Metal Detecting exams advocated by collectors' rights advocate

Californian collectors' "rights" activist and part-time coin dealer Dave Welsh reckons that metal detectors should be licenced, and:

a license to operate a metal detector should include (as does a license to drive an automobile) a requirement to pass an examination verifying knowledge of all relevant laws and ethical obligations which pertain to the activities of metal detectorists.

I guess that's because he does not use one himself. Has he really thought this through? This would mean that metal detector users in Bulgaria (for example) would be examined on the laws that prevent them passing on the coins they find to middlemen who then export them to the United States for people like Mr Welsh to sell. Well, of course there is a difference between knowing the law and abiding by it I suppose, so licence or not, I expect US dealers and collectors will continue to get their heaps of metal-detected 'dugups' extracted from some foreign archaeological field. Its not the diggers that need regulating, but the no-questions-asked market, Mr Welsh. Anyway what kind of collectors' "rights" is this upholding? Are metal detectorists in Britain and the USA for example not portable antiquity collectors too? Are they perhaps in Mr Welsh's eyes some kind of inferior collectors that he will willingly condone (nay, recommend) licencing them, but (as far as I know) not licencing the acquisitions of heaps-of-coin-collecting ACCG members? What makes him think the latter are so "special" and immune to what he would force on other collectors? I say let collectors rights advocates stand up for the rights of ALL portable antiquity collectors, or none. No discrimination.

ADDENDUM: Ah, now he's backtracking. He now specifies that he would not advocate requiring such a license in the USA:

however in European and Middle Eastern countries which restrict export of antiquities, I believe it would be appropriate to require detectorists to be licensed.

I really cannot understand this fixation with export. Export, export, export. Its not primarily the metal detector users that illegally export items from countries like Bulgaria, is it? The USA has an archaeological record (I learnt the other day that even tincans can be part of it) and it follows that inappropriate metal detector use there is just as damaging as anywhere else that has an archaeological record. Yes or no? Surely there are laws to learn and ethics to be observed in metal detecting in the USA, so why would no exam testing the detector users knowledge of them be needed in Mr Welsh's view? Because Americans are somehow "better" than the rest of us? So what actually is the guy on about? What is this "licence" he proposes for?

Mr Welsh seems blissfully unaware that in countries where the state manages the archaeological record like the ones he mentioned earlier, legal metal detector use to search for relics can already only take place with a permit. As is the case in Great Britain if the searcher wants to search certain locations which have such restrictions imposed, and indeed any part of Northern Ireland (part of the UK).

"Succinctly contrasts", but Mr Giedroyc gets it terribly wrong again

According to an ACG-affiliated coin collector writing on Moneta-L, the latest article (Iron Age Coin Find Ruled Treasure Trove) of Numismaster's master numismojournalist Richard Giedroyc of World Coin News "succinctly contrasts the real effect of England's Treasure Act with that of the laws of other countries"... (yawn). Sadly this assessment is a trifle overenthusiastic: the article is actually a poorly-researched heap of misleading nonsense.

When, oh when will American collectors and their mates learn the NAME of the Act which so appeals to them? Wickham Market is near the bottom on the left of that green bit across the water called "England", and the lumpier bit with the jaggedy edges at the top is another country called "Scotland". Scotland has legislation on Treasure Trove, England has....? England has, Mr Giedroyć, the 1996 Treasure Act. I don't expect it makes much difference to him. Not when he writes:

Suffolk Coroner Dr. Peter Dean declared the find to be treasure since the coins are more than 300 years old and were likely buried to be hidden with the intent to recover them later rather than being lost by their owner. [....] If, due to the nature of the find, the items found are determined to have been lost by chance, the finder takes possession of these items.

What? I suspect the influence of the 1965 Readers Digest Book of Buried Treasure here. That's the old law that went out in 1996! Thirteen years ago. What the Monetan correspondent finds so valuable (and yes, succinct) is this bit I presume:

At a time when countries such as Greece, Italy and Turkey have been enforcing laws banning the export of antiquities as being the cultural patrimony of these countries, the British treasure trove laws become even more relevant on the world stage as an example of how treasure finders can be encouraged to "do the right thing."

