Twenty years after the US invasion, where are Iraq’s antiquities?

   Western Asiatic Antiquities: 1970s advertising  
 Poster by Ainslie Yule (1941–2022) 

Readers who have been around this blog in its early days may remember the protests of US dealers and their lobbyists (Dave Welsh, Wayne Sales, Peter Tompa, all of them and their ilk) that "no" Iraqi antiquities entered the US market after the US led invasion. They got quite nasty about it when you challenged their dogmatic but unsupported statements. Now, they've gone sullenly silent and we know (Adel Fakhir, 'Twenty years after the US invasion, where are Iraq’s antiquities?' Al Jazeera, 7 Apr 2023).

Hakim al-Shammari, media director of the General Authority for Antiquities and Heritage at the Iraqi Ministry of Culture, says that efforts to recover stolen antiquities continue.[...] “Iraq has managed in recent years to recover about 17,000 artefacts from the United States, and 364 from Lebanon,” said al-Shammari, who estimates that the total number of looted antiquities is in the thousands. “Work is under way to recover antiquities in France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Iran and Jordan, which are different and various.” [...] The Baghdad office of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) told Al Jazeera that it was working with the Iraqi government to recover more than 40,000 artefacts scattered and dispersed around the world, in addition to 30,000 pieces that had already been recovered between 2017 and 2022. Other items are being kept in Iraqi embassies and antiquity loan centres around the world until suitable storage centres can be found in Iraq.

For the US antiquities market, a major problem is the way US troops invading Iraq (exactly in the same way as Russia is invading Ukraine right now, for similar stated reasons) neglected the issue of antiquities. Al Jazeera writes:

Lack of US protection
For many Iraqis, a lot of the blame for the loss of so many pieces of their country’s history lies with the US.

At the time of the invasion, US officials were reported to have been frustrated at the lack of willingness from the military generals to protect archeological sites, such as the Iraq National Museum.

Amer Abdul-Razzaq, an archaeological researcher, says the negligence was deliberate.  “American tanks surrounded the Iraqi Museum during the occupation and chaos, but they did not move a finger in the face of the mafias and antiquities thieves who attacked the museum and stole about 14,000 valuable pieces from it,” Abdul-Razzaq, who previously served as the director of antiquities in the Iraqi province of Dhi Qar, said.

“Although the US army was later committed to protecting Iraqi antiquities due to pressure from Iraqi archaeological institutions, it initially took archaeological sites as bases and camps, including in the city of Ur in Dhi Qar province, and they placed their heavy military equipment in the Ziggurat of Ur,” Abdul-Razzaq said, referring to the ancient Sumerian city-state and its famous monument.

“The American army turned the ancient city of Babylon into a military base, to the extent that they made earthen mounds of soil, and some of it was made from parts of the clay cuneiform figure,” Abdul-Razzaq added. “It is the same with the city of Nimrud in Mosul and other archaeological sites across the country.”

And while the US has already sent thousands of artefacts back to Iraq, Abdul-Razzaq believes it is still not enough. 

“What was recovered is small. There are pieces still sold in auctions in the US and Britain, and in other countries,” Abdul-Razzaq said. “We need greater diplomatic efforts and international cooperation.”

It is interesting how the opponents of the War in the west immediately seized upon the issue of the treatment of antiquities in a way that (I think I am right in saying) we had not seen before and blew it into a huge political issue. One that the US is still working hard to play down and to avoid a repetition, but also one that the US government has itself weaponised as an instrument of soft power and a justification of hard power too (most notably in the case of ISIS). 

\  

Denmark's DIME Project

samarbejder med 29 arkæologiske museer i Danmark

fungerer som digital samling og museum med 100.000 fund 

[cooperates with 29 archaeological museums in Denmark

functions as a digital collection and museum with 100,000 finds] DIME

The DIME (Digitale Metaldetektorfund: dime.au.dk) project was launched five years ago to facilitate the user-driven recording of metal detector finds removed from the archaeological record by members of the public.  Its aim is "to provide a portal for the registering and hence safeguarding of the increasing number of metal detector finds and to make them accessible for the general public and for research" (@@@@@@). The idea is "to realise the potential of recreational metal detecting as a medium to implement an inclusive and democratic approach to heritage management in Denmark and to advance the incorporation of principles of citizen science and crowdsourcing in museum practice". Hmmm.

