Illinois Archaeological Site Looted

.

Artefact hunters have damaged and looted an archaeological site of the Woodland and Mississippian cultures on farmland in southwestern Illinois. Large holes were dug with shovels into the excavated area in a hasty search for artefacts after the students had left the site after work on Friday. The thieves also broke into a locked equipment storage box and stole a $200 piece of surveying equipment. The damage was discovered on Monday morning, but heavy rain on Friday night erased any tracks the vandals may have left. The vandals caused so much damage that the team will have to begin the dig again.

Looter's hole in the middle of an excavation square

It is reported that the finds present on the site were of low monetary value, "there is nothing of commercial value here. You couldn't sell it," Gregory Vogel, an assistant professor with the archaeological field school at Southern Illinois University's Edwardsville campus, told the Belleville News-Democrat.

George Pawlaczyk, 'So much work, and it was gone': Vandals hit SIUE archaeology dig', Belleville News-Democrat, Jun. 14, 2011
Read more:

Chad Garrison, 'Dirty Rotten Scoundrels: Vandals Destroy Archaeological Dig at Southern Illinois - Edwardsville', Riverfront Times, Jun. 15 2011

Of course this digging is only visible (and being written about) because it took place on a site currently being investigated. The holes dug by artefact hunters, looking for exactly the same types of artefacts on exactly the same type of rural site, don't make it to the press, but are no less deep and wide, no less damaging to the archaeological record. And this is going on all the time, in the daytime, in evenings at weekends, but nobody bats an eyelid. It is the collector's "right" to collect the pro-collecting advocates say. They claim the right to create this kind of devastation of archaeological sites wherever and whenever they take a fancy, sometimes keeping within the law (only on private land with permission), sometimes breaking the law. It makes no difference to them, neither does it make much difference to the people who buy the artefacts coming from such diggings.

David Gill Honored

.
Congratulations to David Gill who is the recipient of the AIA's 2012 Outstanding Public Service Award, as it says on Facebook where it was first announced, it is for:

his work on http://lootingmatters.blogspot.com/. Looting Matters is a wonderful resource and breaks new ground in bringing the issue of undocumented antiquities to the attention of world-wide audiences.

I am particularly happy that David has received this acknowledgement since - despite ever being the gentleman in what he writes - over the past few years he has been the object of a number of rather unpleasant attacks from the US dealers' lobbyists.

So this is brilliant news which shows that the grassroots work of raising public awareness of the issues surrounding looting and the illicit trade is considered important for archaeology, at least over the ocean. I expect if British archaeologists were giving such things out, they'd all go to metal detectorists.

Canada: 18 000 Stolen Coins Did Not Make it onto the North American Market as Planned

.
This Friday evening at a ceremony at the Canadian Museum of Civilization the Ministry of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages returned the largest ever Canadian seizure of stolen cultural property to the Republic of Bulgaria. Going back were 21,000 coins, pieces of jewellery, and other objects that were illegally exported to Canada and seized by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Vezhdi Rashidov, Minister of Culture of the Republic of Bulgaria, was present to accept the artefacts from the Government of Canada. Madame Irina Bokova, Director General of UNESCO, came over for the event. The usual speeches were made.

"The RCMP is pleased with this successful outcome. Our team in Montréal has worked long hours to investigate, locate, and retrieve these Bulgarian artifacts," said Bob Paulson, RCMP Deputy Commissioner.

In 2007, Canada Border Services Agency officials detained two imports of cultural property sent by mail from Bulgaria. These imports were referred to Canadian Heritage for further assessment, and the RCMP was asked to investigate. As a result of its investigation, the RCMP seized about 21,000 ancient coins, pieces of jewellery, and other objects in November 2008. In January 2011, the importer formally abandoned the cultural property, clearing the way for the Court ofQuebec to rule under the Criminal Code for the return of the seized antiquities to the Republic of Bulgaria. These objects, many of which were illegally excavated, cover more than 2600 years of the history of Bulgaria. This collection includes more than 18,000 coins, as well as a number of artifacts including bronze eagles, rings, pendants, belt buckles, arrows and spearheads, and bone sewing needles. They represent a mix of Hellenistic, Roman, Macedonian, Byzantine, Bulgarian, and Ottoman cultural heritage.

The "importer" involved in this attempted smuggling was not named. But there are not too many coin dealers selling this kind of stuff in that part of Canada, are there?

Canada and Bulgaria are signatories to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property, under which participating states agree to assist each other in the recovery of illegally exported and stolen cultural property. In Canada, the Convention is implemented through the Cultural Property Export and Import Act [1985], administered by the Department of Canadian Heritage. The Department works closely with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Canada Border Services Agency to enforce and administer the Act and combat the illicit traffic of cultural property.

Huge numbers of such artefacts flow through the US market annually. In fact a substantial portion of the market seems to have been initiated by the flow of masses of cheap dugup coins precisely from Bulgaria. The USA and Bulgaria are signatories to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property, under which participating states agree to assist each other in the recovery of illegally exported and stolen cultural property. In the United States, the Convention is implemented through the Convention on Cultural Property Implementation Act 1983, administered by the Department of State (unlike countries like Canada, the USA has no Ministry of American Heritage). Despite this, very few shipments of looted coins and artefacts stripped from archaeological sites by gangs of criminals have ever been stopped at the US border, or investigated, located and retrieved by US law enforcement agencies (DHS, FBI etc).

