You Tube video about the non-sustainability of collecting away a finite resource: "this site has been done".
What happens when 10 000 + artefact hunters run out of "new sites"?
Showing posts with label preservation. Show all posts
Showing posts with label preservation. Show all posts
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"?
You Tube video about the non-sustainability of collecting away a finite resource: "this site has been done".
What happens when 10 000 + artefact hunters run out of "new sites"?
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%":
Using this facility to look at the 2010 Average per month records we get these results:
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:
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 .
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
|
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 .
Baghdad Museum: are "US Tax Dollars" the most important issue here?
.
Professor Lamia al-Gailani Werr wrote on the University of Chicago's IraqCrisis list (Letter from Baghdad, May 24th 2011) of some of the recent archaeological and heritage events in Iraq, including some ongoing problems in the Iraq Museum in Baghdad with inventorisation, archiving and conservation despite having been helped by a grant from the Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation. Most people on reading such a text would consider it a shame that so much cultural property is in peril and feeling deep sympathy and empathy for those colleagues who are fighting these problems out of their own concern for the situation (for example the people in Iraq who alerted prof al-Galiani Werr to the problems). They would be considering ways to offer their support and help. Not so the US collecting mob. Lawyer Tompa "Cultural Property Observer" considers this text as highlighting why the US should not be aiding the Iraqis attempting to preserve the cultural heritage of the country that was so recently subject to US-led invasion and occupation (Your tax dollars at work: Fraud, Waste and Abuse at the Iraq Museum). He seems not to notice that the problems highlighted in the text go far beyond the particular one the US ambassadors threw a bit of money at (largely one suspects as a public relations gesture, the US having earned such bad press over the way they treated the Iraq Museum and similar institutions during the Invasion). He apparently places the blame for this "fraud" (eh?), "waste and abuse" of US tax dollars on "Crusading Western archaeologists". He seems not to notice that the number of tax dollars spent on repairing the roof and showcases of the shelled and gutted Museum are insignificant compared to the number of tax dollars spent on invading a sovereign country, bombing, shooting arresting, torturing and killing its citizens, searching for imaginary super weapons and toppling a former US ally. He sees no evidence of Fraud, Waste and Abuse in the conduct of that war.
As for US tax dollars lost through the failure of those distributing them to apply some more effective form of fiscal accountability from those receiving them, "stuff happens" Mr Tompa. Is that not the US attitude? You cannot blame financial mismanagement and wastage on "crusading western archaeologists".
Is it not a bit much to blame the Iraqi people for the shortcomings of their heritage protection efforts today, given the huge human and humanitarian problems the country faces? The people of Iraq have gone through three wars in twenty years, had to suffer under a dictator that America's leaders would have the world believe was one of the worse in the world. They had to endure ten years under US imposed sanctions, a US-generated program of economic and social destabilisation, then a US-led invasion and and cope with the consequent instability that has prevailed until now. I wonder how well the heritage would fare in any other country (including the US) if it was forced to endure such conditions.
This sort of use of other peoples' misfortunes as pro-American "it could never happen here" and "look at what the wily Orientals are doing now" propaganda is upsetting when it is offered as an excuse for ceasing to express support and concern or offer help. The use of commercial interests of reports of other peoples' misfortunes as oblique propaganda for Tompa's trade partners arguing for the sustaining of current ongoing antiquity looting and smuggling (because "it's better off in US collections") is simply disgusting.