DIME was apparently supposed to have been begun a year earlier ['Denmark, Inventory of Metal Detector Finds', PACHI Friday, 26 January 2018]. According to Peter Jensen of Aarhus, on the first day of the launch (20th September 2018), there were 6.700 visitors, 289 new users and 760 finds submitted  [PACHI Friday, 21 September 2018 'Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark': a 'new' Database? ]

By May 2019, it is reported that more than 1330 detector users had joined the community and uploaded all together more than 26700 individual finds. 

By March 2021, the DIME portal had recorded its first 100,000 loose metal detected finds (30 months later, a rate of  3333 finds a month) [PACHI Wednesday, 5 May 2021 DIME 100k], handed in by 2600 artefact hunters. That's 38 objects each since the beginning.  In light of the scepticism of the Helsinki Gang to Hardy's work on metal detectorist numbers, it is worth noting the figure of 2600 detectorists is very similar to Hardy's estimate of 2777 (Hardy 2017, 13-4).

100k finds from 2600 detectorists would be only 38 objects each if they'd all been members for the full 30 months. 

At the time of writing, the website owners claim DER ER NU 184.521 FUND I DIME ("there are now 184521 finds in DIME"), though the "search" page gives the number of searchable results as a puzzling "171181". The number of conused by over 2600 amateur archaeologiststributing metal detectorists is given by the phrase: "bruges af over 2600 amatørarkæologer ["used by over 2600 amateur archaeologists"]"  (I presume "amateur archaeologists" is a mistake for artefact hunters - they are NOT the same).

2600 artefact hunters reporting 184,5k finds Oct 2018-March 2023 is just under 71 finds each but if we divide that by the fifty months the Scheme has been operating that's only 1.42 finds a month (17 finds a year).  

One may legitimately ask if this is all these people are finding. According to the search engine, 45381 are coins (mønt). That is 26% of the total. This is the same problem as we have with the UK's Portable Antiquities Scheme and the UK DetectorFindsDatabase, that coins are well overrepresented (on most sites in Britain coin finds will not make up more than 5-6% of the assemblage of metal finds, if that). So it seems quite clear that this "user-driven recording" is leading to a bias introduced into the record.

One therefore notes the proportion of personal ornaments and dress fittings in the table of contents. This looks like a table of collectables rather than the actual contents of the archaeological record of the whole of Denmark

Another problem of having metal detectorists recording their own finds and a lack of handson supervision ensuring data quality are inconsistent use of terms. For example, there are 1687 records of   DirhEms, eighteen of DirhAms  and  even five DirhIms. Useless. 

Equally useless are a large number (how many?) where you have something like this:

Støbekegle · Støberest 209825 https://www.metaldetektorfund.dk/ny/fund/?dimeid=209825 Støbekegle · Støberest med DIME-nummer 209825 blev fundet ved afsøgning d. 08. april 2023 i Frederikssund Kommune. Genstandens tilstand er ikke angivet og den er endnu ikke dateret. Materialet er ikke identificeret og finder har ikke oplyst genstandens mål og vægt.

[trans. Casting cone · Casting residue 209825 Casting cone · Casting residue with DIME number 209825 was found during a search on 08 April 2023 in Frederikssund Municipality. The condition of the item is not stated and it has not yet been dated. The material has not been identified and the finder has not disclosed the object's measurements and weight.]

First of all, the object shown in the photo is not a casting cone, though it might be a sprue, the single photo showing one side is not at all informative. The actual date of the search is not archaeologically as important as where in the whole of the 250,61 km² of Frederikssund Kommune it was found, and with what else. Even if you search for other finds made on the same day from Frederikssund Kommune , you still do not get a clue as to the archaeological background to this find. So what does the record here in DIME tell us about the archaeology of the site from which it came? (spoiler: nothing, this is just 'show and tell', not "citizen science").

While one commends the fact that its not all metal detector finds, one wonders how much information we are getting from bulking out the record with individual burnt stones  ("archaeological observations" in the table of contents) with no information whether they form a cluster in the field with anything else: 

Brændt/ildskørnet flint 132311

Brændt/ildskørnet flint med DIME-nummer 132311 blev fundet ved afsøgning d. 28. august 2021 i Frederikssund Kommune. Genstandens tilstand er ikke angivet og den dateres til stenalder (ca. 250000 f.Kr. - 1701 f.Kr.). Den består af flint, og finder har ikke oplyst genstandens mål og vægt.

