Rory Tyler: "Rewrite the Artifact Law"

.
Rory Tyler, Moab radio personality and "cowboy poet" has a letter in the Salt Lake tribune (Jan 08 2011) called "Rewrite the Artifact Law" - doing his bit for US collectors' rights that the foreign-dug ancient-coin-focussed ACCG will not do. This is what he says:

[...] clearly there is no way to currently prevent looting of ancient artifacts. Where a black market exists, someone will supply its demands. [...] We need a new paradigm because the current one for protection and preservation is failing. [...] As long as the artifact black market exists, it’s going to be cops and robbers in the canyons.

First of all let us note that it is for him unquestionable that the looting odf archaeological sites in his country is taking place because people are collecting the things dug up. We note that the US coineys, wholly illogically, deny this connection strenuously. Mr Tyler however sees no need to defend this notion, and - frankly - nor do I.

In his letter, Tyler calls for a legalising of the market in dugup antiquities. Sadly he misses the main point, he has been drawn into artefact fetishisation by the collectors' propaganda. Perhaps here is a point US archaeologists and preservationists need to get over more forcibly. It is of course not "who owns artefacts" that is the problem. The law is not the "Artifact law" (sic) but the 1906 Antiquities Act (see 16 U.S.C. § 431 to § 433) and the 1979 Archaeological Resources Protection Act (Pub.L. 96-95 as amended, 93 Stat. 721, codified at 16 U.S.C. § 470aa–470mm) - designed not to channel "artefacts" into one set of hands or another but to protect the archaeological record from being dug over clandestinely for entertainment or profit in search of collectables.

Under the impression that this is about ownership of clandestinely-excavated artefacts, Tyler proposes a solution for consideration:

Today, the richest troves of Southwestern artifacts exist in collections, public and legal, and private and often illegal. Rewrite the Antiquities Act this way: Declare amnesty for possession of all existing artifacts. Record and register them and allow owners to buy, sell, trade or donate them in a regulated market. This would accomplish several things.

First, the new artifacts that would become available to collectors would overwhelm the black market, reducing or ending the incentive for looting.

Second, an artifact’s history, that information valuable to scientists, would be recovered before it’s completely lost — for example, a family story about where Uncle Earl found it.

Third, create a digital catalogue, a virtual museum of items hitherto unavailable to researchers.

This is more or less what Dave Welsh is suggesting for other types of artefacts. Maybe the ACCG should reconsider its policy of not collaborating with local collectors of locally dug artefacts so US collectors are singing from the same songsheet.

As for Mr Tyler's suggestions, the "new artefacts" would only become available for collectors to swamp the black market if the collectors owning the now-legitimised artefacts decide to sell them, why should they? The other two notions sound like what the PAS is doing in the UK with the artefacts other collectors have dug up all over the place.

What is unclear is how Mr Tyler's suggestion of legalising the market in dugup archaeological artefacts from protected sites, so it is no longer "black", will in any way effect preservation of the archaeological sites from which they are being dug. What would be to stop looters going out to dig up a whole lot more during this period of amnesty? In any case the felony is not so much the "possession of artefacts", but the unauthorised digging into protected sites. I feel that were Mr Tylor's suggestion be adopted, there would be a lot of artefacts which their owners would be claiming were found "over there by my Late Uncle Earl" - rather than admitting that it was they who were wielding the shovel.

Selling Off More Antiquities, "a Way Forward"? Reply to Dave Welsh

.

On his Ancient Coins blog, Californian coin dealer Dave Welsh has publicised ('The True Way Forward: Cooperation') a scheme "which per best present knowledge would effectively control looting whilst preserving the rights of private collectors" which he claims is "a serious proposal, to which much thought has been given". It is instead a proposal which upon reading can be seen even on first glance to be full of serious flaws and has been drafted to serve the interests of the minority group of collectors disguised as something which will benefit all. I doubt whether - in its existing form - anyone really will be at all interested in discussing this with collectors. It is clear that much more serious thought needs to go into this proposal before it is presented for serious consideration. I suspect however that this is not the function of producing this "proposal". It seems to me that its main purpose is to put the "other side" in the wrong through their refusal to discuss a "serious proposition" coming from collectors for (a somewhat one-sided) "cooperation" in the reducing of looting. It is for this reason that, however insincere or well-considered this proposal is, it should not be ignored or dismissed.