Lesser, but still substantial numbers of such artefacts flow through the UK market annually and are openly sold alongside (and sometimes masquerading as) local finds obtained by metal detector use according to Britain's all-too-lax laws. The UK and Bulgaria are signatories to the 1970 UNESCO Convention on the Means of Prohibiting and Preventing the Illicit Import, Export and Transfer of Cultural Property, under which participating states agree to assist each other in the recovery of illegally exported and stolen cultural property. In the United Kingdom, the Convention is implemented through the Dealing in Cultural property (Offences) Act 2003, administered by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise. Despite this, very few shipments of looted coins and artefacts stripped from archaeological sites by gangs of criminals have ever been stopped at the UK border, or investigated, located and retrieved by UK law enforcement agencies.

So well done Canada for doing what neither the UK nor the USA can be bothered to do for fear of upsetting the local collectors and dealers.

Source: Government of Canada Returns Its Largest Ever Seizure of Cultural Property to the Republic of Bulgaria

Vignette: RCMP commemorative coin (8000 minted).

.

Collecting Away a Non-Renewable Resource

.
You Tube video about the non-sustainability of collecting away a finite resource: "this site has been done".

PeaceHavens assures his fellow artefact hunters: "If you want to find anything you've got to find a new site that's not been detected before" because as he shows, once somebody's taken the surface evidence of human activity in the past from a place, its gone. There is no way of getting that evidence back once it has been discarded, scattered in ephemeral personal collections or flogged off on eBay. Now what he's enthusing about is mostly modern 'byegones', but the same principle applies to a Roman settlement, Early Medieval cemetery or whatever.

What happens when 10 000 + artefact hunters run out of "new sites"?

BBC: Metal detecting 'helping to preserve Britain's history'

.
I mentioned this the other day, now somebody has sent me a link (sadly not embeddable) to the BBC's Jenny Hill reporting (video).

"Metal detecting used to be seen as a slightly eccentric pastime but high-profile discoveries of long-lost treasure are giving it a new image. The amateur archaeologists are gaining respect as they are credited with playing an increasingly important role in helping us learn about the UK's past".

Well, how they are actually depicted as doing so is by emptying the archaeolocial record of its artefacts, and even getting their kids along to help. In the programme is featured Frank Andrusyk of the Central Yorkshire Metal Detecting Club (NB, no mention of the Code of Practice). There is mention of the Staffordshire Hoard (de rigeur these days), "a high profile discovery which boosted interest in the pastime". There is mention of an "official database' amateur archaeologists' finds can be recorded on - with 90 000 added last year - but nowhere do we learn its name, the bloke that represents it in the film is given the label "British Museum". So we see the mess on Michael Lewis' desk in the BM (and the national flag in the corner) as he gives a few glib soundbites about how metal detectorists are "not in it for the money". You may notice Bloomsbury Pete the heritage conscious pigeon in the background trying to listen in at the window so he can do the PAS' outreach for it next time a question too difficult for them to answer is asked (so that's about most questions innit?).

Apparently "a lot of people that go out metal detecting have a real genuine interest in the past" which somehow for the "British Museum" makes it all OK I guess. [People who shoot deer in the forests in Poland near me also say they are really interested in 'looking after' the deer, which is why they put out water troughs for them just in front of their hides, and when they come to drink... It's all legal].

Cut back to Frank-with-a-Slavic-Surname up in Yorkshire who explains that

"the people who just walk away with the items, it's such a shame, just such a shame. The true meaning of the metal detecting, from an 'istorical perspective is the, erm.. looking and searching for the information that those items contain".

At the end of the film the journalist stresses "for them its not about the monetary value of the find, the real treasure that lies beneath the earth here is what it can tell them about the past".

Well, I think we are not really much further on in the debate than in the mid 1970s when metal detector owners insisted on people stop using the term "Treasure hunters" and call them "metal detectorists", far more anorakish ("Metal detecting ... slightly eccentric pastime. - deliberate camoflage you see? They do not like it when you call a spade a spade and refer to them as "artefact hunters"). So now they apparently want us to call them "amateur archaeologists". Both the BBC and the British Museum jumble-desk-guy keep trying to convince us they are "not in it for the money" (now what was it that Terry Herbert the finder of the Staffordshire Hoards featured in the film told us he used to say when out detecting? Remind us please Mr Lewis)

Secondly we are not getting anywhere near getting that idea across about archaeological context are we? There is this database you see, and lots of finds get put on it. But the "find" is not the point of the database, EBay's got lots of finds on it. The database is there to make a permanent record of findspots of items that get - as Frank says "taken away, such a shame, such a shame". But Frank's appearance here is less than stellar as archaeological outreach ... what does he say? He says what is lost when things are taken away (from sites he's interested in?) is NOT the findspot information at all, but "the information that those items contain". In other words, he sees archaeological finds no differently from the US heaps-of-coins-don't-care-where-they-come-from-as-long-as-they-are-on-my-table collectors who claim to be able to write all of human history from fondling a pile of ancient pictured discs of metal. So-called "metal detecting" is of course exactly the same kind of collecting, except these collectors hoik their own collectables from the soil and discard what they do not want, while the coineys across the Atlantic pay somebody else to do it (and pay somebody else to break the law to get it to them if necessary). When it comes down to it, and no matter what people in the PAS or anywhere else in Bloomsbury say, the two are manifestations of exactly the same hobby, all part of the same problem.

