Ka Nefer Nefer "Negotiations" Fail

.

It is being reported that "negotiations" in the US about the fate of the Ka Nefer Nefer mask have failed (Rick St Hilaire, 'Failed Negotiations Put Ka Nefer Nefer Forfeiture Case Back on the Docket', Wednesday, April 17, 2013) and the case will proceed to litigation. It is unclear what precisely it was that SLAM were trying to "negotiate" with the Egyptian authorities and whether or not in the circumstances they were acting in good faith or just stalling as a legal tactic. So the hunt is on again for traces of the network of dealings that led to this object leaving Egypt and ending up in the USA and to resolve the many open questions that still remain. What is the truth? Chances are we are more likely to get closer to it if the case goes through the scrutiny of a court than if its fate was determined by some back-door deal. What is notable is (I stand to be corrected on this) an apparent total lack of comment from the dealers that supplied the object to the museum. I assume they have been following the developments of this case and have an opinion on the matter.

Vignette: The PACHI 'honk if you hate heritage thieves' bumper sticker

Focus on UK Metal Detecting Forum: "Work is...."

Seen on a metal detecting forum near you:

"Work is for people who don't know how to MD"

"manicdev" Clevedon, North Somerset [Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:29 am]. Let it be noted that in an English content, he is most likely talking about using a metal detector for finding saleable relics - taken from the archaeological record. Could only happen in Britain.

These are precisely the sort of people the PAS wants to grab more and more millions of public quid to make into the "partners" of the British Museum, archaeological heritage professionals and to whom they want us all to entrust the exploitation of the archaeological record. What do you think about that as a "policy"?

Focus on UK Metal Detecting: "Challenged by Formal Education" - and dictionaries

I'll not give his name, but indicate that some metal detectorist asked a metal detecting forum near you a notable question [Sun Apr 07, 2013 7:37 pm] " Brooch or Broach?":

These roman dolphin brooches...
Are they Brooches or Broaches?  

Don't know the difference
Cheers, [...]

and too lazy to look it up. This is symptomatic of a general tendency one sees in artefact collecting circles to wait for somebody else to sort out a problem, rather than getting on and doing it themselves. This is part of the reason why there is so little reflection from within the hobby on the effects of the activity and what could be done to mitigate them. This blinkered outlook and general lack of intellectual effort or  engagement is the reason why it seems to me unwise to simply leave the resolution of these issues to such a time as artefact hunters and collectors can be persuaded to come around to a point of view that places their resolution as a priority. They never will, and any such pious hopes are, as any closer examination of the mindset of these people will reveal, profoundly misplaced.  

Log on to a metal detecting forum and look around. These are precisely the sort of people the PAS wants to grab more and more millions of public quid to make into the "partners" of the British Museum, archaeological heritage professionals and to whom they want us all to entrust the exploitation of the archaeological record. Take a good look and decide what you think about that as a "policy". 

Focus on UK Metal Detecting: The Bounds of "Responsibility"

.
"All metal detectorists are responsible, its only the nighthawks that are the problem" goes the official creed. Like most of the things said about artefact hunting in the UK, on closer examination that turns out to be glib superficial rubbish. Many metal detectorists are not responsible, they go deep-searching on long-unploughed sites for example. Many refuse to or neglect to report what they find (though there is some controversy about the extent of this phenomenon, there is no doubt in most objective observers' minds that there is an issue here).

One of the reasons for this is sheer bloody-mindedness. At various intervals, the metal detectorists of britain (most often led by their NCMD) announce that if their "partner", the Portable Antiquities Scheme, does not do or say what they demand, they will withdraw the favour of showing them the finds they have ripped from the common archaeological resource and appropriated for their own personal use. Nigel Swift has counted 15 previous strike threats here. Just recently we have been witness to a sixteenth (see post below).

Another reason cited is that the degree of recording that is going on has not prevented people questioning the degree to which the erosion is being mitigated by current measures. Since it has not provided the 100% total legitimation of artefact hunting those involved in it desire, these erstwhile "responsible reporters" have decided its not worth their while. In the thread on a detecting forum near you ("Re: Barford comes to our shores"), one "nero" explains that it is the fault of somebody he calls "Barfart" who has allegedly been "slagging us [metal detectorists I presume he means] off for so long"  that he or she has stopped reporting finds to the PAS [Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:45 pm]

It's because of him I have now stopped recording, as he is the one driving the wedge between us and the P.A.S.