We see here yet another case where antiquity collectors and dealers - instead of themselves taking responsibility for their actions and themselves cleaning up the market - expect somebody else to do it for them. They constantly suggest that those who criticise the current market themselves should make the effort to clean it up - and foot the expense. But then they would resent any outside (for example legislative) pressure on the antiquity trade to actually achieve this. Thus it is with this complex system suggested by Welsh.

The whole system is based on the premise that somewhere there are reserves of "redundant provenienced antiquities" which "should" be "released" (as if they were living beings "imprisoned" somewhere) by participating source nations so that collectors can have "provenienced" antiquities to buy and care for as well as if they were curated in public collections. Nowhere is explained where these antiquities currently are or will come from and what the benefits are to source nations releasing them onto the international market. What Welsh suggests however is every nation on earth must change its antiquity legislation system (before his is set up) to suit foreign collectors (his clients). Furthermore the "source" nations (which receive "quotas" to fill) will actually only receive half the value from their sale through the venue created by Welsh's system . The rest of the cash will be retained by some Global supra-governmental organization controlling the whole licit antiquities market and crushing the opposition. But the same system will impose the obligation on the source countries to pay the FULL market price to "finders" (and "seekers") who supply the "redundant antiquities" to be sold. This raises the question of why anyone agreeing to sell this stuff off would do so through such an unfair system.

If any nation does not see benefits in participating Welsh's system, he proposes that somehow they could "face withdrawal of international cooperation in enforcing their antiquities and export laws”. That is the extent of the clout Welsh thinks collectors of archaeological dugups should have on international affairs! I fail to see how such an action would contribute in any way to "preserving the archaeological record" and “effectively control[ing] looting”? But actually it can be seen clearly that this is not what Welsh's scheme actually aims to do.

What it postulates is that certain "licenced dealers" will corner the market in the newly-surfaced antiquities, will be setting source nations quotas to suit the needs of the market they control. They can only sell to "licenced collectors" who are prevented by terms of the licences from going to any other dealers. A nice little earner for the dealers involved (except those of Third World countries supplying the material coming on the market who cannot compete with the bidding of dealers from richer countries). All in the guise of being "for the public good". What is not explained is what happens to dealers and collectors who are not licenced, why are they not free to continue to buy and sell what they want? Who is going to check who has what in their shop or collection? In what way is this respecting "collectors' rights"?

I am not currently a member of any collectors' forums so am unaware what they make of this. There is much that is still unclear and perhaps there is a discussion going on elsewhere of which I am unaware. I have made a more detailed list of questions that it seems to me would have to be answered before we can even begin discussing the merits of the coin dealer's idea. I have posted them here.

I suppose it is worth pointing out that if Welsh is now proposing a scheme of supplying the market with objects with a known collecting history as a means "which per best present knowledge would effectively control looting", that looks like an admission of the opposite -0wich Welsh has until now strenuously denied - that the no-questions-asked trade in objects with no known collecting history is the reason why looting pays. It ma also be noted that since the trade has no "tradition' of maintaining any form of provenance details, there is no guarantee that releasing objects with such information will not result within a generation in all of those objects losing that associated information. Let collectors first show they can curate such information associated with objects.

In fact, surely this whole elaborate and expensive scheme would be totally unnecessary if dealers and collectors would themselves take responsibility for curating the records of the collecting history of all the objects in their collections - in other words curating them properly and responsibly in a way that shows they were acquired ethically. That is all that is required to push the cowboy dealers selling looted stuff off the market.

.

