also now demanding a share for his efforts. He is suggesting that farmer Green and his family keep 50 per cent of the proceeds while he and Mr Darke share the other half equally".

There is a preliminary report on the finding and context of this "Wickham market" hoard here and by Chris Rudd here. There is also a short BBC news clip made after the inquest. The pair "dug up the coins about two feet below the ground". Mr Darke "had permission from farmer Clifford Green, 66, to use his metal detector on the 200-acre farm at Dallinghoo in return for splitting the value of any find". The find was apparently reported as Treasure by the farmer, not the artefact hunters.

US Antique dealers' approach to the China MOU

Beverly Hills Gallery and Auctioneer Isadore M. Chait have issued a public statement guaranteeing the legality of Chinese artifacts in their upcoming July 12 auction. These objects would come under the terms of the 2008 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on import restrictions of Chinese artifacts into the US. The MOU was created in an attempt to curb illicit trafficking in Chinese antiquities and art in the U.S. and covers all types of collectable Chinese items dating from the Paleolithic Period to the end of the Tang Dynasty (A.D. 907). It also applies to wall art and monumental sculptures that are at least 250 years old. During the period of operation of the MOU, such works can be legally imported into the US only if Chinese officials issue a valid certificate of export or if they left China before January 16, 2009.

Isadore M. Chait assured buyers that that “many of the items in the auction had been purchased from our Gallery in previous years. Others carry impressive credentials, among them the Asian Art Museum of San Francisco, a Paolo Verdes estate, and several private collections” (see also here and here). No mention is made of it, but I assume the gallery will be backing up its claims by supplying the purchasers with some kind of documentation of the object's previous ownership history. This guarantee of legality should be extremely comforting to collectors, given the fact that I.M. Chait’s July 12 auction contains a number of exceptional objects such as an archaic bronze ritual vessel and monumental sculptures as well as collections of Han and Tang pottery.

The lead item is a museum-quality Early Western Zhou Dynasty (1027 – 771 B.C.) bronze vessel estimated at $80,000. Known in Chinese as a gui, the archaic container has a domed lid and is decorated with the intertwined geometrics characteristic of the era. Fantastical animal-heads decorate the handles and
legs. An inscription inside the cover completes its attributes. Another archaic bronze is a pair of massive covered Hu (wine storage containers) from the Warring States Period (770 – 221 B.C.). They are in the $20,000 to $30,000 range. Additionally, a Northern Qi Dynasty (A.D. 550 -577) limestone head of Guanyin falls under the restrictions. Han (206 B.C. – A.D. 220) and Tang Dynasty (A.D. 619-907) pottery horses, camels and ritual pottery figures—those pricey and favored symbols of status and good taste so frequently found on American mantles and in executive offices—also now warrant credential checks. Fortunately for collectors, several fine examples appear in this sale.Among the more outstanding is a massive pair of Tang Bactrian camels caught in mid-stride and bearing riders whose mustaches and outfits clearly identify them as foreigners. (Lot 210.) Not only does this pair have the proper provenance, they come with another of Chait’s assurances, a Thermo Luminescence (TL) Test Certificate. The camels are estimated at $30,000 – $35,000.Similarly qualified are a pair of Han Dynasty painted pottery figures of dancing ladies. These have remains of the original, nearly 2,000 year old pigment , The ladies also come with TL test certificates in addition to the Chait guarantee.

We may contrast the attitudes of the buyers of such items - demanding assurances of legitimacy including secure provenances - with those of a small group of artefact dealers who are currently in the process of trying to overthrow the very same MOU to allow them to continue to import contextless and provenance-less ancient artefacts without the "bother" of being required to show that the objects left the source country legally or before the MOU was established. Whether or not this is what collectors want - or whether it is in the long term interests of collecting at all, remain to be demonstrated. What is interesting is that we do not see other branches of the dealer community attacking the State Department for attemting to reduce the participation of the US in the trade in illicit antiquities. It is just the ancient coin dealers and collectors. I wonder if they imagine they are speaking for all collectors of Chinese antiquities?

I think, however, if buying antiquities from Californian dealers, when there are ones that offer documentation that the antiquities they sell are of legal origin, and those that cannot and will not (and some of which are members of organzations actively intending to overthrow the import restrictions), then it seems to me that the ethical collector's choice is a simple one. Of course the market for some of Chait's arterfacts is a different one from the "cut-price bit o' 'istry in yer 'and" one that the ancient coin dealers and eBay dugup antiquity sellers are catering for.