Not that the BBC would notice. But - and here's the question Heritage Action asked - who is telling them otherwise?

AIA Statement on Smithsonian Treasure Exhibition

.
AIA Statement on Belitung

June 8, 2011 | by Elizabeth Bartman

As the largest and oldest organization devoted to archaeology in North America, the Archaeological Institute of America is committed to the protection of the world’s cultural heritage. As part of this commitment we strongly oppose the commercial salvage of antiquities and any exploitation of archaeological materials obtained in this manner.

The Belitung Shipwreck was salvaged unscientifically by commercially-motivated treasure hunters. Although the excavation and disposition of these materials may be technically “legal,” it is the AIA’s position that involvement by the Smithsonian Institution in the exhibition of these artifacts will serve to blur the distinction between bona fide nautical archaeology and treasure hunting. Following this path puts the Smithsonian in the indefensible position of aiding those who believe that antiquities are a commodity to be mined for personal or corporate financial gain. They are not—they are part of the world’s cultural patrimony.

As the premier museum of the United States and the largest museum and research institution in the world, the Smithsonian is a model for others and should endorse the highest ethical standards for American archaeological and museological practice. The AIA urges the Smithsonian’s leadership to heed the voices of archaeologists worldwide—including many within its own walls—in cancelling the plans for any exhibition of the Belitung shipwreck and its artifacts. To proceed with plans to display these objects will increase the risk to other equally valuable shipwrecks that have yet to be discovered.

Elizabeth Bartman
President, AIA

It is interesting to compare this with the near total lack of reaction by British archaeological organizations to the plans last year to produce a Treasure-based "archaeology" TV programme by the PAS.

Thousands of Smuggled Archaeological Artefacts Looted in Bulgaria Being Returned by Canada

.

Focus news agency reported on June 8 2011 that about 21 000 smuggled archaeological objects and ancient coins will be returned to Bulgaria by the Canadian department for cultural heritage.

A delegation headed by Bulgarian Culture Minister Vezhdi Rashidov will receive the items at a special ceremony on June 10 at the Museum of Civilization in Otawa. Following a decision of the Canadian court, the archaeological items, proven to be of Bulgarian origin, will be given back to Bulgaria.

That'd probably be something like 30kg of 'partifacts' and coins then. This is probably the same haul as this one reported from 2010:

In August, customs officers in the Canadian city of Montreal seized 21 000 antique objects with Bulgarian origins, in a smuggling attempt. The antiques consist of coins, jewels, metal and glass objects from the Bulgarian, Greek, Roman, Byzantine and Ottoman heritage.

I discussed this on this blog at the time. It is interesting to note that we are nowhere nearer to learning the answer to any of the questions I raised here last year when discussing this, who sent these coins from where, and to where? 'Repatriation' of the artefacts involved alone will do nothing to stop the smuggling and looting. Remaining silent about the source and destination of the illicit artefacts does nothing to help citizens learn about the mechanism of the trade in illicit objects and therefore how they can avoid becoming a participant.

So Canada has stopped just one shipment of contextless artefacts. Big deal. How many items, how many kilogrammes of looted ancient artefacts of Bulgarian or Southeastern European origin have slipped through the net by the same route since (say) 1990? How many will continue to pass through Canadian customs in unmarked or mislabelled packages to dealers and collectors who are not in any way accountable for their transactions involving antiquities?

The USA is even slower to react to the huge numbers of artefacts taken from Bulgarian sites (by looting on an industrial scale at sites like Archar being sold there like potatoes by the kilogramme), to which it seems the recent expansion of the ancient coin trade there owes so much.

Heritage Action Asks: Who Misleads the BBC?

.
Heritage Action has an article about something I mentioned here earlier. It's called: BBC misleads viewers – but who misled the BBC? Just what message are the British public getting about archaeology these days due to the kind of "outreach" being done by the discipline? There is more and more evidence that archaeology is becoming seen by the main stakeholder in the archaeological heritage only as the hunt for glittery geegaws which "tell a story" which can be done by an ordinary bloke with a metal detector and a spade and a good place to look. I am sure this will have unfortunate long term consequences for the discipline. The author of the HA piece quite rightly points out the vast differences there are between archaeology and collecting artefacts, a distinction that seems no longer one archaeologists themselves feel free to talk about over there (or maybe for British archaeologists these days there really is NO difference?).

We’ll send [the BBC] this article and explain to them that the documenting and collecting of things from the past for their own sake is not archaeology, amateur or otherwise, but antiquitism. Let’s see if they desist from tarnishing the good name of tens of thousands of genuine, selfless amateur archaeologists – or if someone has a quiet word asking them to carry on.

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 .