Marion True: “Neither condemned nor vindicated”

.
“Neither condemned nor vindicated”. Marion True, the former antiquities curator of the Getty Museum, speaks out on why it is hard for her to accept the lack of verdict after her five-year trial for "conspiring to receive antiquities that had been illegally excavated and exported from Italy" (The Art Newspaper 5th January 2011). The trial began in November 2005. True presents her side of the story:

the prosecutor, fully aware of the statutes, consumed the past five years with the presentation of his case, interspersed with endless delays. [...] During this time, my lawyers were able to cross-examine witnesses but not to present my case. [...] This politically motivated process accomplished its goals long ago. It made headlines with groundless accusations that destroyed my reputation and career, while intimidating other American museums into returning objects without question. [...] The intention was to use the case against me to condemn publicly the collecting of antiquities and to terrorise museums and collectors, especially in the United States. [...] The strategy worked extremely well. American museums chose not to join forces to challenge the Italian position, but silently went their separate ways, with directors travelling to Italy to make private deals to return objects in the hope of appeasing the prosecutor. There was even a sense of relief that I was the only target of the Italians. Yet, it now appears that I will not be the only victim. [...] If the case against Princeton goes forward, perhaps American museums will stand together and not yield to intimidation. Their antiquities collections have been built carefully over more than a century, and are important educational resources in a country that considers the achievements of ancient Greece and Rome fundamental to its own culture. Certainly, methods of collecting in the United States and elsewhere have changed over this time, as have laws and conventions protecting cultural patrimony. But negotiations and collaborations that I and many others promoted with Italian colleagues for years are far more productive in the long run than endless, destructive and expensive litigation.

I suppose the question is just what it is that is to be "negotiated" when a museum is caught out with looted or illegally exported material on its hands. The time for collaboration is before the event, not after. In the case of "Princeton", just what it is American Museums would be "standing together" in defence of and why?

Photo: Marion True in happier days

Illinois Collector shows Objects from Alexander's Tomb?

.
Incredible: Iuka Man Wants County Help in Finding Potential Hidden Ancient Treasures. This is in darkest Illinois -

An Iuka man who believes the lost Tomb of Alexander the Great may be located in Romine Township in extreme southeast Marion County...

Here we see in very clear form the results of amateurish study outside of established methodologies and procedure of decontextualised artefacts palmed off on them by their unscrupulous "finders" - resulting in a distortion of history.

This is the Burrows Cave story revived. Lots on this in the literature and in t'internet (such as here).

The Community Relations committee thanked Hubbard for his information and agreed to ask State's Attorney Matt Wilzbach about how the county could proceed.

What is the matter with these people? Never read a book?

“Clandestine excavation is a crime that is hard to prove”

.
The Art Newspaper has an interview with former Italian public prosecutor Paolo Giorgio Ferri on the scourge of commercial looting of archaeological sites. Ferri was the state prosecutor in Marion True's trial but has recently stepped down as a judge to work on the problem of stolen antiquities with Italy’s ministry of culture as “expert in international relations and recovery of works of art”. He talks of the spate of plundering of antiquities in Italy, which began in 1970 and went on for at least 35 years.

I think we are aware of about 30% of what has taken place. The few restitutions that have proved possible are largely symbolic: they concern perhaps 3% of the finds from clandestine excavations which have appeared on the antiquities market.[...] The UN conference in 2000 in Palermo on transactional crimes indicated crime related to cultural heritage often ensured high profits. There are some signs of links between art dealers and organised crime and also with terrorism. [...] The problem is that investigations don’t have much sense if they are restricted to single countries. [...] Meanwhile, as Italy has increased its efforts to combat trade in illegal antiquities, the situation in, for example, Bulgaria has seriously deteriorated. If organised crime experiences difficulties in one country, it tries to make up for it in areas where there is interesting material to be excavated and marketed.

In answer to a question, "which antiquities have proved most difficult to retrieve and which ones still need to be tracked down?", Ferri answers:

Coins come to mind: the first antiquities that are found using a metal detector, they are often of crucial importance for dating an archaeological site or a tomb.

The crux of the problem is that:

Clandestine excavation is a crime that is hard to prove and hard to combat; until the object is put on display, it is not even clear that the crime has been committed.

presumably "display" means also "surfacing on the market". Ferri discusses the problem caused by a loophole in the current Italian legislation.

The article stresses the need for a coordinated international approach and mentions the outdated 1970 Convention:

I know that there are people at Unesco who are thinking of updating Convention 14711 of 1970, ideally by setting up teams in individual states which are specialised in this kind of crime.

That is good news, it is well overdue for an overhaul due to fundamental changes in the form size and scope of the antiquities market since 1970, and also the abuse of the current wording by pirate dealers and supporting legislators of states like the USA.