UPDATE 13.06.11
It seems the Iraqis, still less those dastardly 'crusading archaeologists' are not the whole (or maybe main) culprits here: Paul Richter, 'Missing Iraq money may have been stolen, auditors say', Los Angeles Times, June 13, 2011:
Professor Lamia al-Gailani Werr wrote on the University of Chicago's IraqCrisis list (Letter from Baghdad, May 24th 2011) of some of the recent archaeological and heritage events in Iraq, including some ongoing problems in the Iraq Museum in Baghdad with inventorisation, archiving and conservation despite having been helped by a grant from the Ambassadors Fund for Cultural Preservation. Most people on reading such a text would consider it a shame that so much cultural property is in peril and feeling deep sympathy and empathy for those colleagues who are fighting these problems out of their own concern for the situation (for example the people in Iraq who alerted prof al-Galiani Werr to the problems). They would be considering ways to offer their support and help. Not so the US collecting mob. Lawyer Tompa "Cultural Property Observer" considers this text as highlighting why the US should not be aiding the Iraqis attempting to preserve the cultural heritage of the country that was so recently subject to US-led invasion and occupation (Your tax dollars at work: Fraud, Waste and Abuse at the Iraq Museum). He seems not to notice that the problems highlighted in the text go far beyond the particular one the US ambassadors threw a bit of money at (largely one suspects as a public relations gesture, the US having earned such bad press over the way they treated the Iraq Museum and similar institutions during the Invasion). He apparently places the blame for this "fraud" (eh?), "waste and abuse" of US tax dollars on "Crusading Western archaeologists". He seems not to notice that the number of tax dollars spent on repairing the roof and showcases of the shelled and gutted Museum are insignificant compared to the number of tax dollars spent on invading a sovereign country, bombing, shooting arresting, torturing and killing its citizens, searching for imaginary super weapons and toppling a former US ally. He sees no evidence of Fraud, Waste and Abuse in the conduct of that war.
As for US tax dollars lost through the failure of those distributing them to apply some more effective form of fiscal accountability from those receiving them, "stuff happens" Mr Tompa. Is that not the US attitude? You cannot blame financial mismanagement and wastage on "crusading western archaeologists".
Is it not a bit much to blame the Iraqi people for the shortcomings of their heritage protection efforts today, given the huge human and humanitarian problems the country faces? The people of Iraq have gone through three wars in twenty years, had to suffer under a dictator that America's leaders would have the world believe was one of the worse in the world. They had to endure ten years under US imposed sanctions, a US-generated program of economic and social destabilisation, then a US-led invasion and and cope with the consequent instability that has prevailed until now. I wonder how well the heritage would fare in any other country (including the US) if it was forced to endure such conditions.
This sort of use of other peoples' misfortunes as pro-American "it could never happen here" and "look at what the wily Orientals are doing now" propaganda is upsetting when it is offered as an excuse for ceasing to express support and concern or offer help. The use of commercial interests of reports of other peoples' misfortunes as oblique propaganda for Tompa's trade partners arguing for the sustaining of current ongoing antiquity looting and smuggling (because "it's better off in US collections") is simply disgusting.
UPDATE 13.06.11
It seems the Iraqis, still less those dastardly 'crusading archaeologists' are not the whole (or maybe main) culprits here: Paul Richter, 'Missing Iraq money may have been stolen, auditors say', Los Angeles Times, June 13, 2011:
U.S. Defense officials still cannot say what happened to $6.6 billion, sent by the planeload in cash and intended for Iraq's reconstruction after the start of the war. [...] U.S. officials often didn't have time or staff to keep strict financial controls. Millions of dollars were stuffed in gunnysacks and hauled on pickups to Iraqi agencies or contractors, officials have testified. House Government Reform Committee investigators charged in 2005 that U.S. officials "used virtually no financial controls to account for these enormous cash withdrawals once they arrived in Iraq, and there is evidence of substantial waste, fraud and abuse in the actual spending and disbursement of the Iraqi funds." Pentagon officials have contended for the last six years that they could account for the money if given enough time to track down the records. But repeated attempts to find the documentation, or better yet the cash, were fruitless.So, a leaky roof in a foreign museum is just the tip of the iceberg of a problem involving considerable mismanagement of US funds, by the representatives of US administration itself and nothing to do with archaeologists and preservationists.
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":
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
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?
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...
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?
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...
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:
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.
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.
Four Corners Fiasco: Joseph M. Smith and his Artefact Collection
.
From Kimberly Alderman's Cultural Property & Archaeology Law blog:
As for the scale of the operation, what is being investigated in cases like this is usually an exceptionally clandestine process. “ARPA investigations can be as complex as murder cases,” Todd Swain said in a 2007 analysis ('Cultural Resource damage on the Public Lands, what the statistics Show' (Yearbook of Cultural Property Law 7). They do need the expenditure of considerable resources, which is what makes it frustrating that cases like this, instead of awakening concern about the ongoing looting of America's archaeological heritage, there is more criticism of the authorities for trying to deal with the problem despite the obvious hindrance the crappy US laws and lack of a centrally coordinated heritage protection system create.