Britain: "An Amateur Treasure-Seeker's Paradise"

.
Britain, due to lax legislation is now considered an amateur treasure-seeker's paradise where, according to Stefano Ambrogi of Reuters reporting on another PAS boastfest ('Britain: An amateur treasure-seeker's paradise', May 25th 2011) "unusually, government and museums approve detection and digging by general public" and "detector enthusiasts [...] are able to keep their haul":

Britain is bursting with ancient buried treasure and the masses have been bitten by the bug for digging it up — ironically with the full approval of the government and leading museums. Latest figures released by the British Museum on Wednesday showed a "massive" jump in the number of antiquities and spectacular objects classed as treasure being found by ordinary citizens with a passion for history.

"Highlights displayed at the British Museum" include "a stash of late Iron Age solid gold coins, called "staters," dating from 15 to 20 AD" (that would be the Wickham Market hoard where limited excavations - I think as yet unpublished - failed to reveal much about its burial context). "Of equal importance" (for whom?) "is a unique Roman knife handle depicting a perverted erotic scene involving two males and a female with one of the figures clutching a decapitated head. Only a handful of erotic knife handle designs have ever been found in Britain".

Apparently we are to rejoice that "In 2010, over 90,000 archaeological objects were reported to museums across the country — a 36 percent rise on 2009 — through what is known as the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS)". Well, were they? Is that REALLY what that figure of 90 000 represents? Who says so? Where is the Celtic Coin Index and the Roman Coins of Wales database? What about the Norfolk paper records entered by interns? All these contain information coming from PREVIOUS years, and not 2010 alone, don't they? In the case of the CCI some data going back to the eighteenth century well before electronic metal detectors (well before electricity in fact).

According to the article (is this based on a PAS press release?) the reason why so-called "detector enthusiasts" (why not call them what they are - artefact hunters?) were "derided by archaeologists in the past for their unscientific practices". That rather skips over what is meant by "unscientific", it is not whether they use more sophisticated (depth advantage and discriminating) electronic tools for "detecting" metal collectables, but the fact that the archaeological record is being actively mined as a source of collectables in Britain. That is what the problem is, sites and assemblages are being ripped apart and plundered for collectable geegaws, and all the public is told by an appreciative press is that we've an erotic knife handle and to a set of post-medieval false teeth to show for it. And tens of thousands of utterly trashed archaeological sites.

Along comes Michael Lewis to announce that the scheme differed markedly from the way in which excavation is regulated in the rest of Europe

which he said was "draconian" by comparison.

"Draconian" is the sort of word used by dealers and collectors. The likes of Wayne Sayles and Dave Welsh of the ACCG, William Pearlstein of the ACCP. The ACCG certainly thinks the PAS is on their side. Expressions of disdain for measures proposed by other countries in an effort to protect their archaeological sites from being trashed by artefact hunters and collectors being expressed by the PAS certainly do nothing to dispel this impression. After all as we all know, Roger Bland was a willing recipient of the ACCG "Friends of Numismatics" award.

Those so-called "draconian laws" mean that it is illegal to trash sites and treat them as geegaw mines in most other countries of the world (including on public lands in the USA). I really do not see that Britain has anything to be proud of that it is not in England, Wales and Scotland.

Here's some holes dug by artefact hunters at Wanborough and an excavation of a site after the artefact hunters have been there - do artefact hunters no longer damage sites now Britain has a PAS?

That's like making a virtue of the fact that a country may have (for example) limited anti-rape laws. Fine for male perverts, less so for the women who live there. Britain's legislation is fine for the artefact collector, ideal for the dealer (as long as its not for export) and as we have seen now widely regarded as a 'paradise' for treasure seekers. But its not protecting the archaeology. Filling museum cases with pretty dugup and ripped off geegaws is what nineteenth century antiquaries used to do. Elgin, Layard, Botta and Belzoni for example. But it is not "doing archaeology". It is not protecting sites. Paying for upwards of 800 "Treasures" unnecessarily ripped to a great degree from their (unknown because nobody investigates most of the sites) context of deposition well below plough level on otherwise unthreatened sites loudly applauded by all is costing millions yearly. I really cannot see why Lewis thinks this is anything for the Brits to boast about. What on earth do British archaeologists think they are doing just passively watching on as this sort of thing goes on?

Lauding the scheme Vaizey said: It really is incredibly effective...and it works."

Well, only until you stop parroting what you got on the self-gratulatory press release and start asking other questions. What it is actually doing is providing a platform legitimising artefact hunting, looting, and collecting as well as the antiquity trade. It is not actually mitigating the losses to the British archaeological record to any satisfactory degree, because the token big numbers do not look so impressive when you try to examine the evidence for the overall losses. The PAS (including the publicity given to events such as this) seems actually to be directly responsible for an increase in the number of people taking up this erosive and destructive hobby in Britain. It is also actively eroding public perceptions of the aims and purposes (and methods of) archaeology [and that's worldwide]. In actual fact, closer familiarity with what "metal detectorists" are up to behind the scenes (try looking in on the closed sections of their forums Mr Vaisey) reveal as clear as can be that the PAS is failing to instil "best practice" to any significant degree - and yet that was one of the government's primary aims in setting it up. In fact the PAS seems woefully unaware of the need to do anything about recent developments. Neither - most significantly in my opinion - is it providing any kind of a forum for discussion of the issues surrounding artefact hunting, collecting and the trade (licit and illicit) within archaeology, nor as archaeological "outreach" (ha ha - hollow laugh) to the general - non-collecting - public. A task for which the PAS is showing progressively less interest. I really do not see that there are grounds for the Minister's jubilation that it "works" - did they serve wine at the launch?