More here: Fabio Isman “Clandestine excavation is a crime that is hard to prove”
Art Newspaper issue 220, 5 January 2011

Why did we not think earlier of using the term "Convention 14711" for the cumbersomely named 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property? Oddly enough the only trace in the Internet of a reference to the Convention in this way seems to be in links to this text.

Photo: Paolo Giorgio Ferri in his office

Missing the Point on Artefact Hunting in the UK

.
Derek Fincham has reviewed Suzie Thomas and Peter Stone's edited book "Metal Detecting and Archaeology" as only a wide-eyed uncritical admirer of the PAS can. Yuk. I think Mr Fincham may have been reviewing a different book. In his description of what he wrote, Fincham suggests the book "offers new insights into the tension between parts of the public and archaeologists" and "has much to offer any thoughtful discussion of the clashes between metal detecting and archaeological study". Does it? It does not actually cover the issues of preservation which lie at the heart of the criticism of current British policies on artefact collecting. Neither really is there an informed discussion of the differences between collecting and archaeology which will of course affect any attempt to use collectors' data in archaeological research. Try as I might, I really cannot see any "frank discussion of the harm done" or indeed in any detail of "laws which are broken". See also my own comments here, and a brief mention of a review similar in tone to Fincham's here.

MINERVA too apparently says: "Both metal detectorists and archaeologists can learn much from the papers in this book".

'Criminology and archaeology: Studies in Looted Antiquities',

.
A review by criminologist Sawyer Sylvester of Simon Mackenzie and Penny Green (eds) 2009, 'Criminology and archaeology: Studies in Looted Antiquities', Oxford and Portland. I've not seen the book itself yet, but it looks useful.

Notable quote from the review about the trade in the UK:

But perhaps most problematic of all was the relative lack of will and resources put forth by the government compared to the money, influence, and legal talent available to museums, collectors, and art dealers.

I think this is a more general problem isn't it?

Truth and deceit About the Antiquities Market

.
In a text called 'The truth about the antiquities trade....' an antiquity dealer is - not surprisingly - quoted as saying:

"Barford[']s assertion that the trade is huge and large
numbers of antiquities are changing hands every day is wrong."

The text was written by Candice Jarman, a secretary in Bournemouth whose credentials for making such assessments about the antiquities market are stated to be that he is neither a metal detectorist or dealer but has some "friends' who are metal detectorists.

Jarman claims that the number of antiquity dealers is exaggerated in the literature about the subject. Reference is made to an earlier post of mine talking about an antiquity collecting forum's "good dealers" list by Ernie Krumbein which I suggest readers look at to examine "the workings of the antiquities trade [...] at first hand". It is of course not intended to be even a partial list of all dealers in the western world and Near East.

Then attention is turned to eBay.

Today (4 January 2011) at 21.19, there are 5,120 results for antiquities listed

A search just now shows the number of items on sale on ebay to be 20,229 results found in "antiquities" and a further 27,588 results found under Coins, ancient:

Replicas & Reproductions (701)

Byzantine (1,390)

Celtic (277)

China (4,366)

Greek (3,900)

Islamic (1,134)

Medieval (1,369)

Persian, Indian, Asian (2,296)

Roman: Imperial (8,985)

Roman: Provincial (1,563)

Roman: Republic (674)

Other (673)

Let us subtract the 701 replicas and reproductions and the books on offer. It is still a substantial number on sale on any one day. The spread of portable antiquities on sale on eBay is similar today:

The Americas (2,114)

Byzantine (466)

Celtic (313)

Egyptian (1,727)

Far Eastern (514)

Greek (1,320)

Holy Land (522)

Islamic (972)

Near Eastern (540)

Neolithic & Paleolithic (973)

Roman (5,064)

South Italian (316)

Viking (577)

Reproductions (1,452)

Price Guides & Publications (156)

Other (3,237)

There is a "slight" difference between the number of 5,120 artefacts claimed to be on ebay last night and the number (more than 40 000) that anyone can find a few hours later. Either there has been a lot of mid-week nocturnal activity by ebay dealers all over the world, or somebody is misleading their readers. I invite mine to check the links above and decide for themselves which set of numbers is the closest to reality on a given day.