Whether or not anyone was "overcharged" is debatable. I note that Joseph M. Smith , 31, from Blanding mentioned above has (had) an "artefact collection" which presumably federal authorities had reason to believe contains items illicitly obtained (I assume he'll not be losing anything which is properly 'papered' with positive proof of licit provenance). He was initially charged (together with some other people) with a number of counts of selling items which it was alleged were obtained illegally. But that is not his whole collection, and one may presume the transactions mentioned in the charge sheet are only those for which federal authorities (claim to) have documented proof. According to the Salt Lake Tribune article 'A breakdown of the artifact theft charges', they are: "17 felony counts of violating ARPA, eight felony counts of theft of government property, two felony counts of theft of Indian tribal property, one misdemeanor count of theft of Indian tribal property". Smith however admits going onto land and taking artefacts from where he should not have.
Then there was Carl Lavern Crites "two felony counts of violating ARPA, two felony counts of theft of government property, one felony count depredation of government property". Crites is a collector and dealer of American Indian items. Overcharged? He had just three objects in his store and collection? Or is every single other item in his store and collection papered showing undeniable licit origin? Another cultural property lawyer with an ambiguous position on this case Derek Fincham points out, there is "no obligation" in US law for them to have so (and he is right of course - US law is woefully deficient in several regards where cultural property issues are concerned). Crites however admitted to taking part in illegal excavation of an ancient (Native American) grave looking for collectable artefacts in September 2008. Was this really the first and only time he'd ever done anything like this, or was it the only occasion where Federal authorities could document it?
Then we have the Redds, James, Jeanne and Jerrica. A sad case as James - who had reportedly been in trouble with the law before over related matters, but not only - decided to commit suicide rather than face the charges. But rather oddly it was his wife that was the cause of the raid on their home in June. She surrendered a collection of over 800 artefacts in 112 boxes (it needed two trucks to take them away). Again was this collection properly papered with collecting histories showing licit origins? Mention is made in the receipt of lots and lots of artefacts, but not a single mention of any files of documentation or collection catalogue cards. She was initially charged on seven or eight counts, her husband only one of them (together with her) and the daughter with three which apparently emerged during examination of whatever evidence there was about how the artefacts in their home were obtained.
But this was apparently not the first time that the artefact collecting activities of the Redd family had brought them into conflict with the authorities ('Couple agree to pay fine for digging up Anasazi site').
Neither do I think it likely that the two dozen people investigated and charged as a result of Operation Cerberus are the only people in the Four Corners area involved in the illegal acquisition of artefacts from the looting of archaeological sites in the region. Judge Waddoups seems to express the idea that since everybody has been doing it, it would be invidious to give those actually caught doing it sentences as severe as the law lays down. But these people all know that in doing what they do they are breaking the law (I expect they themselves would add "technically"). This looting of protected sites is clearly a huge problem and - despite the existence of laws ostensibly to protect the US archaeological resource - the US judicial system now seems to be giving a signal that the US administration actually intends to do nothing much about it. They are just giving offenders a slap on the wrist, and an admonition 'not to do it again'. That's what, for example, the Redds got in 2003, but six years later and apparently eight hundred dugup artefacts later, that is what they seem to have been found to have been doing.
Vignette: Anasazi bowl, Chaco Canyon - this one not looted.
From Kimberly Alderman's Cultural Property & Archaeology Law blog: Federal prosecutors have entered into deals in three more of the Four Corners antiquities trafficking cases. For Meredith Smith, they’ll drop the charges if she doesn’t get charged with any other crimes in the next six months. Tad Kreth had his charges reduced from 17 counts to 1, and the prosecutors will recommend probation. And Joseph Smith has had his charges reduced from 38 counts to 1, and he’ll have to forfeit the Native American artifacts he owns.Kimberly calls this "The Four Corners Sideshow" and accuses the authorities of "overcharging" the defendants to justify the scale of the operation. She subtitles her blog "A legal resource for archaeology and cultural property enthusiasts", but I am not quite sure what sort of message she intends sending archaeology "enthusiasts" by what she writes. The United States is arguably at the moment one of the largest markets in the world for looted archaeological artefacts. As such, one would expect the cultured people of that nation would be doing something about it, reducing the damaging effects of the actions of the cowboys and dodgy dealers in their midst rather than encouraging them. But instead we can see that they cannot even deal with the destroyers of the archaeological heritage in their own country and many of those talking about the issues over there are lawyers who seem from what they write almost to side with the eroders of history. But then there is big money in collecting, isn't there?