Burnt/fire chipped flint with DIME number 132311 was found during a search on 28 August 2021 in Frederikssund Municipality. The condition of the item is not stated and it is dated to the Stone Age (approx. 250000 BC - 1701 BC). It consists of flint, and the finder has not disclosed the object's dimensions and weight.

We may compare that with another one: 

Brændt/ildskørnet flint 209336

Brændt/ildskørnet flint med DIME-nummer 209336 blev fundet ved afsøgning d. 07. april 2023 i Varde Kommune. Genstandens tilstand er ikke angivet og den dateres til oldtid (ca. 250000 f.Kr. - 1066). Den består af flint, og finder har ikke oplyst genstandens mål og vægt. 

Burnt/fire chipped flint with DIME number 209336 was found during a search on 07 April 2023 in Varde Municipality. The condition of the item is not specified and it dates to ancient times (approx. 250000 BC - 1066). It consists of flint, and the finder has not disclosed the object's dimensions and weight.

So, when does "prehistory" finish in Denmark? What, actually is the purpose of such records? What real information do they provide about the archaeology of the site that they came from? Some of the burnt stone records are assigned (for some reason not stated) to the "Neolithic" have at the bottom "To stykker ildskørnet flint fundet tæt på hinanden på en mark hvor der er en overpløjet gravhøj" or "Et stykke ildskørnet/brændt flint, som indikerer, at der er en overpløjet gravhøj i nærheden, eller en form for bopladsaktivitet [A piece of fire-cracked/burnt flint indicating that there is a ploughed burial mound nearby, or some form of settlement activity]". I guess Danish metal detectorists don't look much at the remains left when a very old large tree is uprooted and burnt to get rid of the roots. Or they do not know about what remains a charcoal clamp or lime kiln leave. How does a metal detectorist date a loose piece of burnt stone in the ploughsoil (and if there is a method, why is it not mentioned in the record)? 

Again, amateurish handheld photos where part of the object is obscured, no scale. Can't these "citizen scientists" do any better? Note, on the front page of DIME is a "how to take better photos" guide - obviously, not everyone is reading it, but hey, doesn't matter does it because they are all anonymous.  

Then you can visit the front page... "10 SPÆNDENDE FUND", it shouts. Clicking on the links to these "exciting" items, you get things like this: "Dirhem 209946 Dirhem med DIME-nummer 209946 blev fundet ved afsøgning d. 09. april 2023 i Thisted Kommune [...]" with a huge narrativisation - presumably by the finder who reckons themself to be a bit of an expert on Islamic silver coins... which reads like anything written by a coiney.

Typebeskrivelse [...], Baggrund [...], Symbolsk betydning [...], Typer og variationer [...] [Reference-illustration] [...], Særlige kendetegn og forvekslingsmuligheder [...] . [...] Læs mere

Type description [...], Background [...], Symbolic Meaning [...], Types and Variations [...] [Reference Illustration] [...], Special characteristics and possibilities of confusion [...] . [...] Read more

Silver Economies, Monetisation and Society in Scandinavia AD 800–1100. Edited by James Graham-Campbell , Søren Sindbæk and Gareth Williams . Aarhus: Aarhus University Press 2011.

Yet, the findspot within "Thisted Kommune" is nowhere given, and: "Genstandens tilstand er ikke angivet og den dateres til vikingetid (ca. 750 - 1066). Den består af sølv, og finder har ikke oplyst genstandens mål og væg ["The condition of the object is not specified and it is dated to the Viking Age (approx. 750 - 1066). It consists of silver, and the finder has not disclosed the object's dimensions and weight "]. The photo is too small, has no scale, shows only one side of the object, no attempt has been made to transcribe the fragment of the inscription shown or describe the typology of the coin itself. The further reading is to a general book, rather than one that enlightens the reader on that particular coin. This is not "citizen science", but "show and tell". It is not related to the archaeology of the site (or landscape) it was pulled from, but a wandering and repetitive object-centric tale. 