Where is the CBA? Where is the IFA? Where is APPAG? Where are RESCUE and The Association of Local Government Archaeological Officers? What is going on? [I can't find my Mad Hatter's Teaparty "doormouse into the teapot" vignette: I'll use this instead]
.
Thanks to Nigel Swift for putting arrows on my map, it seems to present the central dilemma so well that I decided to use it twice. How on earth can anyone in their right mind say the PAS is "working" faced with something as graphic as that? Beats me. Cue more attacks on the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter I guess...

From Cockspur Street to Coventry: What the British DCMS does not Want you to Think About

.
British Culture Minister Vaisey appears terribly impressed that the PAS now has more and more objects in its database and apparently expects us to be too. Indeed the "dadah!" self-advertising toolbar on the PAS website excitedly announces today:

443,102 records * 700,306 objects * 19,053 people involved * 2,986 accounts

There is a problem in getting very excited about these figures, and that is a worrying little thing called the Heritage Action Artefact Erosion Counter. Never mind the vast number of finds that are accidentally being made by ordinary members of the public and not being reported, many many more are being found and deliberately dug up by artefact hunters for personal (private) collection and sale. The HAAEC purports to be a

running total of the number of recordable archaeological artefacts removed from the fields of England and Wales by metal detectorists (mostly without being reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme).

Today: 43
This year:114,883
Since the start of the Portable Antiquities Scheme: 4,196,418
Overall Total since 1975: 11,068,211

Mr Vaisey, like the rest of us, might have difficulty visualising those figures. Let us consider it in terms of the length of a chalk-line (or Bloomsbury pigeon flight) along the Edgeware Road from Marble Arch. Let us say one centimetre represents one record on the PAS database. Our chalk line today would go from the foot of Marble Arch 443,085 cm to Kilburn Tube Station (Iverson Road, where co-incidentally I used to live for a while when a student). If we take the number of "objects" represented by those records, we come to somewhere like Cricklewood Road. So still in comfortable biking distance from Cockspur Street. Very impressive? Well its the combined work of many people over thirteen years and it has cost the Brits thirteen million quid in direct funding alone.

But... the HAAEC says the number of (records of) recordable finds removed from the archaeological record would be about 4,196,418 since the PAS started. How long a chalk line is that many centimetres? It is a line that starts at the foot of Marble Arch, runs up the Edgeware Road, past Watford, St Albans and ends somewhere on the south side of Luton, more or less at the distance between the end of the runway of Luton Airport and Marble Arch. That is one centimetre for every missing find. One centimetre for every recordable archaeological find deliberately removed for personal entertainment and profit from the archaeological record which is a common resource, and vanished without trace. A line from Cockspur Street to Luton Airport. If it cost the Brits thirteen million pounds to get enough finds to get a line a little way up the Edgeware Road, how much would it really cost to get a scheme that would be coping with the rate of erosion to get a line as far as, say - St Albans, about three quarters of the way to Luton Airport?

Obviously, too much. So the answer most British archaeologists apparently adopt is to shrug their shoulders and say it's "better than nothing" and call it a "partnership". And the metal detectorists who've got all the stuff taken from between Cricklewood and Luton Airport are laughing.

Of course there are some who say the HAAEC gives a "false picture". They are right in two regards. The first is that it suggests we (so in other words, the PAS) actually know how many finds are taken, when - even after a thirteen-million-thirteen-year "partnership" with these plunderers of the past, the PAS simply does not. The HAAEC counter is a model, an estimate - but its the best we have. We have to ask by how much it would have to be "wrong" to make the figures acceptable. The second area where it is wrong however takes it the other way, because it takes the UK's population of active metal detectorists as a stable 10 000 (meaning slightly more than 8000 in the area covered by the PAS, which is the figure used in the HAAEC algorithm). I have been doing some thinking about that figure recently and while I feel it was correct (though a conservative estimate) for the period when the Counter was created, several pieces of evidence converge to suggest that the number of metal detector using artefact hunters in Britain has been growing at an annual rate of between 6 and 8% since that time. So the HAAEC should have been ticking away at quickening rate increasing by that amount each year, and it has not. The model is therefore an under-estimate of the number of finds now being lost annually through laissez-faire British policies concerning this activity.


Readers might be interested to know that the chalk line that represents the recordable finds lost to private collecting in England and Wales alone due to metal detecting from 1975 when the hobby really began to take off (one find: one centimetre) stretches from the north wall of Marble Arch to the outskirts of Coventry. But after throwing thirteen million quid at the problem, we only have a record of the ones as far as Kilburn tube station to show for this so-called "partnership".

Vignette: Visualisation of PAS 'achievement' on a map of southern England: red line = PAS records. Blue line = what their 'partners' have taken and PAS has not been able to record, Green line, what metal detectorists have taken since 1975.