As for the scale of the operation, what is being investigated in cases like this is usually an exceptionally clandestine process. “ARPA investigations can be as complex as murder cases,” Todd Swain said in a 2007 analysis ('Cultural Resource damage on the Public Lands, what the statistics Show' (Yearbook of Cultural Property Law 7). They do need the expenditure of considerable resources, which is what makes it frustrating that cases like this, instead of awakening concern about the ongoing looting of America's archaeological heritage, there is more criticism of the authorities for trying to deal with the problem despite the obvious hindrance the crappy US laws and lack of a centrally coordinated heritage protection system create.
Whether or not anyone was "overcharged" is debatable. I note that Joseph M. Smith , 31, from Blanding mentioned above has (had) an "artefact collection" which presumably federal authorities had reason to believe contains items illicitly obtained (I assume he'll not be losing anything which is properly 'papered' with positive proof of licit provenance). He was initially charged (together with some other people) with a number of counts of selling items which it was alleged were obtained illegally. But that is not his whole collection, and one may presume the transactions mentioned in the charge sheet are only those for which federal authorities (claim to) have documented proof. According to the Salt Lake Tribune article 'A breakdown of the artifact theft charges', they are: "17 felony counts of violating ARPA, eight felony counts of theft of government property, two felony counts of theft of Indian tribal property, one misdemeanor count of theft of Indian tribal property". Smith however admits going onto land and taking artefacts from where he should not have.
Hamilton said his client, Joseph M. Smith, intends to admit in court that he took artifacts from public lands. “But what he is guilty of is a misdemeanor.” [...] “He wasn’t like some of the others that had literally truckloads of artifacts,” Hamilton said. “He was more of a construction worker who walks through the desert.”The additional charges were dropped because of uncertainty about the financial value of the artefacts concerned.
Then there was Carl Lavern Crites "two felony counts of violating ARPA, two felony counts of theft of government property, one felony count depredation of government property". Crites is a collector and dealer of American Indian items. Overcharged? He had just three objects in his store and collection? Or is every single other item in his store and collection papered showing undeniable licit origin? Another cultural property lawyer with an ambiguous position on this case Derek Fincham points out, there is "no obligation" in US law for them to have so (and he is right of course - US law is woefully deficient in several regards where cultural property issues are concerned). Crites however admitted to taking part in illegal excavation of an ancient (Native American) grave looking for collectable artefacts in September 2008. Was this really the first and only time he'd ever done anything like this, or was it the only occasion where Federal authorities could document it?
Then we have the Redds, James, Jeanne and Jerrica. A sad case as James - who had reportedly been in trouble with the law before over related matters, but not only - decided to commit suicide rather than face the charges. But rather oddly it was his wife that was the cause of the raid on their home in June. She surrendered a collection of over 800 artefacts in 112 boxes (it needed two trucks to take them away). Again was this collection properly papered with collecting histories showing licit origins? Mention is made in the receipt of lots and lots of artefacts, but not a single mention of any files of documentation or collection catalogue cards. She was initially charged on seven or eight counts, her husband only one of them (together with her) and the daughter with three which apparently emerged during examination of whatever evidence there was about how the artefacts in their home were obtained.
But this was apparently not the first time that the artefact collecting activities of the Redd family had brought them into conflict with the authorities ('Couple agree to pay fine for digging up Anasazi site').