I find the logic of that position somewhat difficult to comprehend. I am equally critical of the PAS as I am of the policies it promotes and upholds. Without the PAS and the way it promotes a rosy picture of its "partners" the hobby would have been regulated a decade or more ago. I'd say if the detectorists do not want this to happen, rather than pretending that criticism drives a wedge separating them, they should work together to refute that criticism. But perhaps logic is not "nero's" strong point, and it's easier to think up facile excuses than buckle down and engage the real issues. Somebody calling himself "demon hunter" concurs [Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:55 pm]:

I totally agree, the more he rants the less I want to record.
I think for them to even give him the time of day for his talk, speaks volumes!

So, apparently the condition" for this "responsible detectorist" to responsibly show what he's taking is that the critics and polemicists are all silenced. Furthermore that no opportunity is ever given for archaeologists to even discuss the issues among themselves, not even in a university heritage group seminar. For the record, there was no "ranting" in UCS Ipswich on 10th April 2013. Just very civil discussion of the main issues raised by the seminar's title (only spoilt by the subsequent irresponsible behaviour of the artefact hunters allowed to attend).

Renewed Focus on UK Metal Detecting: NCMD members to Refuse to report Finds to PAS in May?

.
On a metal detecting forum near you is a thread which indicates some very serious challenges to the PAS and its institutional hosts of its regional branches which are emerging from the ever-militant and antagonistic National Council of Metal Detecting (NCMD). This thread concerns what the authors call the issue of "FLO Insurance". The issue is that very few finders being their objects in for recording while-they-wait, but FLOs pick them up at club meetings, take them back to their office, and then delver them back to the finder at the club when they have finished. In the meantime they (hopefully) have a backlog of finds in the office to work through when not doing other kinds of outreach.

Now metal detectorists are fretting about any possible (financial loss) they will suffer if the finds go missing while in the care of the FLO. Will they get compensation? We've already had at least one court case where a finder alleged they'd left an object to be recorded, and the museum "lost" it (the court decided that there was no evidence that the object in fact even existed) This question was raised by "Holedigger Pete" [Mon Mar 11, 2013 10:43 pm] who complained that he was having problems getting a firm reply from the FLO about this. He says this "needs to be sorted". He cites a case of a member of his club who lent coins to the BM through the FLO for "recording" (was this a Treasure case?) and "one or two" of them reportedly arrived in London damaged ("The value of the coins dropped because of the damage").  Member "liamnolan" [Wed Mar 13, 2013 10:48 pm] suggests that the FLO could be held by a metal detectorist personally liable to compensate the owner "for any damage or loss" which could be documented ("If you loan someone an item on the understanding that they will take care of it, then that will be binding in court").  Member "findyaown"  [Fri Mar 15, 2013 4:12 am] suggests rather unhelpfully:

my opinion is, if they cannot take full responsibility for the find that they want us to declare ,then how are we supposed to let a find out of our sight, knowing it may go missing or get damaged in the process . it is the arcies that brought this about ,so why dont they foot the bill for insurance ? i for one will not be forking out. the first time any find of mine gets damaged or goes missing while in the hands of the flo , will be the last .

Then on March 19th "Holedigger Pete" reports [Tue Mar 19, 2013 6:32 pm] that as a result of his raising the matter the NCMD have said

"if no FLO comes up with insurance by the end of April they will be asking members not to hand over finds till the matter is sorted [out]". 

Note that these guys are impatiently expecting a definitive answer to the question concerning measures applicable in a highly diffuse nationwide organization in just eight days. Anyway, now, as "Anorak" points out [Mon Apr 08, 2013 5:18 pm], they have their excuse:

They are always reminding us how we should always act responsibly as Detectorists but they are clearly not doing this themselves Our club was recording huge amounts of finds with the FLO every month but it has now stopped. Our club has always been in support of PAS in the past but can no longer recommend recording with PAS,at least until this is sorted out.[...] Our club is agreeing with the topic put here by Holedigger pete and what looks to be the obvious outcome. No Insurance,No Recording. Their loss.As Holedigger pete has already said. NCMD are giving them till the end of April.