Bread and Circuses Archaeology: "Shiny Stuff Sets the Agenda"

.
Over on Will Anderson's "The Assemblage: political archaeology" blog is a post raising a point dear to my own heart. It's called "shiny stuff sets the agenda" and is about treasure hunting in the UK. Will makes a significant distinction, not made by many UK archaeologists:

I should say that I think antiquarianism – the documenting and collecting of things from the past for their own sake – is not archaeology.

and it is nice to hear this said out loud by somebody else. No, it is not. Will is also as puzzled by the rest of us about Renfrew's odd stance:

Why is Colin Renfrew vociferous to condemn the illicit antiquities market but is comfortable with ‘responsible’ detecting?

That never has been satisfactorily explained by his Lordship. Surely if the exploitation of archaeological sites merely as a source of collectables is archaeologically bad for the archaeological record where it is illegal, it is equally archaeological bad for the record if it happens to be situated beyond a line on a map which says it is legal. I really do not get his logic. For Anderson, the big archaeological paradox is that:

But though finders who swiftly report major discoveries are described as ‘responsible … exemplary’, is this responsible and exemplary archaeology? [...] In terms of expenditure, buying finds and conducting salvage digs must rank only behind building development as a public cost for ‘archaeology’. But who does it benefit? [...] Archaeologists aren’t entirely blameless [...] Why is there not more pressure to rebalance spending towards investigation of important questions about the past rather than buying shiny stuff and running around after holes dug by looters, er, I mean detectorists?

While the general outline of the argument is one with which I would wholeheartedly agree, I think the writer has been severely misled by the British establishment just how much money is spent on those 'salvage digs'. The whole area is severely under-resourced in what passes for 'policy' over these matters in Britain. In the case of the Staffordshire Hoard for example, a trench 9x13 m, costing a mere 25000 GBP - so about 1% of what the finder got for selling the nation its own cultural heritage - is all that was done to put the metal detector find in a landscape context, when it is clear that so much more needed to be done before the nighthawks got there and further decontextualised the original find. British archaeology simply has not the resources to deal with this properly. Many of the 800 reported Treasure finds from England, and most of the ones reported in Scotland do not get any kind of excavation follow-up whatsoever. Many of the objects themselves never see any kind of full archaeological report (such as all those individual coins from those coin hoards). Basically archaeology here is reduced to just "getting shiny stuff out of the ground and into showcases". As Will points out, this Bread and Circuses pseudo-archaeology differs in no way whatsoever from the kind of antiquarianism practised in the nineteenth century. He concludes:

Perhaps there is just too much invested by the establishment in the shiny stuff. It’s safe, it makes for happy stories, it allows for superlatives – the biggest, most significant, most valuable, goldest … It doesn’t demand the difficult questions and uncomfortable answers that archaeology provides.

Except it raises the very cogent question, just what on earth do British archaeologists think they are doing? About the only thing they are actually doing effectively is keeping the public debate very, very muted.

[all we can hear instead is that the sound of pigeons cooing not only in Bloomsbury Square but the gables of every single university archaeology department and museum building in the country is drowned out by the raucous calls of the magpies gathering shiny things into their nests].

ACCG Lund Defence Fund

.
As reported widely in the US media, through what he describes as a miscommunication, a member of the US coin-collecting brotherhood is in serious trouble with the authorities in Israel and has lost an entire ancient coin collection to them and it seems to me that he is is dire need of some support from fellow ancient coin collectors. As we all know,

The Ancient Coin Collectors Guild is a non-profit organization committed to promoting the free and independent collecting of coins from antiquity. The goal of the guild is to foster an environment in which the general public can confidently and legally acquire and hold any numismatic item of historical interest regardless of date or place of origin. ACCG strives to achieve its goals through education, political action, and consumer protection.

Dr John Lund is doing research for an upcoming book and unthinkingly took a binder containing a collection of ancient coins with him when he travelled on business to Israel which has been seized by Israeli authorities. We are told that the book is called "Bible Coins of Interest to Christians". This meant that Lund's lost coin binder contained a collection of "many coins, including Greek, Persian, Roman and Egyptian coins in addition to Jewish coins". These objects were he stresses legally purchased and exported "on previous trips around the Mediterranean region" and legally owned in the United States where he lives (in Utah). The Israelis are challenging this, so this seems like a forthcoming battle right up the ACCG's street. It challenges everything they say about ancient coin ownership, "collectors' rights" and property rights.

This was the second batch of antiquities from his collection which Dr Lund had had confiscated by the Israelis in a fortnight. According to an Israel Antiquities Authority press release, he was detained in Jerusalem about "two weeks" before his arrest at Ben Gurion airport and had had a collection of "hundreds of antiquities" (including coins) seized when authorities searched his room. Again, coins he says were legally owned and brought as private property through Israeli customs from his home in America.

Lund said he had been questioned at customs about the items when he entered Israel and allowed to pass without any problems. The problems arose when he tried to take the same collection of objects back home. He claims that nobody had explained to him anything about Israeli law on the passage of such items across international borders. Lund said he's concerned for American tourists in Israel who are in the dark like he was.

"Innocently, all over the place, people are buying items, hauling them out of the country and not even aware that they're technically smugglers," he said. "I think Israel has an obligation to let us know that".

Well, although I think Israel does that already some may agree with Dr Lund (a collector of 'Biblical coins") that more could be done. I think therefore this is somewhere the ACCG could supply advice notes for collectors who might be faced with similar problems during their travels abroad. Just how do the laws of popular US holiday destinations affect the ability of collectors to own ancient coins while abroad? I think this case shows all too transparently that collectors need to be informed, and who better to accomplish this task than the Ancient Coin Collectors' Guild.