(Polite) words fail me, what has the Treasure Act got to do with "export"? Nothing, actually. Chalk and cheese. The English Treasure Act of course retains for the state these items "as being the cultural patrimony of the country" just as much as the laws of Greece, Turkey and Italy. Also Mr Giedroyc, instead of relying on ACCG handouts for information really should look into (for example) Greek heritage law concerning finds. He might find a surprise there. But then does he really mean Britain's (so that's Scotland then) Treasure TROVE laws? Because according to these, there is no division into "shiny gold/silver for the state - all the rest, who cares?" (which is I presume the wonder of the English legislation for the external collector of bronze coins and other decontextualised geegaws). No, in Scotland, the State wants to get its hands on all archaeological finds as it regards them all as the cultural patrimony of its citizens.

This article is sadly perfectly typical of the sort of shoddy research that goes into the anti-preservationist wafflings of the pro-collecting lobby, and which members of the latter propagate among collectors and try to foist off on the general public, totally misinforming them. Let's see if any well-informed Monetan queries the account of the workings of the English Treasure Act given in the article recommended to them so highly.

ADDENDUM 19th Aug: well it seems none of them noticed. So much for their knowledge of the laws which apply to their hobby which they like to portray as a scholarly "discipline".

The Minister and le malaise anglais

The “partnership” between British archaeologists and the country's band of takers of the past continues to do its damage abroad. On the 7th July this year in what appears to be a coordinated action, the metal detectorists of France banded together and sent a synchronised packet of questions to Frédéric Mitterrand, the French Minister of Culture and Transport. They want a “pact” like the Brits have, they want “respect”:

Ils souhaitent aujourd'hui la mise en place d'un pacte, audacieux et prometteur, de collaboration simple entre archéologues et détectoristes. Le prospecteur responsable connaît son terrain et peut męme se révéler ętre un auxiliaire intéressant pour l'archéologue. La législation anglaise a déjŕ mis en place un pacte de confiance, le « treasure act ». Aussi il souhaite savoir si le Gouvernement envisage de mettre en place un tel dispositif afin de permettre ŕ chacun, archéologues et prospecteurs, de voir son travail ou loisir respecté tout en respectant celui des autres.

The Minister answered this officially in the National Assembly on the 11th August and his reply was published after outlining the legislation of France and what it is based upon, and the fact that the English laws are a local aberration peculiar to that country, the Minister has some stinging words for Britain:

La question évoque le dispositif expérimenté en Angleterre, dit « Treasure Act ». Il s'agit tout d'abord de pratiques propres ŕ ce pays, qui s'appuient sur un régime juridique particulier des objets archéologiques, lequel s'écarte relativement du nôtre, et qui ne pourraient ętre transposées telles quelles. Si ces mesures ont effectivement permis d'augmenter le nombre des déclarations de découvertes d'objets archéologiques métalliques, elles n'ont en rien permis de réduire les atteintes au patrimoine générées par l'utilisation de détecteurs de métaux. Tout au plus permettent-elles de mesurer avec plus d'exactitude l'ampleur de ces atteintes.

{“If these measures have in fact permitted the number of declarations of the discovery of metallic archaeological objects to increase, they have in no way allowed a reduction in the number of attacks on the heritage caused by the use of metal detectors. All the same, they allow a more exact measurement of these attacks"}
[that last bit I included for the EU-sceptic conspiracy theorists :>) ].

So the Director of the Académie de France à Rome has not had the wool pulled over his eyes by the pro-artefact hunting claptrap about the “benefits” of allowing them to get on with emptying the collectables of British archaeological sites into their pockets. Good. Perhaps Roger Bland should invite a delegate from the French Ministry to the British Museum to the upcoming PAS conference to give participants a more rounded view of what people “in other countries” think of Britain’s “pact” with the history-takers. But France (Britain’s closest continental neighbour just a Channel Tunnel drive away) is not included in the provisional programme is it? I wonder if this is because the British Museum did not want to hear the preservation-orientated views of the French, or whether the French decided there was no point discussing this with the Brits.

