Closed to Debate in Bangor

.
I was talking about British archaeologists who support collectors and collecting the other day. In the Moneta-L message discussed in the post above this, ACCG employee John Hooker has obligingly supplied another example, this time from Wales. Interestingly he does so in the context of pontificating on the alleged "bad judgement" of "people with established reputations" to engage in the debate on the archaeological heritage and the illicit trade in antiquities. He warns, "This can result in a rapid loss of hard-earned reputation". As an example he appends a name-dropping anecdote:

I once directed Prof. Raimund Karl to one of Paul Barford's blog entries. Ray was shocked, as he had communicated with Paul Barford years ago. Ray is not only a long-time correspondent of mine but is an archaeologist specialist in both Iron Age and heritage matters and is the "head of school" at his university. He has an impressive CV for his positions in Austria, Germany and Wales. I cannot say what he said, but he had provided me with the quotable:

"There certainly are some fundamentalist archaeologists, too, who condemn any trading of antiquities regardless of the specific circumstances of the individual case, but those can reasonably safely be ignored."

He said that he already has said the same (in German) on television.

Well Karl lists as one of his research interests "heritage management" though does not reveal on his webpage whether he collects any antiquities or coins.

Professor Karl might find it interesting to pay more attention to the heritage debate in his adopted country. If he did, he would find that it is not exclusive, it does not "ignore" people whose views do not fit into the mainstream, but there is a much more open engagement. This is what English Heritage Conservation Policy Sustainable Management of the Historic Environment (online here) establishes . I am sure prof Karl will be well familiar with its content and implications (I am sorry I have not seen the corresponding document for Wales, it probably says much the same).

I am not sure how many of those "fundamentalist archaeologists" who "condemn any trading of antiquities" whatsoever there really are in the United Kingdom. It seems that such a position would be more prevalent in US circles (but again not as a general rule, even in AIA circles). I know of a few examples, two British (that post invited collectors to list others, such a list never materialised) and it seems to me that there can be very few others. This is even if we accept that for some reason they are afraid to raise their voice in criticism of the laissez faire policies represented by the PAS in Bloomsbury, partnering English and Welsh (for the moment) antiquity collectors.

Certainly I would not agree with them. In order for there to be an "illicit" market in antiquities, it means there is a licit one. I cannot see why any archaeologists ("fundamentalists" or not) would argue against the sale of Grand Tour antiquities like that sarcophagus side from the Adams interior at Lansdowne House discussed in the press a while ago. It was discovered, hoiked out and cut up long ago, and it has been well-documented by those who curated it and there is no question about the ethics involved in its acquisition (there were no ethical guidelines or such qualms in the Grand Tour years). No harm, either real or potential, is being done to the archaeological record by the sale of objects such as this with such well-documented collecting histories. This is licit antiquity (or as some would have it "ancient art" collecting) and I see nothing wrong with it. The only thing that for me is vaguely controversial is that one might perhaps question whether public funds should not be raised so that something like this would not be shut away in a private collection but a public one - but by purchase and not coercion, but in fact I see nothing wrong with an item with such a documented pedigree of private ownership remaining as such another generation or so. We might also debate whether the heritage is enhanced or depreciated by the fact that this object has now left the interior and setting of Lansdowne House, though of course there is nothing anyone can do about that if it is a result of the owners falling on hard times in the past, one may regret - as I am sure they do - that they had to sell it, but cannot criticise them for it.

It is not just Grand Tour artefacts that are on the market licitly. It has come to be accepted in most circles that the date 1970 (the first accessions to the UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Ownership of Cultural Property) is a valid nominal cut-off point for licitness of antiquities. Anything documentable as having "surfaced" on the market before then can be treated for most purposes as if it were kosher - whether or not its acquisition in fact was. That seems reasonable to me (even though in fact there were earlier international documents highlighting the damaging effects of the illicit trade and clandestine artefact hunting on archaeological sites, and the 1970 Convention is far from a perfect tool).

I suspect that it is not so much "fundamentalist archaeologists" who are against the free circulation of artefacts which "surfaced" pre-1970 (leaving aside the rather extreme position of Zahi Hawass in Egypt).* If you look more carefully at the debates on "repatriation", while they may be supported by archaeologists, to a great degree the campaigns are being conducted by people from other areas of public life and for several different purposes. This is why I do not consider so-called "repatriation issues" to be an integral part of the set of problems which I discuss on this blog. The inclusion of this body of separate issues in the portable antiquity collecting debate confuses the issue. While there may be to an extent (a small, I would say, one) some justice in what people like Cuno say about these issues when seen in the context of "pre-1970 repatriation" debates, I see no absolutely grounds for applying them wholesale to the ongoing commerce in and collection (either private or public) of items more recently "surfaced" (from underground). Mixing the two only allows the "collectors' rights" (sic) lobbyists to confuse the public. (And I think they are doing this deliberately and dishonestly.)