Dr Lund now has to get his property - including his "biblical coin" collection - back from the Israelis, because if he does not this is a huge blow against the "rights" which US collectors claim.

Lund plans to appeal to the U.S. Embassy and find a lawyer versed in international antiquities laws to fight the charges, which he says stemmed from a simple miscommunication..

It seems to me that this is a task for Peter Tompa and his firm Bailey and Ehrenberg, the legal firm in the nation's capital with a lot of experience of fighting governmental injustice and intransigence specifically in the field of the legality of coin imports and exports.

So, I assume that in the next few days in their efforts to uphold US "collectors' rights", to promote the free and independent collecting of coins from antiquity and "foster an environment in which the general public can confidently and legally acquire and hold any numismatic item of historical interest regardless of date or place of origin" we will be seeing the creation of an ACCG John Lund Fighting Fund. Maybe a topical Benefit Auction - legally owned and previously collected "Biblical coins" only is in order? Let us see some expression of coiney collecting solidarity - or are the ACCG going to concentrate on those dealery things like the MOUs and leave a US collector to be pushed around and victimised by a foreign government?
.

PAS: Missing and Avoiding the Point

.

If any of us had suspicions that the PAS is 'losing it', they really seem confirmed by the latest pronouncement to emerge from their Bloomsbury head office. I have previously discussed (probably several times) the new trend towards so-called "depth advantage" (I would call them 'site-wrecker') metal detectors. I think Heritage Action also has drawn attention to the 'buzz' about them on the detecting forums. You might therefore have expected PAS to be aware that such things exist and that tekkies are discussing them excitedly. Then I have also mentioned here several types of metal detector disguised as something else (like the 'Rover Undercover') which their manufacturers say are designed to be used in situations where the artefact hunter 'does not want to attract attention' to the fact they are metal detecting there. Heritage Action decided it would be a good idea to ask PAS about what they are doing about these new trends in an effort to encourage "best practice" among "finders". So they sent them a question.

Question Posed: “Has PAS ensured that every landowner is aware there are metal detectors disguised as walking sticks and a new generation of deep-seeking metal detectors that pose a potential threat to archaeology?”

Seems like a pretty simple question, not a tricky one at all. British antiquities preservation legislation, such as it is, has its origins in Queen Victoria's day and as such places the responsibility for looking after the buried heritage on the educated class of the day, which was the landowner. And so it remains today, in the case of unscheduled archaeological sites it is the landowner who says who can go on them and plunder them for collectables. As such, Heritage Action has always had the perfectly reasonable standpoint that if we want to protect and preserve the archaeological record, British archaeology should be doing active outreach to landowners to persuade them to (and tell them how best they can from an archaeological point of view) look after the archaeological sites on their land. Like hedges and wildlife.

So it seems to HA (and to me) that to fulfil this role properly includes keeping landowners and land users fully appraised of the threats. In that context, alerting them to the fact that some firms are developing metal detectors disguised as other objects so dishonest users can avoid getting caught artefact hunting where they should not, is entirely justified. Let landowners keep a look out for such machines and consider throwing anyone off their land who is carrying one. Equally, artefact hunters who turn up with 'site wrecker' machines are not the "harmless hobbyists just taking things from the topsoil" they claim to be. Again, the informed landowner (for example those taking part in Environmental Stewardship schemes) might consider whether such machines are not damaging the archaeological heritage and ban their use on their property.

Now HA and I happen to feel that PAS does not do enough to keep landowners informed about what artefact hunting is about, vide the farce over the PAS landowner leaflet. They are afraid (yes) of the reaction of the tekkies, who have made their opinions about this 'going behind their back' (sic) known. So actually I have the feeling they were expecting a short answer to their simple question: "no".

The answer that was received was extremely surprising. It showed above all that PAS did not understand the question!!

Response by PAS: “In response to your question dated 28th April 2011, Roger Bland has asked me to state: Probes such as this have been on the market for several years. They are used to locate the precise location of a metal object within a block of soil once this has been located by the search head of a metal detector. We do not think contacting every landowner to alert them to existence of these devices is either necessary or practicable.”

"Probes such as this?" Roger Bland, the Head of the PAS seems from his reply not to be terribly clued up about the tools of the "finders" with whom his Scheme is in a "partnership". That is pretty astounding, actually. He is confusing the tools to which Heritage Action refers with the pinpoint probes I discussed here earlier. But what HA was talking about are not “probes”, they are metal detectors.

The manufacturers refer to them as that and nothing else and promote them for use in scanning the ground and nothing else. There is in fact no confusion whatsoever about their intended or actual use. One does not require something “disguised as a walking stick” to use as a probe in conjunction with another metal detector. One does need something disguised as a walking stick in order to search in the way the manufacturers indicate – “in areas where you couldn’t with common detectors… without arousing public interest” and to “scan places you never could scan before”. There can be no doubt these machines would be objects of desire for nighthawks (or to be precise in this case, dayhawks), people intent on detecting without anyone knowing.

As HA points out, it is difficult to see how it can be said that it is "not necessary" to keep landowners involved about new developments which could facilitate illegal artefact hunting on their land.