The portal promises a definition of the term "Danefae" (property of the state, must be handed-in)... but no such page appears in the portal, despite it operating five years... On the other hand, one can see many examples of the pandering-talk that the UK\'s PAS uses to address artefact hunters and their concerns, which is a bit pathetic to see alongside the portal's (anonymous) authors' attempts to present Danish artefact hunters as the best in the world in terms of their responsible and public-spirited behaviour ("citizen scientists" all of 'em). The details of what these "citizen scientists" are doing to the public's heritage are kept from the public: "Can others see my locations? "No! Finds and private information are only visible to you, museum archaeologists and researchers with special access", ''The closest public users or other detector users come to is the municipality in which a find was made".  So what kind of a public record and transparency/responsibility is that? What are "my locations" in archaeological terms? 

Læs mere

Dobat, A. S., Christiansen, T. T., Jessen, M. D., Henriksen, M. B., Jensen, P., Laursen, S. V., Ruhe, R., Holst, M. K., & Arntsen, F. (2019). The DIME project: Background, status and future perspectives of a user driven recording scheme for metal detector finds as an example of participatory heritage. Danish Journal of Archaeology, 8, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.7146/dja.v8i0.111422

 

Metal Detectorist at the Grassroots

             Clean up Britain            

Following a tipoff from a retired microbiologist correspondent, it appears that a commercial metal detector rally organizer and author of A Guide to Metal Detecting is speaking at an upcoming environmentalist event:

Grassroots Policies For Farming, Food And Wildlife

The second in a series of events to develop a people's manifesto to increase sustainability and justice.

[...] In Part 2 of our webinar series we'll consider two controversial farming systems: Genetic Modification and Factory Farmed Animals, and we'll also hear about a pollution scandal.
Join us for a lively discussion with:

Natalie Bennett, Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle, former Leader of the Green Party of England and Wales, will talk about Genetic Modification.

Bel Jacobs, former Fashion Editor, Founder of The Empathy Project and Co-Founder of the Islington Climate Centre, will talk about Factory Farming.

Graeme Rushton, Farmer and founder of Unearthed UK Ltd, will talk on the Contamination of Farmland

The panel will be chaired by Simon Duffy, President of Citizen Network and Director of Citizen Network Research. This online event has been organised by Alicia Hull in partnership with Citizen Network.
DATE: Thursday 20th April
TIME: 6:30pm BST
For tickets and more detailed information visit our Eventbrite page

It is interesting that a participant in the practice of erosively mining the archaeological resource as a source of collectables (and one that organizes it as a business "Unearthed UK Ltd.") is considered a worthy partner of other environmental concerns. What's he going to talk about? "A pollution scandal [...] the Contamination of Farmland". What's the betting this is about Britain's problem with litter and extraneous material getting into organic matter that is composted as green waste through lax segregation and poor quality control [see here and here]? In comparison with other more disciplined areas of Europe, the post-Brexit British countryside has become an utter rubbish dump due to the country's disgusting epidemic of litter and fly-tipping (see also 

@cleanupbritain

 for a clear picture). So far, there has been little progress in finding sustainable and effective solutions to this issue. That'\s because simply asking people not to do it (and why) is not working in this age of self-centred "me-me-me". Like metal detecting and collection-driven destruction of the archaeological record.

Ironic, let us just notice that the metal detectorists' "green waste campaigns" over the past decade or so have been driven entirely by self-interest too. Having to stop to detect, then dig up and properly dispose of modern metalwork in the ploughsoil slows down the rate at which they can hoik out the more collectable historical artefacts for themselves (that is deplete the historical environment to fill their own pockets). And commercial rally organizers will have to work that bit harder to find fields that will not produce so much green-waste-imported metal dross to put clients off. In fact, a high proportion of such waste will help to protect the archaeological evidence from all being stripped away into finds pouches by Mr Rushton's clients.

Environmentalists might want to look at the selfish (and commercial) attitudes that lie behind "metal detecting" and the smokescreen arguments offered to deflect criticism of their anti-environmental acquisitiveness. Artefact hunting is an environmental issue.

Hat tip Dr William Shepherd, Liverpool.

Dynamite Doug Podcast in Context

"One is prompted to speculate on exactly how

art objects are extracted from their impoverished,

often strife-torn homes of origin to land in the lap of

a rich American museum" (Holland Cotter New York Times, 1994).