I personally think that "pre-1970 repatriation" issues are only marginally related to the issue of the expanding international no-questions-asked antiquities market and artefact hunting and collecting. I am certainly against "fundamentalist" calls to "send it all back" in general, though think the issue should be openly discussed on a case by case basis.

I certainly do not agree with Raimund Karl's reported position that the views of any "fundamentalist archaeologists" about antiquity collecting and commerce should be simply "ignored". I think we (especially other archaeologists and heritage professionals) should encourage them to participate in the wider debate as it is only through an exchange of views that the core issues can be isolated and dealt with. Another archaeologist supportive of collecting, Gabriel Moshenska of UCL has pointed out in a recent forum discussion that the "metal detecting debate" is as much about splits within the archaeological community about what is important and what is not. One may disagree (as I do) about what he considers in that paper as "staggeringly unimportant", but that is where debate begins - not with simply dismissing an opposing view as something that "can reasonably safely be ignored". Let us see some more archaeologists in the UK taking the 'artefact hunting and preservation debate' bull by the horns and facing the issues instead of just running from them.


* It would be interesting to count how many archaeologists were at the Cairo Conference last year

The Article One Lie and Intangible Heritage

.
I was doing some reading today connected with a translation I am doing with regard to Poland becoming last month a state party to the 2003 UNESCO Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (Gripping stuff). I was reminded of what I call the 'Article one lie' whereby the no-questions-asked mob attempt to convince collectors that those dastardly "radical archaeologists' want to stop them collecting anything at all - just look what it says in article 1 they say - "POSTAGE STAMPS and everyfink". What they do not admit is that article 1 of the 1970 UNESCO Convention defines what types of thing might come under it (and not what invariably do). So it for example excludes intangible cultural heritage which now has a convention of its own. Its Article 2 is worth comparing with the Article 1 of the 1970 one. This shows even more clearly the utter deceit of the Article One Lie used to defend no-questions-asked dealings in tangible cultural property.

Article 2 – Definitions
For the purposes of this Convention,
1. The “intangible cultural heritage” means the practices, representations, expressions, knowledge, skills – as well as the instruments, objects, artefacts and cultural spaces associated therewith – that communities, groups and, in some cases, individuals recognize as part of their cultural heritage. This intangible cultural heritage, transmitted from generation to generation, is constantly recreated by communities and groups in response to their environment, their interaction with nature and their history, and provides them with a sense of identity and continuity, thus promoting respect for cultural diversity and human creativity. For the purposes of this Convention, consideration will be given solely to such intangible cultural heritage as is compatible with existing international human rights instruments, as well as with the requirements of mutual respect among communities, groups and individuals, and of sustainable development.

2. The “intangible cultural heritage”, as defined in paragraph 1 above, is manifested inter alia in the following domains:
(a) oral traditions and expressions, including language as a vehicle of the intangible cultural heritage;
(b) performing arts;
(c) social practices, rituals and festive events;
(d) knowledge and practices concerning nature and the universe;
(e) traditional craftsmanship.

So basically not all contemporary sagger makers' bottom knockers' tools, or knowledge of the correct construction of the lower part of saggers are part of this heritage, but they could be. Likewise not all nineteenth century stamp collections are protected cultural heritage, but should a nation so decide to make certain examples protected by law, there is allowance for that to occur in the 1970 Convention.

[And I challenge any of those US ancient-coiney numbskulls who claim that unprovenanced (heap on a table) numismatic material can 'tell us about the past' to show us even one scrap of information from numismatic sources alone about the noble and necessary art of sagger making and the place of bottom knocking in the process. Do they get many saggers depicted on their coins?]

PASing Around with the "Numbers": A Week in the Record

.
The country I live in used to have a government that loved statistics. Every year wheat and sugar beet production was up, the number of new houses built was up,, production of tractors and cars was up. Over in the "rotten west" the only thing that the newspapers told us was going up was the number of unemployed and alcoholics, and the number of people shot in the streets by gangsters or killed in some catastrophe or other. Listening to the state media (the only media), one could believe one lived in a paradise on earth, except there were food shortages in the shops, there was a waiting list for new cars and somehow those new houses and flats seemed not to have been built in the citizen's own town. We lived in a world of statistical myth. Knowing that, nobody listened to the numbers and dismissed the claims that things were improving as propaganda. Which is a pity, because although life was bad (really bad) for most of us, things were happening which were to have great significance when the country threw out those communists and began to live under a new system. Many other nations in the post-Soviet Bloc countries found themselves with a far worse social and economic infrastructure with the results we see.