But look how the second element of the question was simply ignored. The PAS totally ignored the bit of the question which asked for its position on "a new generation of deep-seeking metal detectors that pose a potential threat to archaeology?" (I would not have used the word "potential", they DO pose a threat to buried archaeology). That is just a total cop-out.

I suggest next time Heritage Action should go instead and ask the pigeons in Bloomsbury Square, they'd probably get an equally sensible answer to their questions from them than from inside the British Museum.

Scrap ARPA and set up a Portable Antiquities Scheme for the USA?

.
Over in the US collectors and dealers somewhat repetitively assert some such nonsense as the Witschonke premise which is the US should do nothing to help nations whose archaeological heritage (I think he means "coins") is threatened by looting until they adopt measures to protect that heritage approved by the USA. In his opinion, that is the adoption of the "British system" of a Treasure Act and a voluntary 'portable antiquities scheme'. Yesterday we saw the same proposal again being put out by an ACCG coin dealer:

The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme which prevail in the United Kingdom are the best (and almost the only) existing example of intelligently devised, successful antiquities laws, and in my view something resembling this should be universally adopted. Although the existing political climate does not favor such a sensible and practically motivated resolution of differences, I believe that the adoption of a global Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme, with appropriate adjustments for the individual concerns of States presently restricting private ownership of and export of archaeological antiquities, would do far more to control looting of archaeological sites than any possible combination of repressive and punitive measures.

It is really quite tiresome to have these Americans attempting to dictate to the whole world how they 'should' run their affairs, or they will not get the Uncle-Sam-Seal-of-Approval. Instead of telling everybody else what to do and expecting them to jump when ordered to jump, maybe they could lead the way by example. Set the moral lead. Quite obviously before dictating what others 'should' do, they should first set up such a system in their own country before encouraging others to do the same. The USA has considerable problems with looting of archaeological sites by artefact collectors. The undocumented exploitation of otherwise unthreatened archaeological sites by lithics collectors and pot diggers is a source of damage to the archaeological record in the USA. While it is restricted by law on public and 'Indian' lands which vests control of archaeological material there to the state (just as much as in Egypt, Greece or any other source countries), this does not stop the looting, and the losses to the archaeological record due to site exploitation on private land to serve the expanding collector market are also considerable. I read an account of a US archaeologist who said that in many regions of the USA there is not a single ancient site within walking distance of a means of access which had not been visited and searched by arrowhead hunters. According to him, they are being collected away just as surely as the sites in the Sahara. So US legislation is not protecting the archaeological record there from undocumented damage by collectors and looters.

Perhaps then US antiquity dealers would like to draft a proposal to change US legislation to take into account the proposal that state ownership of archaeological remains is not stopping looting in places like the Four Corners area and does nothing to stop the destruction of sites on land not owned or administered by the state. Let them propose a system like the British one which they insist is the "only intelligent way forward" for OTHER countries. Let them first apply it at home. Why don't they?

How would 'Treasure' be defined in terms of native American and Early Colonial artefacts? In order to make sense and selectively get archaeologically significant items vested in the state it would have to cover archaeologically significant artefacts and assemblages of all the ancient cultures of the country, from Archaic campsites, western pueblos and caves, Woodland and Moundbuilder sites of the east, as well as artefacts from early colonial forts, settlement and trade routes. Once a list of such items has been drawn up and agreed, all that is needed is for the dealers and collectors force the scrapping of scrap the Archaeological Resources Protection Act and related measures and institute their new National Treasures Act which defines state ownership of the designated artefact types, and lays down the process of an inquest and museum acquisition, with the full market value being split between finder and landowner (where the latter is the state, the finder only getting his due share). Just like the British model they want OTHER countries to adopt.

Then to set up a US Portable antiquities Scheme state-wide to cover all the thousands of non-Treasure items found annually by artefact hunters and members of the public, arrowheads, baskets, potsherds, colonial artefacts. How would that be organized to give equivalent coverage to that in the UK? How many Finds Liaison Officers would there have to be to cover the entire USA? What is the optimum distance between them, where would they be based (museums, academic institutions, parks services)? Who would finance it and co-ordinate its activities, and how much would it actually cost?

It seems to me that unless US collectors and dealers are willing to take steps to introduce such a system into the administrative system of their own country and iron out all the problems that would arise from doing this (making the "appropriate adjustments for the individual concerns of States" in the case of their own), then they really should refrain from making comments about what they think other ('source') nations should be doing to accommodate the US market in dugup antiquities. The Witschonke Premise is a bankrupt premise while US dealers and collectors steadfastly refuse to even consider putting it into action in the case of their own country. It is just the epitome of US hypocrisy.

The US antiquities market has a turnover of millions of dollars annually, their lobbyists have access to considerable resources. If they really believe in the Witschonke Premise, let them commission a feasibility study from the Cultural Property Research Institute, or a real academic institution such as the Capitol Archaeological Institute (CAI) at George Washington University, or maybe the Getty Institute to scrap the ARPA and replace it by a system modelled on the 'exemplary' and 'intelligent' British legislation and then submit it to public consultation. Let us see some honest and transparent debate developing in place of the hypocrisy and glibness that characterises the position of the US no-questions-asked-marketeers.