Edna Bonhomme in Frieze (3rd April 2023) discusses "True-Crime Podcast "Dynamite Doug" Takes on the Art World" about the six-part series on an alleged looter of Cambodian cultural heritage

Project Brazen and PRX’s six-part podcast series Dynamite Doug (2023) is an explicit take on the crime genre. Although the story isn’t new – it has been reported in outlets like The New York Times (2019) and The Washington Post (2021) – the medium and method are. While some of the interviews conducted already existed in legal proceedings, the producers also interviewed scholars and activists, making this the first audio series to feature oral testimonies and recordings from the trial. It is an unnerving account of the displacement of Cambodian artefacts – intricate bronze sculptures, ceramic jars, gold and jewels – which were allegedly stolen by the late art dealer Douglas Latchford between 1970 and 2000. Described by The Washington Post as a ‘genial Englishman’ who ‘was an explorer of jungle temples, a scholar and a connoisseur seduced by the exquisite details of ancient sculpture’, Latchford is not what you would expect from an art thief.  He played a central role in building the Southeast Asian collections of notable American institutions such as the Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Denver Art Museum. Yet, his actions allegedly left Cambodians dispossessed of some of their most cherished ancient artefacts while under the rule of the Khmer Rouge (1975–79) – one of the most brutish periods in the country’s history.[...] Narrator Ellen Wong – a Canadian actress with Cambodian roots who digs into the story not merely from an investigative perspective but as someone with a personal connection to it – grapples with this by dissecting not only the art dealer’s relationship to his accomplices but by revealing an entire network of people who helped to procure the Cambodian artefacts, estimate them as worthy, forge documents to misrepresent their provenance and sell them to art collectors.

She uses her review to discuss the issue of western museums displaying Asian and African art in general, and the repatriation issue, drawing attention to the roles of the purchasing institutions in the persistence of culture crime, and asking to what extent the visitors to those museums are complicit.

This sentiment is the theme of Dynamite Doug: is the crime in question the looting or is it something even bigger? But there is another point the programme forces us to consider: what is it about the podcast medium that makes us want to listen to a narrative drawn from evidence which has been out in the open for years? Are we more attuned to true crime when it’s packaged in an easily digestible format? And what is our shared responsibility as art viewers? [...] Loss is at the centre of Dynamite Doug – not as an event particular to one country but as part of a glaring, art-world phenomenon. The culprit isn’t merely the art looter himself, but anyone blinkered to the moral obligation of restitution.

I'd add that this is about artefact hunting and collecting in general, rather than this one specific issue of "restitution" which is only one response to the antiquities crisis.   

Aerial Photo Interpretation: The Bulldozing of Dilbarjin Tepe, Afghanistan

Shock-Horror story from Le Monde in Macron-land:

Controversial photo (Le Monde)

Aerial photos show that the ancient site of Dilbarjin Tepe (37° 1′ 21″ N, 66° 31′ 35″ E, 40 km northwest of Balkh)* in northern Afghanistan has been subject to massive damage in recent years (Jacques Follorou, 'En Afghanistan, le pillage massif d’un site archéologique attribué à l’EI'. Le Monde 07 April 2023). The urban site extends over an area of 16 hectares covered with temples, surrounded by a fortified enclosure, the centre of which included an upper part surmounted by a citadel. Excavated by a Soviet-Afghan archaeological mission between 1969 and 1977, the ancient site of is best known for its magnificent wall paintings as well as coin finds from the Kushano-Sasanian, Kidarite, and Hephthalite periods (roughly, 230-560-ish AD). The damage took place between 2019 and 2021 and is attributed by the Le Monde to criminal networks linked to a Khoresan-based jihadist group affiliated to the Islamic State.

The work of a French start-up, Iconem, specializing in the digital analysis of heritage around the world, commissioned by the French Archaeological Delegation in Afghanistan (DAFA), shows irreparable damage that occurred in Dilbarjin between 2019 and 2021, quasi-industrial pillage that has reduced the entire site to nothing. According to these two organizations, this destruction could only have been carried out by highly organized networks acting on behalf of or under the control of IS, which thus, in three years, had built up a veritable war chest. Within the DAFA, Le Monde is told that "the level of equipment and the methodology of the looters show that they are professionals who rely on experts, they knew what they were doing, they are not not the local people who can mount such a program.”

While local looting had been going on for some time, Le Monde reports that destruction on such a scale has not been met in the region before. While the damage here is most severe, Dilbarjin is only one of the sites that has been damaged recently, there are nearly a hundred looted sites in Balkh province alone and a few in Kunduz province.