Like the countries of eastern Europe before 1989, the PAS loves broadcasting its propaganda of success. From press releases and conference programmes it can be seen that it knows no other type. The PAS webpage gives a running account of how the numbers keep getting bigger and bigger. So yesterday during the launch of the 2008 report, instead of hearing about them, we heard of the bigger numbers achieved two years later in 2010. We were treated to effusive accounts of how well "the numbers" show the PAS is doing in its struggle to inform citizens about the wealth of archaeological treasures that lies beneath their feet just waiting for them to "have a go" themselves at digging them up and showcase them on the PAS database. Now the whole world and its aunt is learning that the British Museum reports a large increase in archaeological finds found by the public and that "archaeological finds are up by 36%". Yesterday this "massive increase in archaeological finds found by the public" was being trumpeted around the press. The figures for 2010 were 139502 records referring to 233273 objects recorded through the PAS. In addition it was announced yesterday that in 2010, there were " 859 Treasure cases, up 10%":

the British Museum manages the PAS, and also administers the Treasure Act (sic) 1996. This increase in finds is mostly due to a rebuild of the PAS finds database in early 2010, which has made it easier to use for recorders and the public, and interns employed to record finds, generously funded by the Headley Trust and Institute for Archaeologists.

Well, that is not the whole truth is it? Let's have a look at those statistics for 2010, using the search the database facilities of the PAS. I have no special access to PAS records, I see as much as the average member of public who pays for the Scheme, so readers - and culture ministers - can check this out themselves from the 'statistics' sidebar in the database, the rest is very user-friendly so even metal detectorists can use it.

Using this facility to look at the 2010 Average per month records we get these results:

Month	Objects	Records
January	12277	4289
February	5584	3509
March	95560	93774
April	57874	4183
May	5258	3948
June	14509	4476
July	5506	4574
August	11299	3459
September	4688	3844
October	6445	4641
November	9017	5062
December	5256	3743
	233273	139502

Well, first of all let us look at that massive total, c. 139500 records (referring to 233200 objects) - wow, eh? The figures for 2009 are 39874 records (mentioning 67074 objects), so that is a big increase...

Looking in more detail however we can see that the monthly recording figures for 2010 are indeed a little up on the corresponding values for 2009. But there is one highly significant anomaly. March 2010 (March 22nd 2010 in particular) is interesting. On one day there was a huge leap in the numbers. In fact a huge leap which is largely responsible for the increase reported for the whole of 2010. Let us take a look at the PAS recording going on that third week in March 2010 using the PAS database search facility. Have a look at this: Statistical analysis of the database for Friday 19th March 2010 until Saturday 27th March 2010

Number of records: 91388 (Number of objects to which they refer: 92140 - an uncharacteristically low ratio this week, see why below)

Number due to Responsible Metal Detectorists reporting their Finds:
14118 records overall (15.4%) referring to 14864 objects.

Quantities recorded per Officer and assistants:
Only 36 FLOs recorded anything at all during that week (most recorded between 3 and 40 objects - average 17.1) That is 645 records referring to 1397 objects
Hero recorders that week:
Adam Daubney (Lincoln): submitted 66 records referring to 101 objects
Andrew Brown (Suffolk): submitted 58 records of 58 finds
and Ciorstaidh Hayward Trevarthen (Dorset) boosting the "number of objects" statistics with just one record, but referring to 662 objects.

What is significant in the records made in that week is that two additional bodies of data are present:
Peter Guest (not a PAS employee) submitted 52,812 records (listed as referring to 52812 objects) inserted from Cardiff University's Iron Age and Roman Coins of Wales project database.
and Celtic Coin Index (not a PAS employee) submitted 37,931 records (also listed as containing records of the same number of objects) inserted from Oxford University's Celtic Coin Index database.

So of March 2010's total of 93,774 records 90,743 are from these two extraneous (and independently funded and operated) sources alone added to the PAS database on March 22nd. That means only 3031 objects were recorded from outreach to both metal detectorists and non metal detecting members of the public that month (about seventy per FLO per month). It also means that c. 91,000 records of the total of 139,502 quoted for 2010 are in fact inserted from these other sources, and therefore only 48,759 come from the outreach work of the FLOs. So in 2010 there were just 8885 more records created on the PAS database as a result of outreach among the public in 2010 by the PAS than in 2009. That is not an increase of "36%" is it?

This alleged "36%" increase in statistics about PAS outreach has however been lauded by metal detecting Minister Ed Vaisey and others as showing the contribution of artefact hunting to the work of the PAS - which in turn shows how it is "working". But let us look at the actual date of finding of the objects entered onto the PAS database from those two external sources and now being included in the PAS statistics for 2010 (again from the PAS database). The source is the same statistical analysis of the database for Friday 19th March 2010 until Saturday 27th March 2010: Let us see how many of those data counted as "finds recording in 2010" come from finds made in and around 2010, or even in the same decade or century:

Year of discovery Year Objects Records No year recorded 64296 64244 year zer0 5945 5945 1720 3 3 1736 1 1 1746 1 1 1749 19 19 1750 1 1 1761 1 1 1762 5 5 1764 1 1 1775 1 1 1781 3 3 1786 1 1 1788 1 1 1796 1 1 1800 11 11 1801 1 1 1803 6 6 1805 1 1 1806 2 2 1813 1 1 1816 1 1 1821 1 1 1824 1 1 1825 9 9 1827 22 22 1829 21 21 1830 17 17 1832 6 6 1835 2 2 1836 1 1 1837 3 3 1838 9 9 1839 2 2 1840 9 9 1841 4 4 1842 19 19 1843 7 7 1844 4 4 1845 2 2 1846 1 1 1847 5 5 1848 31 31 1849 65 65 1850 5 5 1851 5 5 1852 1 1 1853 86 86 1854 11 11 1855 7 7 1856 5 5 1857 12 12 1858 5 5 1859 8 8 1860 167 167 1861 3 3 1862 9 9 1863 6 6 1864 60 60 1865 9 9 1866 6 6 1867 17 17 1868 7 7 1869 17 17 1870 18 18 1871 6 6 1872 5 5 1873 59 59 1874 4 4 1875 18 18 1876 4 4 1877 7 7 1878 99 99 1879 6 6 1880 29 29 1881 5 5 1882 11 11 1883 4 4 1884 3 3 1885 2 2 1886 5 5 1887 8 8 1888 14 14 1889 21 21 1890 30 30 1891 10 10 1892 32 32 1893 15 15 1894 5 5 1895 14 14 1896 7 7 1897 2 2 1898 115 115 1899 9 9 1900 22 22 1901 5 5 1902 6 6 1903 15 15 1904 33 33 1905 611 611 1906 4 4 1907 53 53 1908 118 118 1909 6 6 1910 6 6 1911 331 331 1912 31 31 1913 76 76 1914 21 21 1915 8 8 1916 5 5 1917 8 8 1918 18 18 1919 132 132 1920 9 9 1921 3 3 1922 4 4 1923 7 7 1924 14 14 1925 14 14 1926 4 4 1927 69 69 1928 14 14 1929 6 6 1930 34 34 1931 46 46 1932 30 30 1933 8 8 1934 35 35 1935 42 42 1936 16 16 1937 23 23 1938 16 16 1939 15 15 1940 12 12 1941 6 6 1942 3 3 1943 2 2 1944 2 2 1945 3 3 1946 3 3 1947 4 4 1948 122 122 1949 6 6 1950 17 17 1951 5 5 1952 12 12 1953 10 10 1954 40 40 1955 30 30 1956 9 9 1957 25 25 1958 23 23 1959 14 14 1960 69 69 1961 26 26 1962 56 56 1963 51 51 1964 35 35 1965 68 68 1966 110 110 1967 111 111 1968 84 84 1969 38 38 1970 150 150 1971 99 99 1972 183 183 1973 127 127 1974 33 33 1975 43 43 1976 209 209 1977 283 283 1978 128 128 1979 146 146 1980 131 131 1981 122 122 1982 267 267 1983 274 274 1984 464 464 1985 862 862 1986 455 455 1987 869 869 1988 255 255 1989 199 199 1990 386 386 1991 300 300 1992 602 602 1993 426 426 1994 828 828 1995 658 658 1996 330 330 1997 129 129 1998 90 90 1999 336 336 2000 398 398 2001 286 286 2002 463 463 2003 489 489 2004 254 254 2005 35 35 2006 34 34 2007 4 4 2008 23 22 2009 194 182 2010 6105 5418 92140 91388

Of the actual total of records on the PAS database made in that week for 2010 as we have seen, at a maximum 645 were records (referring to 1397 objects) created by the FLOs as a result of the PAS' public outreach. The rest seem clearly to be inserted data from these two other external and independent sources.

The CCI and IARCW data are also responsible for a large peak in the number of findspots recorded in March 2010 with 8 figure National Grid References (888) and 10 figure one (52870). Normally PAS data do not contain as many records of findspot location with such precision.

I think the figures speak for themselves. Far from the figures indicating that in 2010, 36% more members of the public (including metal detectorists) came forward with finds they had recently made is an illusion. What is happening instead is that in 2010 the PAS gained access to data compiled by others quite unrelated to the Scheme, some of it recorded nearly 300 years ago and it is these data which are being presented on the PAS webpage as part of its own "achievement" in recording finds. This is at best misleading, but - given the fact that there is not a word of this in the BM press release, as reported on the Scheme's own website - could also be construed as dishonest.

It might be suggested that it is legitimate to count these figures in the PAS database as they are date about "finds made by the public" - which is what, in broad terms, the PAS database records. This is false on two counts. Firstly the CCI and IARCW databases both contained considerable numbers of records of finds made during archaeological excavations and archaeological surveys. They were both funded by outside sources as academic research projects, not public outreach. Secondly, and more importantly, both of them already existed in the form of standalone databases, and could comfortably have continued to do so. Incorporating them in the PAS database is unnecessary and seems primarily an idea seized upon cynically to bump up the Scheme's statistics to make it look as if - in its outreach to members of the public, and the "metal-detecting" community in particular, the PAS is "working" much better than it actually is.