The apologist for the trade goes on to suggest that the trade does not matter because "many of the items listed are n't even old, let alone ancient". Indeed, as is well-known, there is a lot of fakery, misrepresentation and scamming going on on Internet sales sites generally and many people buying simply cannot tell the difference between real and fake in antiquity buying. That does not mean however that there is NO trade in genuine looted and legitimately sold artefacts going on through these venues. What the indiscriminate trade of such items does show however are the numbers of buyers willing to obtain stuff without asking any questions about its precise origins. I was discussing the degree that fake artefacts are being represented as genuine on eBay - there was a lively discussion of this (based on statements being made by Charles Standish) well before blogger Candice Jarman came on the scene to brighten up our lives.

Let us also recall that there are other venues for the sellers of dugup antiquities, Trocadero for example and the portal run by ACCG President Bill Puetz, V-coins on which today 148 dealers in ancient artefacts ("5 more Coming Soon") are offering 108,221 Items, mostly coins and dugup artefacts with a total value of $21,929,580. This is not to mention those who contact potential clients through collectors' forums such as Tim Haines' "Yahoo AncientArtifacts" discussion list, Forum Ancient Coins or the several dedicated to putting buyers of uncleaned bulk lots of artefacts and coins in touch with those that stock them. Or there are many freestanding specialist websites and even YouTube videos selling bulk lots.

Returning to the topic of ebay, Candice Jarman also mentions what UK metal detectorists sell there and dismisses it:

most of what is listed is dross - fragments of this-and-that, corroded discs (coins?) and debris and lots of indeterminate metal crap which may or may not be old. If you took most of these to your local museum as finds, then they would probably tell you politely to go away and stop wasting their time.

Candice-not-a-metal detectorist obviously has not read what the PAS FAQ says. The PAS can confirm or deny this, but I do not think it is normal FLO policy to tell members of the public coming forward with items they have found to "go away and stop wasting our time", even politely.

Now it is true that some metal detectorists in the UK may make up a job lot of partifacts which are not archaeological (which rather depends on how you define that of course) artefacts per se. In other words they are not the sort of thing the PAS generally record on their database. Such items ARE however recorded on the UKDFDatabase in some considerable numbers. These Old-Timey pieces are saleable because collectable. Candice however is missing the point, these items are the equivalent of the duplicate coil or headphones a metal detectorist may offer for sale, they are the items they have dug or picked up in the fields which they recognise they can make a few quid on and do not need for their own collections. The best stuff they keep for themselves or take to a specialist dealer (many of whom hang around commercial artefact hunting rallies to make finders an offer). The fact that Old-Timey items are being offered for sale does not mean that archaeological finds are NOT. On this blog I have highlighted a number of egregious cases, I am sure any day's search of British sellers on eBay will reveal many more. Confirmation of this is only a few mouse-clicks away.

As far as UK metal detecting is concerned, the large numbers of PAS-recordable archaeological artefacts being taken from the soil has to be accounted for. Either they are entering metal detectorists' collections, or are being sold to other collectors, or they are being discarded. In the majority of cases this is happening without any record being kept of where the objects came from, what they were found with, and what subsequently happened to them. No amount of "it's not that bad really" special pleading can change that. It is a problem that has to be addressed.

The fact that metal-detected Old-Timey partefacts and misrepresented items and outright fakes are brazenly sold alongside unreported archaeological finds on the Internet does not make the removal from the soil and collection or sale of the latter any less of a problem. No more than the fact that many drivers who get behind the wheel of a car after drinking alcohol have accidents on the way home makes accidents caused by idiots Driving Under the influence... a less serious problem.

The reader of this blog can decide for themselves whether the antiquities market is "much smaller and much less active" than the indications suggest. Perhaps after looking for and through the evidence themselves, they might look at who is making the claims minimising the extent and damage caused by the no-questions-asked market. They can then consider what interests the latter have in presenting it in this way rather than joining calls to clean it up and make the whole process more transparent and accountable.

Again it is clear that the lead should be being taken here by the PAS, informing the public and policy makers about the issues surrounding the current form of the international trade in antiquities.

Vignette: when the PAS start talking opely and frankly about ALL the archaeological issues related to their "partnership".