There is good satellite coverage of Dilbarjin from between 2016 and 2022. The process of destruction can be seen in detail from them. According to Iconem and DAFA, the first bulldozer arrived in April 2019. Since then, four or five machines would work on the site at the same time. Then, work began with the establishment, in October 2019, of an access ramp to the north of the site.

A year later, in November 2020, other openings appear to the west, then to the south, which allow earth, sand and objects to be removed. Systematic levelling can be seen to have taken place in the search for antiquities

The work seems to have involved levelling part of the tell, even though it was 10m tall in several places.

Le Monde postulates that "the looters hoped to find treasures: inscriptions, manuscripts, jewellery, gold objects or Buddhist antiquities from the 3rd and 4th centuries BC". I cannot see that in the available text there is any firm evidence of the actual removal of objects. Also, if you look at before and after images, the earth has not actually been removed from the site, just pushed outwards and the top of the spoil heap is the same level as the area from which the soil was removed.  

I personally am very cautious of this story. The first thing is that the le Monde text is réservé aux abonnés and I am not about to part with 5,49 € par mois pour "l’intégralité de nos contenus" when the bit I can see looks highly dubious. Secondly, in that bit there are no hyperlinks revealing where I can find that Iconem/DAFA report, thirdly there are no hyperlinks there about how I can read about the local militant Islamic group they assert are behind it, and fourthly the use of the T-word. I am against the current tendency to use the word "terrorist" loosely to mean merely "somebody I do not like who uses violence", it means sloppy thinking and stereotypes. So on that showing, I'm not paying 5 euros a month for that quality journalism on the off-chance that Le Monde might, one day, produce something better of interest to my own research. Stuff them.

What the introductory section fails to say is that those bulldozers may have been on the site in connection with what (other) satellite photos show in the area around the site. If you go to Google Earth, you can see that what look like abandoned fields to the SE of the site were brought back into cultivation in Sept 2016 and to the east of the enclosure large areas of land (containing archaeological remains as well as earlier looting holes) were levelled and apparently embanked between 9/2016 and 9/2019. But this is not looting, it is an attempt to use the rich soil of the occupation layers as farmland (like the use of Sebakh - decayed mudbrick - in Egypt). The process can be seen very clearly on the NW side of the citadel in the GE photos of Sept 2019 (compared with those of sept 2016). It's not that difficult to work out that the looters' holes have been backfilled and the area levelled for agriculture. Duh. le Monde, fix this fake news before asking people to pay to read it. You wonder if there are journalists out there these days who were brought up in a concrete desert and have never actually seen a field... 

Secondly, given that, all these assumptions about "highly organized networks acting on behalf of or under the control of IS" because... uh...  "the level of equipment [...] show that they are professionals[...] [and] are not not the local people” really is a totally baseless inference. I see no reason why this should not be the work of an energetic local official who wants to improve the economy of the area and feed people by getting what seems from the earlier GE cover to be abandoned land back into cultivation and extending the area of cultivation. Having a bulldozer and a bulldozer driver does not seem to me to necessarily be a badge of belonging to an Islamic militant organization. 

If they are looting paintings from wall surfaces in this alleged "looting", where are the upstanding walls with trenches along them to facilitate access in the bulldozed areas? Why are the looters pits filled in, rather than extended? 

Google Earth

The photo at the top of this page is the one shown by Le Monde as evidence of this ISIS-sponsored looting (must be of 2019-23). At the bottom of this post, I show what the site looked like already in November 2011 so right in the middle of the US-led coalition occupation (at that time 140,000 troops) and four years before the tentative beginnings of the operation in Afghanistan of ISIS-K (which is what I presume le Monde means). As can be seen, a decade ago, this site was already riddled with deep looters' holes (avoiding areas already dug by archaeologists) and by the time this photo was taken, most, if not all of the holes had silted up.

Please note, that, despite my overall interpretation of the Le Monde shock-horror-photo, in the topmost photo here, however, there are isolated areas between the levelled fields where there are fresh looters' holes. Whether of not "ISIS" is involved and not just a spare time activity for local workmen engaged in reclaiming the tell as fields remains to be seen (see my pot on the Clooney Foundation's claims about Tel Bia near Al-Raqqa in Syria: PACHI Friday, 10 June 2022, "Stolen antiquities trade fuels conflict in Middle East" the "Evidence" from Tell Bia'), which I think is totally analogous.   