Coin "zapping" in the numismatic literature

.
In tapping away at my keyboard trying to finish a text for publication on the corrosion of archaeological metalwork in the topsoil, I found myself writing that the condition of a certain group of coins was no different from those that are commonly sold as "bulk uncleaned lots to coin zappers" and it struck me that my readers might not know what "bulk uncleaned lots" of coins are and who or what "zappers" (sic) are and do. I wanted therefore at this point of the text to add a reference for clarity.

Now, there are lots of websites about coin zapping:

- how to get the coins and not get cheated (even some that admit where the coins come from, but many that present a fairy tale),
- how to "zap" (makes one to cringe to read them),
- what to do with the zapped coins (they normally only talk about the ones that are not irrevocably destroyed by the proposed method of treating these ancient artefacts),
- how to identify the coins and so on....

But I wanted some literature on paper to cite in my text. Maybe readers of this blog can point me to some texts in peer reviewed numismatic journals that discuss the methodology of "coin zapping"?

We are constantly told ad nauseam by dealers' advocacy groups like the ACCG that the heap-of-loose-decontextualised-coins-on-a-table-top-collecting is "numismatics" ("like wot Petrarch did", "Regal Grandmother of all the Historical Sciences" and all that) and that it is such an important discipline to which we "must" sacrifice archaeological context to allow it to flourish (and "incidentally" of course commerce in these items, which is what this is all about really). My response to that has been, that to qualify as a separate academic discipline, it must have an independent methodology which is formulated in textbooks. Otherwise it is just like stamp collecting. As an archaeologist, I have a lot of contact with numismatists, and most of the real numismatic methodology I have come across refers to the interepretation of coins in and from a context (there is a lot of valuable methodological work on this in Polish for example, going back at least to the 1950s). I cannot imagine the methodology which says "ignore all that, just make a heap of the coins on a table and by comparing one with the other something will come out of it". As a result of my lack of imagination in this regard, I have several times asked professional numismatists advocating "decontextualised numismatics" where I can find the methodology of this "discipline" formulated so I can learn about it. Where are the textbooks? So far I have received not a single reference to check out.

"Coin zapping" is an important part of the current shape of this brand of decontextualised numismatics. The "uncleaned lots" are the discards from bulk loads supplied by metal detectorists to a middleman who sorts them into various grades of commodities to send to external markets. Coin zappers consume the coins no dealer would want to have in his stock in that form and nobody in the trade feels are worth cleaning to make them presentable. By far, most of the coins ripped out of archaeological context in "source countries" like Britain and Bulgaria are doomed to go straight into these bulk lots for marketing, tens of thousands of them monthly, year in, year out. So why is this whole area of numismatics apparently so poorly represented in the numismatic literature?

Or perhaps it is not. Maybe one of my readers knows some articles on the numismatic worth of decontextualised bulk lots of metal-detected finds which have been published in the peer-reviewed numismatic journals? How seriously do they treat heap-on-a-table numismophily? How many coin zappers are talking at, or even going to the XIV International Numismatic Congress in Glasgow at the end of the month? I cannot see a session devoted to bulk buyers in the programme.

Ironbridge Senior Archaeologist Speaks out

Talking to a metal detectorist on an archaeological forum, Ironbridge Gorge Museum senior industrial archaeologist Paul Belford assures him:

There really isn't an "English Snobby Archaeo Mentality". Really. Honestly. Yes, some people in Poland might be snotty, but the rest of us are very happy to hear about all of your findings,

Yeah, I bet "the rest of you" are. You are quite right there are lots of professional archaeologists here in Poland (and several other countries too) that are puzzled over why you British archaeologists are pandering to artefact hunters and collectors and thus copping out on your responsibilities towards the archaeological record. Entering into a "partnership" with artefact hunters seems to a lot of us outside the UK to be a very strange way to "manage" what's left of the British archaeological record.