I really do not see the need for this subterfuge (for there really can be no other name for it). In fact it hides the real achievement of the Scheme which has been a genuine rise in the number of records being made by genuine outreach. I think this is largely due to the reconstruction of the database which streamlines the manner in which FLOs enter these data and is enabling them to get through their recording backlog more rapidly. The PAS can tell us themselves the percentage I am sure. The question is however, given their propensity for 'spinning' their statistics in a form which both flatters and defends their metal-detectorist-partners instead of in a form which gives realistic basis for assessment of policy effectiveness, whether anyone apart from DCMS ministers and superficial journalists are really interested in listening to their "look how well we are doing!" bleating any more.

Vignette: Polish propaganda poster from the Old Days: "Better results from working together", might be a good slogan for the PAS .

Andy Paxford the Bognor Metal Detectorist: "You Need us so that You Can Fo Your Bit"

.
From Bognor Regis just along the pebbly coast from Candice Jarman comes a comment on a text I posted here at the beginning of the year:

Mr barford, I think being a single minded archy seems to suit you lot down to the ground, you knock the detectorists, forgeting that you need us so that you can fo your bit. Also before slandering me personally and the club - at least have the decency to contact me. I will sekk legal advice if you do not apologise or remove my name grom this article within 24hrs of this reply. Andy paxford

Though I have no idea what the verb "fo your bit" means, frankly I very much doubt that I or world archaeology needs artefact hunters to achieve it, or that the archaeological record can sustain the process. If combating the process of erosion of the archaeological record at the hands of these people and those that support them requires a bit of single-minded application of logic to the arguments of the pro-looting, pro-collecting and pro-illegal-export brigade, then this blogger is all for it. There is too much woolly-headed thinking attached to the pro-detecting arguments in the UK.

Let it be noted that Mr Paxman not only does not want his name to be associated with artefact hunting and collecting, but also did not see fit to add the PAS or the Code of Practice to his group's website before writing to me. Let it be also noted that instead of actually engaging the issues raised, Paxman opts to threaten me with legal action for mentioning them. This is of course quite typical, in order to avoid addressing points such as these, UK detectorists prefer (like US coineys) to shut part of their discussions away from the view of the main stakeholders in the heritage, the wider public. If what they are doing is discussed in a public place (such as this tiny corner of the blogosphere) then out come the threats.

Mr Paxford, when is the time for bringing out the cogent arguments?

That Last Post ("The PAS database: What people collect in the UK")

.
Last night after I'd posted the original of the post below this, Blogger had an "issue" and the whole site was "down" (meaning it was "read only", bloggers could not edit anything). We'll be back online "soon" we were told, continually, for a whole night and the best part of the next day. Then somewhere along the line we were told that posts made in the few hours before the "maintenance" started would be temporarily removed until blogger was "stable" again, but then they would be reinstated. I was worried about some drafts I'd created yesterday, but when the thing came back online they were there, but the post I'd made on the PAS statistics has gone - vanished into cyber-Hades. Fortunately I have the whole blog backed-up, just in case.

I mention this because of a rather puzzling post made on the forum Moneta-L where coineys hang out in private. It was made by ACCG-lackey John Hooker:

Hi all, I rarely refer people to Paul Barford's blog, and I never quote an entry in full, but today is an exception! I am copying the entire post, just in case someone tells him what he has done and he removes it. Statistics are a funny thing, sometimes, what they show is not exactly the point that is made of them. In this example, it shows very clearly that most of what is being recovered from metal detectoring are accidental losses -- not from any archaeological site and utterly free from "archaeological context". However, if one is in the midst of an /idée fixe/, then this might not be apparent:

[ there then follows a cut-and-paste with a LINK no less of my text of Thursday, 12 May 2011: "The PAS database: What people collect in the UK"]

Unfortunately, Mr Hooker, his thinking being coin-addled, does not see fit to explain in what way the information I summarised and presented there "shows very clearly that most of what is being recovered from metal detectoring (sic) are accidental losses -- not from any archaeological site and utterly free from "archaeological context". That's like saying the Parthenon Marbles cannot possibly be from any Greek building as there are no column bases or worn thresholds in the collection. Lord Elgin's men ripped off what they thought interesting, collectable and displayable, and smashed their way through what they did not want to cart off, leaving a mess of the rest. That is exactly what we have in the metal detecting finds reported to the PAS (have a look at the UKDFD dataset for exactly the same picture).

Certainly I do not consider Mr Hooker has made his point about what I "have done". I think what I wrote reveals nothing other than what it reveals, which is that the mess collectors make of the productive sites they take things from is not in any way mitigated by a record such as the Portable Antiquities Scheme Database. Contrary to Mr Hooker, I hold that the "record" we have of the results of the activity which produced it is insufficient to say anything much about the sites and assemblages the material comes from.

Mr Hooker and fellow Monetans would do well to do some reading about how UK detectorists find 'productive sites' to collect from. There are plenty of 'how to' texts available now. (I know, they find reading real books about anything but old coins a bind, maybe they can find a GoogleBooks version).

Certainly, Monetans can be assured that the temporary disappearance of this post was a problem with blogger in general and was NOT in any way connected with any "realisation" that the data could be read another way.