Blogging Lighter until March

.
Readership figures have been picking up recently, both of new posts and a lot of old ones. In the next few weeks however blogging will be lighter as I have a piece of work to get to a publisher before I go to Egypt this year at the beginning of February (Caroline, if you are reading this, just the finishing touches now, honest!). If all goes according to plan I will be working in Deir El-Bahari in the forecourt of the Temple of Hatshepsut at the end of the avenue of sphinxes and also on the upper terrace over the Chapel of Anubis. Any readers who are then in the area please drop by and say 'hello' (I'll be the harassed looking one with the gammy leg in the silly hat). I've been promised a visit to a local fake-antiquity-maker by a local contact and hope, time permitting, to get out into some of the remoter desert valleys to the south. I have had to promise the project director that I will NOT this year pick up any stray cats with mysterious diseases. I'll be back mid-March, hopefully this time with the report of the season's work already written...

British Archaeology Dropping the Ball

.
A few weeks ago I published here a text about two documents connected with British "metal detecting" that had fallen into my hands. They showed with utmost clarity that significant decisions were being made between the author of one of them and a TV producer from a commercial station about how British archaeology is being presented to the public on prime time TV and how this was not being consulted outside the two special interest organizations concerned. I was of course unable to post the actual texts of either document here, but I felt I had to discuss what I see as the implications of these two associated texts and the questions they raise.

These questions of course - like much else related to "metal detecting" in the UK and the PAS - remained without an answer, none of the bodies of the archaeological establishment (RESCUE for example, grounded on public opinion) took up the argument. The topic was absent on the CBA discussion list (like much else), the BAJR discussion list without any further enquiry flippantly dismissed the whole story as fabrication. The organization concerned obligingly denied that there had been any such agreement reached with the TV company and pointedly ignored the postings here about it.

The way the legislation is framed in the United Kingdom makes archaeology very much more dependent on public opinion than in many other countries. For this reason, surely it is very important that we should be very careful how archaeology is presented to the public. It is on the basis of what they pick up from the media (rather than professional publications) that the wider public forms an opinion on what archaeology is, what kind of archaeology Britain needs. This is especially important when more and more elements of the system existing a few years ago are being shed under the umbrella of the financial state the country is in and the necessary cutbacks. Who is going to protest the loss of an HER somewhere if most of the people in the area have no idea what it is, what it does and that they ever had one?

It seems to me that British archaeology needs to establish a long term and detailed strategy which then is periodically re-evaluated, and above all that archaeologists should all be "singing from the same song-sheet".

After all the survival of the discipline is now more than ever before dependent on the type of public support it gets. If the British public see archaeology as a legitimate scholarly discipline with a specific methodology and needs and also things to say then archaeology will have more of a chance being funded as such by crowd-pleasing (vote seeking) policy makers. If the public is convinced that the whole aim of archaeology is to fill cases with golden goodies then there will be no pressure for the government to cut back more and more on the bits of archaeology not connected with golden-geegaw-finding with metal detectors. Of course that means British archaeology first itself deciding that it is NOT about just finding Treasures with metal detectors.
.

Danefae

.
Over on my secondary metal detectorist nonsense ghetto blog, a metal detector user from Denmark steps in to confirm what no British metal detectorist would say about metal detecting practice. The latter would prefer that the public were kept in the dark of course. I think this is one of the problems with the use of the rather general cover-all term "metal detectorists" as though anyone using a metal detector was doing the same thing and had the same attitudes.

Anyhow, this Jakob asks:

After reading your blog for some time I'm curious how you consider the metal detecting practice in European countries outside the UK.

I myself metal detect in Denmark where both the legal basis for and the practise of metal detecting differs from the UK. Do you see any flaws in the way metal detecting is done in Denmark? Besides of course the occasional idiotic/illegal behavior we sadly sometimes see here too.

As far as I know (and I've tried to study it) no Danish archaeologist has been critical of the practise here in the last 25 year so I would honestly be a bit surprised if they all got it wrong for all those years.

Well, first of all by no means do many British archaeologists (openly) criticise the practices of UK metal detectorists - I'll discuss that in a post after (above) this in a moment.