Google Earth

* Warwick Ball: Archaeological Gazetteer of Afghanistan : Catalogue des sites archéologiques d'Afghanistan, Paris 1982, p. 91-92

"Easter Metal Detecting for Families"

Joan Allen Metal Detectors
EASTER EVENT for families 🐰

We've teamed up with Tye Farm Leisure & Camping to run an Easter holiday token hunt.
1hr time slot to collect as many tokens as possible!
The chance to win a GoFind 66 from Minelab.
TO BOOK: Message Tye Farm Leisure & Camping or us to secure your place. See you on the farm!

At least at this event they'll not be deliberately looting the archaeological record of Tye Farm.  

Friday Retrospect: Metal Detectorist Challenges Archaeology

     Thomas Hall, Facebook    
 

A while ago, Thomas Hall, one of the beep-beep boys, a UK metal detectorist with some kind of a chip on his shoulder arrogantly issued Polish archaeology a challenge (Friday, 18 November 2022, 'Tekkie Challenge'): 

Paul, my dear fellow, still hiding behind the 'working in Poland' facade? Anyhow, I know my postings are most unwelcome and an affront to your archaeological sensibilities, but modern-day archeological (sic) thinking, in contrast to the oppressive head-in-the-sand viewpoint proffered by you and your steadily diminishing band of brothers, is slowly coming to realize that we, us, can, if not able to use all the terms, measurements and university learned techniques, can, nonetheless, advance historical knowledge immeasurably, I look forwards to your edited, twisted and biased version of my sincere posting. / My dear fellow, from all I witness here you are destined to, as all deniers are from early Christians to later Trump advocates, reap the rewards of your ignorance. to put it bluntly, you will, as archeological (sic) minds advance, be left, like a gasping fish wondering what strange forces have pulled you from the river of ignorance and left you floundering on the banks of enlightenment. / I will hound you my ignorant friend until you shrug off the cold coil of ignorance and embrace the warm coat of reality./

As far as finds, 'Real-Public Interest' finds are concerned, let me offer you this challenge, I, and members of my metal-detecting fraternity will, at our own expense, organize a display of our finds, and you and your archaeological comrades can, side by side with ours display yours. The ten thousand pounds prize for the most viewer interest, determined by an independent observer will be presented at the conclusion of the event. If you can be so brave as to put your money where your Gobellesian mouth is, then please, let me contact my friends in the local media and set a date.

At the time, I raised a number of practical questions about his boasting proposal, not least which commercial artefact hunting company or metal detector manufacturer would be putting up the prize money and where he proposes Polish archaeologists would be presenting their research to which public. They did not receive an immediate response from the metal detectorists who seem not to have thought the proposal through beforehand.

        Excavations on Miła Street, Warsaw         

In Warsaw, however, in the meantime, excavations are currently taking place on two sites in the former ghetto, and they are revealing a number of details of daily life in the closed ghetto under Nazi occupation, and there are a number of poignant finds that raise important questions about issues that I think would demonstrate where loose artefacts themselves need an excavated context in order to reveal the full information that they carry. I think they also reveal some interesting questions about the artefact collectors' (and PAS') labelling artefacts with ethnic labels (while undoubtable "Jewish" and related to the Jewish story, the objects themselves often have a non-emblemic nature). The whole situation also invites reflection on the materiality of public attitudes towards an "Other" in the dehumanisation that led to the Holocaust eight decades ago as well as Britain's current disgusting policies towards refugees and migrants today.   

For this reason, I propose that if Mr Hall wants to take up his own challenge, and can attract a sponsor that will put up the prize money, that his "metal detecting fraternity" could organize at his (or their) own expense, a display of their finds on the topic of "Metal Detecting on the Materiality of Otherness: the British reaction to the Jewish Holocaust 1933-1945", that can be displayed side-by-side with the results of the ongoing archaeological research. Let them take their time, the best venue for this display is the Warsaw Ghetto Museum that is currently being prepared for opening in the near future (planned in 2024 for the eightieth anniversary of the destruction of the Ghetto). The opening of a new museum will be a good occasion to judge "the most viewer interest, determined by an independent observer".

Is Mr Hall, and the British archaeological fraternity he presumes to speak for, up to it? The ball is still in their court.