One wonders about the actual commitment to responsibility the phrase "their loss" represents. To whom do "responsible" detectorists consider their responsibilities lie and why? To my mind the phrase represents responsibility to the common archaeological heritage from which individuals are appropriating things for their own personal use (personal entertainment and profit). It seems that all those contributing to this thread consider it means in fact something else.

In fact, despite the anecdotal evidence offered to support this latest reporting strike (the sixteenth in recent years it seems), documented cases of actual examples of objects going missing or damaged while in the hands of the FLO, PAS or collaborating museums is relatively low - especially considering the number they handle each year. I am sure many detectorists mislay items within their own collections (which it seems to me from what I can ascertain about those that reach museums after someone's death tend not to be very thoroughly documented) with a greater frequency.


I'd also like to ask what type of insurance artefact hunters can demonstrate for any valuable treasure items they bring home and may keep there in the 14 days they have to report them. I cannot see many normal domestic policies covering an "Anglo-Saxon gold hoard I dug up last Tuesday, but when missing when I popped out to the corner shop to buy batteries for my camera to photograph it" over a certain value unless the object has been separately itemised as part of the contents of the house beforehand. Otherwise if it was as easy as that, we'd all be trying it wouldn't we? The point is if a treasure item is lost or stolen while in the detectorist's hands or home, it is not he who loses it, but the public - all of us.

Towards the end of the thread is an interesting post by a "mrstiffler" [Wed Apr 10, 2013 3:13 am] who reminds the more indignantly militant members that it is not a common problem, and that most FLOs are very professional and trustworthy and care  responsibly for loaned finds.

at what point can the BM become liable to insure[?] remember the PAS cannot give a valuation, therefore, your item will only become insured, if, it comes under the treasure act,and if, its only going to go to a valuation committee,and that will only happen, if, the BM decide they want to keep it. Now the end result of this, as I see it, if you want your Item to be covered by insurance, then its down to you to have it valued, then insured, then recorded, if you so wish to do so. As recording is voluntary for items not subject to the treasure act,I really cannot see the BM paying out on insurance for items that dont belong to them. Myself, I will continue to record with the PAS on low valued items without insurance, anything I consider to be of higher value, subject, or not subject to the treasure act, I will have a private valuation, and then insure it prior to recording. 

Liamnolan endorses this viewpoint and makes some eminently sensible points [Wed Apr 10, 2013 9:19 am]:

Lets be positive about all this - Pete has uncovered a problem that affects us all, no sense in rabbiting on about good and bad FLO's, we now know we have to get ourselves sorted out and hopefully someone will come across a good insurance policy that we can all use.[...]
Food for thought and I for one will be reviewing all my finds and trying to get them insured for their real value and hopefully with cover that includes transit to and from museums.

At which point the question emerges whether metal detectorists in fact generally have such insurance cover, and if they do, how those individual non-treasure finds are valued. Is the information about the value of these items kept in a personal collection in a metal detectorists' home ever passed back to the landowner who so cheefully signed away their rights to what after all is by English law ultimately their property?

So is the NCMD going ahead with its call to its members to withold their finds until somebody else sorts out the problem?  Or are they going to think a little before shouting their mouths off and consider advising members how to proceed to protect their (financial) interests in finds - like ascertain and then advise precisely what kind of documentation a detectorist should be in possession of before he makes any such claim?

Hoard Hunters Website

There's a website just going up for the ITV's new Treasure grabfest programme  initiated by the recent PAS-sponsored offering "Britain's Secret Treasures". Hoard Hunters, this new encouragement to get a metal detector and have a bash at treasure hunting: "follows Gordon Heritage and Gary Brun as they team up with archaeologist Mike Webber to embark on a quest to unearth hoards of treasure and unlock historical mysteries". It is billed as:

A sort of Top Gear meets Time Team for the History Channel [...] the show resembles a boys own adventure.

It says the programme will follow "expert metal detectorists" Gary Brun and Gordon Heritage, taking "bigger and better equipment than before" to target the UK sites of the previous discovery of old hoards, a different one each week. They have hopes that they may show the viewing public that not only by going over such sites they could find objects that may not have been found by the original discoverers or even that right next to the findspot of a nationally important archaeological treasure there may be more such finds lying undisturbed in the archaeological layers around it and up for grabs. Splitting up any treasure awards and sharing them with the original finder is going to be a nightmare. The shows will combine the artefact hunters' view of "history" with tekkie version of humour (uh-oh).