Jakob asks how I consider the "metal detecting practice in European countries outside the UK". That is rather a wide area with a wide range of "practices" and problems, but Jakob asks about Denmark. This is quite timely as there is a parallel series of posts on another blog concerning the visit of PAS top-brass to Denmark in the middle of December 2010, the aim of which was "to meet with museum staff, undertake research on archaeological finds found by the Danish public, and meet with Danish metal-detector users". (Background and Postscript). How do I see Danefae? I think it's a great idea. I am not sure I could honestly answer whether or not I "see any flaws in the way metal detecting is done in Denmark". I have never been artefact hunting in Denmark and cannot recall having met any Danish artefact hunters, so most of what I know is from the literature.

The restrictions on artefact hunting including with metal detectors is about the same as in other countries, so it is totally forbidden to use a metal detector on designated historical and archaeological sites. If there are no designated archaeological sites there, metal detecting is allowed on private land with the permission of the landowner, and of course coin shooting on public beaches. As in other countries too, there are restrictions also on metal detector use on certain public land and in forestry areas, but that is up to local authorities to decide and you have to seek permission for individual areas, which is reportedly not often given. I've seen an estimate on MD forums that metal detecting is not allowed on approximately 50% of the public land.

What Jakob is referring to however is the ownership of finds made with a metal detector, which is where things get interesting. This is related to Britain's old Treasure Trove laws and has the same origin. The principle is that finds of gold and silver in the earth, to which nobody can claim property, belong to the king (today the state). This rule is a consequence of the general royal rule, that “what belongs to nobody, belongs to the king”. Those who consider such laws to be "Communist" should note that in Denmark it was a a public notice of 1752 that states: “Whosoever shall find old coins and the like, which because of age and special character be considered of some rarity, he shall send the same to Our exchequer, for which according to its worth he shall receive full payment from Our privy purse... And anyone who dares conceal that which is found shall be subject to rightful punishment”.

In practice, any modern artefacts found in the soil and coins which were minted after the coin reform in the 19th century can be retained by the finder. Otherwise all artefacts must be delivered to the National Museum (nowadays the local museum acts as a go-between as in Scotland). The finder is awarded a cash sum for the find, the value of which is determined by the National Museum, but it is almost always below the market value, since the object is already the property of the state and cannot in any case be legally sold. In most cases when items are declared danfae, they are retained for the national collections and it is very rare that the finder is allowed to keep his find.

The current basis of the danefae is the Act on Museums of June 6, 1984, Art. 27:

“Objects of the past, including coins found in Denmark, of which no one can prove to be the rightful owner, shall be treasure trove (Danefæ) if made of valuable material or being of a special cultural heritage value.
- 2. Treasure trove shall belong to the state. Any person who finds treasure trove, and any person who gains possession of treasure trove, shall immediately deliver it to the State Antiquary.
- 3. The State Antiquary shall pay a reward to the finder. The amount shall be fixed on the basis of the value of the material and rarity of the find and also of the care with which the finder has safeguarded the find.
- 4. If treasure trove is found in connection with archaeological investigations headed by a state or state-subsidised institution or otherwise financed, wholly or in part, by public funds, no treasure trove reward shall be paid to the finder. In special cases, however, the State Antiquary may pay a reward to the owner or user of the area where the investigation takes place.
- 5. Treasure trove shall be included in the collections of the National Museum and the State Antiquary may deposit it in other state or state-subsidised museums at their request.”

[Article 37 states that persons not respecting these rules will be fined or condemned up to one year of imprisonment].

Jens Christian Moesgaard ('The law and Practice Concerning Coin Finds in Denmark' from which the above is taken) says:

Generally speaking, the Danefæ rules are accepted and the importance of recording finds is widely recognized. This is the result of a long tradition of collaboration between the general public and museums, which goes back deep in the nineteenth century and is continued today and seen as paramount for the functioning of the system. In this way, we probably get one of the best rates of recording coin finds in Europe.

Michael Lewis visiting Denmark on behalf of the PAS notes the long tradition of amateur archaeology in Denmark, "and a general belief that archaeological finds should be in museums (for all to enjoy and study) rather than private collections". He notes that it is possible for museums to acquire all finds they want because unlike Britain, the state provides the rewards which are not set at the full market value and museums don’t have to bid for funding. He does point out that

"if many more people were to take up metal-detecting in Denmark it is not clear whether this ability to acquire ‘at will’ could be sustained - it was certainly the view of the detectorists that I met that fewer finds would be claimed [by the state as] Danefae in the future".