[As for the"statistics", the post in question was to be one of two - there is something very "interesting" indeed about the figures I quoted, and I am surprised that Mr Hooker of all people did not spot it, but I'll finish writing that one later UPDATE 17/5/11: I see a few people are looking in at this post, so supply the link of the further text on the subject of the PAS database].

"Absolutely Wrong, but I'm Not Telling You Where"

.
Cairo based Egyptologist Nicole Hansen (28 kwietnia 15:37) talking about antiquity looting in Egypt and the Egyptian Museum in particular says:

Paul [...] You may be trying to make sense of things, but the one part of your latest blog post with which I am intimately familiar,I am 100% you are absolutely wrong. History will tell us what really happened and those who are really concerned about what is happening are doing things you don't see to deal with them, not spending their time on a soap box.

Less concerned about the "soap-box" jibe (another one who does not understand a blog is a blog, is a blog), I suggested off-list that it would be helpful if she would indicate where what I have said here in previous posts is misleading so I can deal with it. Sadly she declines, preferring to maintain an unhelpful I-know-something-you-don't stance, replying:

"You will know when the rest of the world does".

Well, that really "supports the Cairo Museum"! So Barford is wrong, but the accuser cannot say where exactly. Where have I heard that before? (All the time from antiquity collectors).

I really cannot see that in the post to which she refers (bears the tag 'personal') there is much to get "absolutely wrong", since it addresses the points on which I was chastised by Dr El Shazly and quite clearly mostly describes what I myself felt upon the news about the looting of artefacts from Cairo's museum and observing the embarrassing farce surrounding their "recovery", so beats me with what there Dr Hansen feels she is "intimately familiar". Still, its nice to see that somebody is confident that we will ever learn what really has been happening in the Museum.

So until then, readers are warned that somebody called Dr Hansen says that somewhere here is a gap between what I have suggested about the Museum looting and its background and what she knows is true. And since she is not willing to share this information with her professional colleagues, only time will perhaps tell where the discrepancy lies (lay). Perhaps she has proof that the "big black bag" story was true after all?

Vignette: Coy Dr Nicole claims to know something about antiquity Looting in Egypt we do not... and is not telling.

Don't Become Slave Oil: Support the ACCG

.
Another version of Evil Gubn'mint Catastrophism from the coiney camp, this time with an environmental twist. If ya don't want to see 45% of the world population in chains as Slave Oil runs out, ya'd better start supporting the ACCG in its aim to keep illegally exported ancient coins on da market. A classic of the genre which I suspects well illustrates the thought processes of the average ACCG supporter.

This is not tin hat stuff either, you just have to look and dig to find this out.

I beg to differ. (We note that the writer's pitchfork and torches environmental alarmism does not run to thinking of ways to slow the rate at which oil - a finite resource too - runs out.) I think somebody's going to have a lot of free time on their hands when Fox takes Glenn Beck off the air.

All this, let us note, is to justify coineys digging around in a dead woman's email correspondence to bolster their case for allowing the import of illegally exported archaeological artefacts onto the US no-questions-asked antiquities market.
.

Ancient Treasures as Fashion Accessories

.

Harrods apparently have a new line in menswear: It's named after a famous TV Egyptologist and got a mutant four-legged dung beetle in the logo. The blurb announces:

Rich khakis, deep blues and soft, weathered leathers give off a look that hearkens back to Egypt’s golden age of discovery in the early 20th century.

That's Egypt's golden age, or the European golden age of digging up Egyptian stuff? I rather think the Egyptians working for the European explorers in the early twentieth century wore something else... they only started adopting European dress styles later in an attempt to shed their identity as an 'other'.

The "Karnak Shirt" has been "hand painted (with grime?) washed and repaired to recall (sic) the rugged experience of excavating the ancient tombs of Egypt". In "Karnak" that is, the Egyptians are apparently keeping the lots of "tombs" there a secret from the rest of us, but hey, if we buy one of these shirts, we can "recall" excavating them.*

An Egyptian blogger writing in English has however picked up the discussion going on about this (Zeinobia: 'Our ancient treasures are not accessories ya Doc !!!', Egyptian chronicles - the Egypt that you don't know, April 15th 2011). It is referring to a November 2010 photo shoot which James Weber a NY photographer did in the visiting Tutankhamun exhibition in New York in connection with the promotion of this new line. She seems not to be very pleased about it, but clearly seems to be confusing the director of the New York museum with the director of the Cairo Museum. She also seems to think that the antiquities used as props and to provide background are ALL real (they clearly are not).

I see Kate Phizackerley has picked up the story Zahi Clothing Line - Shocking Photos). Kate raises the question of the destination of royalties for those photos in association with the new law in Egypt about such matters.

Apart from the general laughable premise of the collection itself (surely though just a bit of fun and not worth getting worked up about) and effect of the whole project, I am not sure there really is so much of a problem using antiquities in product promotion. It actually happens quite frequently - in fact is it not a sign that these "things" actully mean something even to the consumerist materialist fashion junkie? Frankly it does not seem particularly worrying that an archaeologists should have a brand named after him, it happens to sportsmen and actors, I do not see why astronauts and astronomers or archaeologists should not have the same status. Perhaps we should be grateful that Ms Flaugh did not decide to do a Simcha Jacobovici line, or a Mick Aston/Phil Harding line.