[Footnote: By the way though, the "ritual pottery figures" ("those pricey and favored symbols of status and good taste so frequently found on American mantles and in executive offices") mostly come from grave robbing just as much as any Utah pots.]

Photo: Gui vessel (Wikicommons)

More on Utah's "Action Cerberus"

The hooha about the Blanding ARPA arrests continues (Nate Carlisle, „BLM agents pulled guns on artifacts suspects, sheriff says” Salt lake Tribune 2nd July 2009) "All this could have been handled by summonses or [federal agents] could have come talk to me," [Sherrif] Lacy said. "I could have gone into any of these homes and not needed a gun". His brother was one of the accused. Had Sherrif Lacy ever wondered where the artifacts in his brother’s house were coming from? Where were the upright citizens of Blanding when apparently the law was being broken under their noses.

Also reported today, facing seven felonies, Jeanne Redd, the wife of the deceased doctor James Redd, may have reached a deal with prosecutors and has been scheduled to appear in court Monday to change her "not guilty" plea. (Patty Henetz, “Artifact-theft suspect to change plea” Salt lake Tribune 2nd July 2009).

Photo: San Juan County Sheriff Mike Lacy

"Can't be trusted" to express an opinion on the origin?

I was not initially going to write about this gold pot seized by German customs. Nathan Elkins has covered it quite well here and here (and clarified what was to me initially a somewhat unclear account in the Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung). However following on from this, an opinion has been expressed which deserves comment). Its from the Washington lawyer again, the one with an apparent irrational but pathological hatred of anything with a name that begins with the letters "archaeolo...". In his text "Recalcitrant archaeologist embarrasses German Police", Cultural Property Observer writes:

"Muller-Karpe is certainly well-known in Germany for his anti-collector and anti-trade views. Thus, it is a bit surprising German customs ever viewed him as someone who could be trusted to provide an independent opinion on the origin of
the vessel in question".

Regardless of the actual circumstances here, what a bizarre statement to make. I wonder to whom Mr Tompa would have had it taken by the German authorities. The Munich (coin) dealer Münzhandlung Hirsch Nachfolger which was trying to sell it claims it is from Iron Age Troy (but presumably, since this case is dragging on has not been able to document that). The attempted sale was challenged in 2005 and the object seized by customs on the grounds that the object was of a type suggesting it was in fact from Sumerian Ur. Michael Müller-Karpe at the Römisch-Germanische Zentralmuseum in Mainz is a specialist in the metalwork of the region, and the co-author of a 1993 work: Metallgefässe im Iraq I (Von den Anfängen bis zur Akkad-Zeit), Prähistorische Bronzefunde, Abteilung II, Band 14. So I'd say he was a suitable person to express an informed opinion on the origin of the object. In the same way US customs officers call on coin dealers such as Wayne Sayles to give expert opinions on numismatic objects stopped at the border.

Why should an archaeologist who is clearly a competent specialist in Near Eastern archaeology not be "trusted" to give an independent opinion on the origin of the vessel in question? Why should we "trust" an antiquity dealer any more?

UK Heritage Bill a Non-Starter again

It is reported on the CBA's website that the Heritage Protection Bill for England and Wales does not appear in the UK's Draft Legislative Programme for 2009/10 announced by the Government this week. This means that there is little hope of the legislative reforms promised by the 2007 White Paper promised will now occur. The proposed legislation envisaged placing the historic environment at the heart of the planning system. As Mike Heyworth, CBA’s Director said: "Our historic environment fundamentally shapes the quality of our surroundings and is integral to policies for sustainability. It must be at the heart of new policies for the way places are designed and planned, not side-lined as a low priority".

The Bill aimed to simplify and strengthen existing legislation and introduce opportunities for people to be more involved in protecting and enhancing their local heritage. It also paved the way for the signing and ratification of the Hague Convention, the UNESCO Convention on the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Without the Bill, the UK will soon be the only international power not to have signed the convention.

As the CBA points out, the lack of Government commitment to these reforms is deplorable.

UK Public opinion poll: It is time to return the Parthenon Marbles

The Greek Minister of Culture claims that public opinion in the UK favours the return of the Parthenon Marbles. The Guardian conducted an opinion poll among its readers... it turns out he was indeed right. Only six percent of Brits think that their country has a "right" (or reason) to hang on to the bits of an iconic building that Elgin shipped from Athens, 94% think they should now be united with the rest of the remains of the complex back in Athens. A parallel poll conducted by the London Daily News found that almost 79% agreed that the British Government should return these fragments to Greece.

If this is representative of public opinion in the UK as a whole, it looks like the British Museum has some thinking to do. Maybe there should be a referendum.