So this decontextualised York coin of some king or other recorded on the UK Detector Finds database ("site run by detectorists for detectorists") you are suddenly so "very happy" to hear about, where was it found? "Bedale, Yorkshire" - whoopee, but where in that rather large parish? Dunno, its not reported on UKDFD? Hmmm. What else was found on the same site? Dunno, it's not reported on UKDFD? Hmmm. Found by a Darren Pendleton with his Minelab Explorer II but the record was for some reason created by a "Lance Todd". Wonderful. Enough to make a British archaeologist "very happy". So who are they then? Adherants of the Code of Practice for Responsible metal Detecting in England and wales? Are they - do you know them? Actually if you know what that says from the information currently on the UKDFD page, they don't appear to be do they? (see below). So its the only coin from that reign with that particular moneyer's name on it? Whoopee, I bet that's made everybody's day in Ironbridge. That could change our whole understanding of Britain in the tenth century couldn't it? (Or maybe not really).

Crap photo though isn't it? So its going to be a bit difficult to do a die link study of that one when the coin itself disappears into somebody else's collection without a record where it's gone.

So is this coin recorded elsewhere? Like in the PAS database with a decent photo (as the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales stipulates), or maybe at the Fitzwilliam? Well, actually - no. No, it is not recorded anywhere else. Does that make you "very happy" too? Broad grins all round the Ironbridge World Heritage Site at the news?

Paul what on earth are you British archaeologists playing at? You are all so "very happy" to hear that collectors are running about in the cultural landscape somewhere or other finding isolated coins and other goodies, all of which they take away with minimal record from their position in the archaeological record, but some of which they nicely let the archaeologists fondle too - but only if they do not ask too many questions where it came from and what it was found with and pat them on the head and thank them for denuding sites of all their collectable ancient metalwork. Pathetic.

Is that "snotty" enough for you Paul?

I really do not think it is me who has to explain himself in the circumstances. What is going on in England is just completely and utterly nuts.

Paul, if you agree, I am going to add you to the review list of my book, and I hope after reading it you will tell the readers of the "Journal of the Telford Industrial Archaeology and Bottle-Diggers Association" (or wherever) why you are still "very happy" to work with artefact hunters and why you dismiss what is written there as "snottiness with tables and footnotes". I am sure the metal detectorists with whom you and your treasure-hunter-loving British archaeological mates are such good pals will be delighted.

eBay deal concerning Scotland's archaeological heritage

The internet auction site eBay has agreed to stop selling unreported ancient artefacts from Scotland (Brian Donnolly eBay deal protects country’s ancient treasures, the Herald August 16th 2009). This follows a number of cases of the illegal sale of artefacts through the portal in the past. These objects are all protected by Scotland's Treasure Trove legislation (rather than the 1996 Treasure Act which applies in most other parts of the UK) and belong to the state (Crown). It is only when treasure trove assessors at museums reject artefacts that finders can become keepers who may then do as they wish with the items they have found, if the Crown retains the object the finder gets an award equal to the full market value. Nevertheless, a large number of finders are believed to not be reporting finds to the Treasure Trove Unit as the law requires.

Now, if only eBay would institute a similar ban on metal detected items from England and Wales which are not accompanied by a PAS number, and antiquities from any foreign country which has export restrictions without the seller saying explicitly that he can supply the buyer with a copy of the export licence or other documentation to show it left the surce country legitimately. Then we could all sleep a little sounder.

Raided Lost Art[chaeology], in the Market or Not?

The story of the theft — and ultimate return — of a magnificent ancient vase painted by Euphronios, the greatest Greek vase artist of antiquity, is a gripping tale that has helped to cripple the illicit international art trade trills the article about Vernon Silver's book the Lost Chalice annoyingly titled "Italy Cracks Down On Raiders Of Lost Art" (Ugh!). The claim that the enire market in dodgy stuff is "crippled" seems a bit of an overstatement. Especially in the light of the closing lines of the article:

Italian authorities confirm that there has been a sharp decline in the underground art trade. But they stress that the theft has been massive. Over the past few decades, the art theft police squad has recovered some 800,000 artworks from antiquity, but authorities estimate that's only about 40 percent of the total looted by the raiders of lost art.

So that means there is still another 1200000 items stolen from archaeological sites in Italy alone out there, that hardly heralds a crippled market.

Silver's book is discussed by David Gill here.