He contrasts this with the situation in England and Wales where there is a much greater number of finds made by a larger number of artefact hunters with the

finder’s demands for a ‘fair-price’ for finds acquired by museums [...] most people in Denmark seemed less favourable disposed towards the English system, believing finders to be greedy and rewards too high, though to some extent that reflects press coverage of big Treasure finds" [...] It is the general feeling of people in Denmark (especially detectorists) that detectorists in England are only ‘in it’ for the money [...]

Lewis also met metal detectorists in Denmark and notes

I was most impressed by their obvious enthusiasum to advance archaeological knowledge, and they clearly had a dim view of those who detect for financial gain; indeed, one person expressed frustration that the local museum didn’t think that some of his finds were Danefae, which of course would mean he would lose them…[...] it seems pretty fairly ingrained in the Danish consciousness that history is important, finds should be reported and the best place for them is in public collections.

Jakob admits that this does not stop all illegal activity ("we sadly sometimes see of course the occasional idiotic/illegal behavior here too") and Moesgard (above) admits that the rate of reporting is to some extent dependent on local museum outreach.

Nevertheless, it seems that the system here is superior to that in Britain, metal detectorists are out there doing what they do not in order to collect what they find, but share what they find. The British collector selfishly accumulates, the Danish one makes available. The detectorist in Denmark gets his kicks out of "detecting" metal and not taking it - the difference between "metal detecting' and "artefact hunting" perhaps? The British collector is not required to report all of what he finds, and not all do, the Danish searcher is and the Danes claim a very high reporting rate. Collectors claim that only a market-value size reward will seure high reporting and handover rates, the Danish experience is that this need not be the case, it is a matter of social responsibility and not cash earnt. Furthermore the Danish detector users look askance at their mercenary and selfish British counterparts. In Denmark, everybody understands that archaeological objects, even so-called "minor artefacts" belong in public collections where they can serve as a resource for research and study. Everybody understands why the care of such objects is and should be vested in the state. It is notable that all this is done through the network of local museums (getting the public involved in the museums) without the need to set up a costly separate Scheme running in isolation from other archaeological bodies.

Jakob asks if I see any "flaws" in such a system, I expect there are, but as far as I can see the situation in Denmark is a vast improvement on that in England and Wales, so heavily lauded by collectors as the "ideal system" (of course that is because it allows vast numbers of collectables to enter the antiquity market, instead of going to public collections).

UPDATE 10/1/11
Jakob commented on the other blog, but I'll append the added detail here for reference:

The cut-off date for coins in general is 1536. It used to be 1650 but that changed some years ago - 2004 I think, but I can't remember for sure. Hoards (2 coins or more found together), gold coins and large silver coins (rule of thumb: more than 9 grams) after 1536 are also danefæ.

As far as I understand the reason for the change was an increase in the number of finds that lead to considerations about what really had to be declared danefæ. And that the general cut-off date for danefæ was 1536 (except for finds made of gold or silver), the traditional end-year of medieval times in Denmark, so the coin-date seemed a bit odd.

A graph of the coin finds in later years can be found here: http://runer-moenter.natmus.dk/danef%c3%a6rekord/ (might need to enlarge the graph). The ligth blue column is the number of coins the royal coin collection have received each year. The development in danefæ in general can be seen on http://www.slideshare.net/dkmuseer/peter-vang-petersen , slide 36. The graph shows the number of danefæ-locations with the detector-locations marked in purple.

At times it has been troublesome for the National Museum to keep up with the increasing number of finds but in recent years it has been better. Seems that people rarely now have to wait for several years to hear if what they found was actually Danefæ.

I must say the 1536 date (so a few years into the reign of Christian III is an interesting date to have the end of "Medieval". The peter-vang-petersen slideshow is interesting in itself (Danish archaeological photography is often wonderful to behold). The graph of reporting figures (slide 36) showing the growth of metal detecting finds is especially so, it is interesting to compare it with the PAS one for the same period where such statistics for the early period are missing.