Hat-tip to Heritage Action

Portable Antiquities Society Threatens Heritage Critics - Again

On Wednesday in an interesting candid discussion, an archaeologist resident in Poland asked the lady from the PAS whether in her opinion an archaeologist based in Britain could allow himself to be a free-speaking critic of artefact hunting and policies about it as himself. After a moment's reflection, she admitted that in the circumstances, it was pretty unlikely. As if in illustration of that, the Portable Antiquities Society (nota bene) forum had a series of posts about what would happen when "Barford comes to our shores". Let it be noted that the trip was at the invitation of a heritage group attached to a British academic institution addressed to a colleague to invite him to come over and conduct a discussion in an academic setting of certain issues raised earlier. T2man thinks of it more in relationship to metal detecting and [Mon Apr 08, 2013 7:22 am] expresses the hope that:

a few people can meet him for a chat. ['evil' emoticon]

The forum's administrator responded [Mon Apr 08, 2013 10:40 am - nota bene: the same individual on the same day sent a comment to this blog indicating he would be at the seminar]:

I'm sure we can arrange a special greeting for him, when he leaves the building

Member "Charleyboy" shouts [Tue Apr 09, 2013 11:30 am]

HERES YOUR CHANCE STEVE. :)

presumably this refers to the member calling himself "Steve the Barford Slayer" who then [Tue Apr 09, 2013 8:23 pm ] replied

Word is already out on the street, should be interesting!

Member "Nero" apparently approves [Sun Apr 14, 2013 8:45 pm]

Well what does Barfart expect if he comes over here, after slagging us off for so long. 

On Sunday [April 14, 2013 9:09 pm] "Chainmail" adds about the illicitly-taken images of me he'd been disseminating:

He will return, at least now everyone knows what he looks like, even his fellow Poles. So I would be a very worried man. [The post is signed "Steve the Barford slayer"].

One "Fred" is also pleased the detectorists have a copy of a recent photo of the preservation advocate [Mon Apr 15, 2013 5:59 am]  

Let's hope the photo doesn't fall into the hands of the Italian mafia who also like to collect art.

Cheltenham metal detectorist "Chainmail" (Steve Taylor) makes a number of nonsensical accusations and then blatantly threatens to visit Heritage Action's Nigel Swift at home and beat him up [Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:42 pm]:

Perhaps I should publish your home address on line, along with young Nigel's ! but I don't expect we will hear much from him as he only lives a 40 minute drive away, just a little bit too close for comfort, and I would hate to have to squash his nose!

I assume the reason why Mr Swift is the intended victim of this threatened attack is because he did the maths for the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter. 

We get this all the time of course in the Bach Appreciation Society. The melomanic thugs of the Chopin Lovers Association are always threatening our members like that over their critical approach to the blatant way the latter composer 'borrowed' from folk melodies. The 2010 Cheltenham Ladies Club Punchup also comes to mind - when the William Wordsworth Society met the supporters of Alfred Lord Tennyson and bicycle chains and cudgels were used when a disagreement broke out over the true meaning of the word "enwrought". The discussion of the British cultural heritage nowadays is full of similar outbreaks of violence and blatant threats, hardly a week goes by without one cultural heritage group or other threatening to beat up, shoot or stab their critics. This has somewhat tended to lead to a stilting of the once so-vibrant cultural debate in the British Isles of course as British society comes to terms with the fact that yob-culture has even taken over parts of the cultural debate.

Nevertheless amid this moral and intellectual decline it seems to me that, instead of name-calling and threats, a more appropriate response from Britain's metal detectorists and their partner the Portable Antiquities Scheme to a blog called "Portable Antiquity Collecting and Heritage Issues" and "Heritage Journal" and an April  UCS Heritage group seminar would be to address the issues raised about the effects of current policies on artefact hunting on the archaeological resource.  

UPDATE 17th April 2013:
The observant reader following the above links will now note that several of the posts quoted above have either been deleted or modified by their authors. We still await however a proper discussion of the issues from these people. I would say that the intellectual level of the alterations suggests that interested parties may have a very long wait.

UPDATE 27th June 2013:
It seems its not just British detectorists that have their hate-ins.  ("The FMDAC Convention & a Chance to Come Together…), "After 20 plus years of stupid hatred for each other it is great to see the NEW FMDAC shaking off their destructive history and seeking to come together with similar organizations.. "