* Actually if they are to depict what a shirt looks like after exploring the West Bank tombs, my fashion advice to Lora Flaugh is they should have a long rip down the back and smell vaguely of bat excreta.

Vignettes: Egyptian explorers of the Valley of the Kings in the 1920s, below, non-Egyptian explorers of the Valley of the Kings in a slightly earlier 'golden age'. Ties and jodhpurs seem to be in order for the men, can't see Lara Croft (perhaps the fashion-house's next project) in a dress like that though.

Archaeologists, they are not all "Angry"

.
I discussed an article ('Anger as TV show endorses metal-detecting 'plunderers'; Archaeologists criticise British Museum for opening archive to new series') in the Independent above. Well, not all archaeologists see any problem in this. David ("Badger") Connolly up north of the border thinks its all a conspiracy.

People may remember the earlier thread... here. Well.. the wonder is... who is doing what to whom... why and how.

That thread begins:

Sounds like a spoof to me.. They are always trying to wind up Paul Barford.

So Mr Connolly really still thinks the document I saw was a spoof set up by the PAS to entrap me? That seems a rather odd thing to believe of the Portable Antiquities Scheme... As far as I know (though I suggested he should), Connolly made no attempt to see the document to which I referred in my post in order to see if he still thought it a "spoof". Those who have seen it do not believe it was a spoof.

Then in the comments page under the original article somebody else shyly signing themselves as "An_archaeologist" comments: "Responsible metal detecting, with properly recorded find locations [...] and with the permission of the landowner, is fine".

Hmmm.

Is it? What about responsible tell-digging in Iraq if you locate where the hole you are digging is with GPS and ask the local sheikh? Responsible Buddha statue decapitation in Cambodia? Responsible shabti-retrieval in the fields of Abusir, Egypt? Responsible pot-digging in Blanding USA? Is NOT GPS ing where the stuff comes from and NOT asking the landowner really the only problem with the treatment of archaeological sites as "mines" for collectables an_archaeologist can see? Where is the difference between looting sites for collectables in Britain and anywhere else? Is the British archaeological record in any way which the rest of us cannot see more impervious to damage by artefact hunting and collecting than that elsewhere? Surely the difference is only in name, call it looting and its bad and foreign, call it "metal detecting" and its British and "fine"?

Presumably then an_archaeologist who thinks artefact hunting is fine will agree that we could solve the looting problem in Egypt tomorrow, liberalise the laws about artefact hunting to match those in the UK and set up a voluntary reporting scheme a la PAS and call the activity something else and problem solved ! No need to petition the Egyptian government to protect the sites, let them just ask the Brits how to deal with the problem.

Ridiculous. No wonder "an_archaeologist" did not want to use their real name.

A Warning From Beyond the Grave for Looters

.
Attention has been focussed on the legal, rather than moral, aspects of the current retention by the St Louis Art Museum of the cartonage mask which proper due diligence should have revealed clearly should be in the archives of the 1952 excavation by archaeologist Mohammed Zakaria Goneim in Sakkara. The excavation has been published (Goneim 1956), but there is a nice online resource detailing her burial by K.M. Johnston, a previous correspondent with this blog, on Egyptology Geek and Amduat Wiki.

Johnston notes that the contents of Ka Nefer Nefer’s burial are in several respects extraordinary for such a simple interment. The body has the cartonnage accompaniments of a mummy, but was not actually mummified. A recent re-examination in association with the upcoming court case of the field catalogue of finds still held in Egypt however reveals (pers. comm. A. Mustafa Laff, Feb 2011) that also now missing from the Sakkara storeroom (presumably removed at the same time as the mask and presumably scattered in the no-questions-asked antiquities trade), are several fragments of cartonnage bands found loose in the vicinity of the body. Although, unlike the mask, they do not bear the name of the deceased, they clearly belong to this burial. There is a hieratic inscription on the cartonnage, and the text (visible in the low resolution photos in the field journal) is transcribed as below by Prof. Ivar Lupe, egyptologist in the Estonian Academy of Sciences, whose recent research has focussed on Ramesside non-royal burial practices and who will be publishing this new discovery in due course:

Lupe observes that a feature of great interest in these lost fragments is that alongside the usual funerary formulae, the mummy bands contain a text of the type popularly known as a „mummy’s curse”. Lupe translates this portion of the text as follows:

"Death will come on swift wings to those who disturb my peace and shall do evil or wickedness to this. The City of the Gate will fall, and to its land will come fire, water and pestilence [...]."

This seems to me a further argument for returning Ka Nefer Nefer's coffin mask to Egypt to rejoin the rest of the material excavated from her burial. It is what she would have wanted. The formulae are well known from other inscriptions of this type, but Prof. Lupe was unable to decipher the meaning of the „City of the Gate” in an ancient Egyptian context, suggesting it either refers to a local town or more likely refers to a military outpost on Egypt’s western borders in the Delta, referring to a text on a Late Ramesside papyrus from Deir El-Medina in a time of crisis at the end of the 21st dynasty which makes reference to the „foreign-born princes” ruling in a „City of the Gate on the Western Horizon” indicating a collapse of central control of this strategically important region.

Readers cannot fail to note the coincidence that St Louis which refuses to allow Ka Nefer Nefer’s face to be reunited with the rest of her burial also calls itself the „Gateway to the West”. One may only speculate whether the priests and seers (re)burying Ka Nefer Nefer's remains foresaw the violation of the integrity of her burial and were issuing a warning to the people of St Louis, that under the rule of a foreign-born prince „fire, water and pestilence” will visit their land. Just to be on the SAFE side, in their place, and given all the other factors, I would be urging the local museum to give it back right now.

Reference: (Goneim, M. Zakaria. The Lost Pyramid. Rinehardt & Co Inc. 1956. pp 64-66; Goneim, M. Zakaria, Service des Antiquites de L'Egypte. Horus Sekhem-khet - The Unfinished Step Pyramid At Saqqara, Volume 1. Excavations at Saqqara. Imprimerie de L'Institut Francais D'Archeologie Orientale. Cairo. 1957. pp 23-27, Plates LXVII-LXXI)

My Letter to Senator Gillibrand

.
New York senator Kirsten Gillibrand prides herself on transparent dealings with lobby groups, that's nice. So I am posting here my letter to her about her apparent patronage of the recent CPRI anti-CCPIA conference here, and I am hoping she will allow me to post here too any answer she may give. Maybe some readers would like to add their voice to mine, especially those from New-York-Based SAFE. Let us see how she justifies her apparent support for those in and around the US antiquities trade who we would be forgiven for believing are hell-bent on undermining what semblance of international cultural heritage protection the US has to offer, rather than strengthening it.

Dear Senator Gillibrand,
you have been named in connection with the organization of a conference in Washington under the title: „The Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act (CCPIA): Is it working?”.

Given the tone and content of that meeting (summarized here http://www.cprinst.org/Home/issues), may I ask therefore whether you yourself actively support the International Cultural Property Protection program of the US government (http://exchanges.state.gov/heritage/culprop.html)?

Would you like to see a strengthening or weakening of the ability of the US to set a moral lead by helping stamp out the international trade in illicitly acquired cultural property and related criminal activity?

As you are no doubt aware, the CCPIA serves to regulate the import into the United States of certain designated groups of cultural property which is threatened by illegal activity from specific states. This is done by temporarily restricting items newly coming onto the US market from those states to those which have been legally exported. In this manner, responsible collectors purchasing items on that market can be assured that they are not running the risk of purchasing illicitly acquired material, with all that this may entail. I am sure you will have the same difficulty as me in seeing why any discriminating, responsible and ethical US collector would object to that.

There is however a group of US dealers in and collectors of antiquities and coins – together with their lawyers - who are actively challenging the US Government’s application of these measures. The motives of this group for wanting to challenge measures intended to keep illicitly-obtained material off the US markets can only be guessed. I can only hope that you were unaware that there were people associated with members of this milieu among the organizers of the conference you are named in connection with.

Senator Gillibrand, do you yourself, or those in your immediate environment, collect antiquities, or have any other connection to the global antiquities market and their other advocacy groups?

In the interests of transparency, may I post a copy of your office’s reply here: http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/03/my-letter-to-senator-gillibrand.html?

Thank you for giving your time to reading this
Paul Barford

Thank you

I've just posted a brief note on this on the SAFE blog. Perhaps someone there might invite her and other politicians to in some way show some support for SAFE and its aims?

I note that in the list of topics in the Senator's contact form to choose from, there was no mention of culture or cultural property theft, suggesting this was not a matter about which Senator Gillbrand was expecting to get correspondence from citizens.

*PS because Americans can only imagine that the rest of the world's postal service works like theirs and nobody at all would want to ask a US Senator anything from outside the country, you can't send anything from outside without giving a Zip Code. It blocks you if you put a real postcode of another type. I therefore appended a random Washington DC one to my address. I do not expect she'll be writing back anyway, the letter is longer than it should be.

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.

.

Gill on PAS as Preservation (3): Barford responds

.

One of the respondents to David Gill was archaeoblogger Paul Barford who overran the word limit with his long-winded response to the topics raised ('Archaeology, Collectors and Preservation: a Reply to David Gill'). Anyone who has read what this bloke has said elsewhere will recognise that there is not much there which he has not already said many times.

It is' however, worth drawing attention to the fact that although Barford is often labelled "anti-PAS" by his opponents (and the PAS refuse to talk to him !), his text actually contains a call to strengthen PAS by incorporating it into legislation with a permanent place in the heritage preservation system and a permanent budget, which would strengthen its position immensely.