In 1996, a San Juan County sheriff's deputy found the Redds and several children digging near prehistoric ruins in Cottonwood Wash near Bluff. Charges were first filed the following year. The charges included desecration of a corpse, a felony. The charge against James Redd, 52, was dismissed. Assistant Utah Attorney General Joanne Slotnik said that was because Jeanne Redd "was the prime mover and the one most interested in these sorts of relics." The state's suit alleged the Redds destroyed a prehistoric grave site listed on the National Register of Historic Places. Jeanne Redd's plea agreement argued that if an ancient grave had been disturbed, it was on private land.Reportedly "They asserted they had the right to dig at an Anasazi ruin on private land, but a survey later showed the site was on state land" (Joe Bauman, 'Anasazi case is finally put to rest', Deserte news Jan. 26, 2003). They had been threatened by a $250,000 lawsuit brought by the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration which James and Jeanne Redd apparently settled by making a payment of $10,000 in 2003. Despite this, the Redd family apparently continued to collect artefacts, and the raid on June 10th 2009 and the consequent charges were the results of this. In the case of the acquisition of at least seven of those artefacts federal authorities believed they could document illicit origins, and in the event Jeanne Redd pleaded guilty to all seven. What 'overcharging' was applied here?
Neither do I think it likely that the two dozen people investigated and charged as a result of Operation Cerberus are the only people in the Four Corners area involved in the illegal acquisition of artefacts from the looting of archaeological sites in the region. Judge Waddoups seems to express the idea that since everybody has been doing it, it would be invidious to give those actually caught doing it sentences as severe as the law lays down. But these people all know that in doing what they do they are breaking the law (I expect they themselves would add "technically"). This looting of protected sites is clearly a huge problem and - despite the existence of laws ostensibly to protect the US archaeological resource - the US judicial system now seems to be giving a signal that the US administration actually intends to do nothing much about it. They are just giving offenders a slap on the wrist, and an admonition 'not to do it again'. That's what, for example, the Redds got in 2003, but six years later and apparently eight hundred dugup artefacts later, that is what they seem to have been found to have been doing.
Vignette: Anasazi bowl, Chaco Canyon - this one not looted.
More Guilty Pleas in Four Corners Looting Case
.
Three Utah residents have pleaded guilty in a federal court on Friday to trafficking stolen artifacts from federal and tribal lands in southern Utah. Reece Laws, Tad Kreth and Joseph Smith, Blanding residents, pleaded guilty, "taking American Indian artifacts from public lands". The mere formality of sentencing is set for July 18.
"A federal prosecutor says an indictment for a fourth defendant, Meredith Smith, will be dismissed if she doesn't commit any crimes for next six months".
Chi-Chi Zhang, 'Several Utahns plead guilty to American Indian artifact looting' Associated Press, April 29, 2011
Back in July last year (San Juan Record - 'Antiquities cases work way through court system '): "To date, there have been no trials related to the charges, but several are planned. An October trial date has been set for Blanding residents Joseph M. Smith, Meredith Smith, Tad Kreth, Reece Laws and Brandon Laws before Judge Stewart".
These cases had a bit of a 'twist' in them in that for some months there was some wrangling about the value of the objects involved and whether or not Arizona antiquity dealer Dace Hyatt could testify for the defence in the case (the prosecution argued he could not be a court expert as he had no archaeological training, and had earlier been quoted in newspapers calling the Operation Cerberus 'entrapment'), the court decided he could testify (Artifacts Dealer is an 'Expert' Says Federal Judge). The defence of the accused argued that establishment of the monetary value of the items concerned was important because there is a minimum value in federal law for felony charges. Loss of archaeological value of course cannot be measured.
Three Utah residents have pleaded guilty in a federal court on Friday to trafficking stolen artifacts from federal and tribal lands in southern Utah. Reece Laws, Tad Kreth and Joseph Smith, Blanding residents, pleaded guilty, "taking American Indian artifacts from public lands". The mere formality of sentencing is set for July 18.
"A federal prosecutor says an indictment for a fourth defendant, Meredith Smith, will be dismissed if she doesn't commit any crimes for next six months".
Chi-Chi Zhang, 'Several Utahns plead guilty to American Indian artifact looting' Associated Press, April 29, 2011
Back in July last year (San Juan Record - 'Antiquities cases work way through court system '): "To date, there have been no trials related to the charges, but several are planned. An October trial date has been set for Blanding residents Joseph M. Smith, Meredith Smith, Tad Kreth, Reece Laws and Brandon Laws before Judge Stewart".
These cases had a bit of a 'twist' in them in that for some months there was some wrangling about the value of the objects involved and whether or not Arizona antiquity dealer Dace Hyatt could testify for the defence in the case (the prosecution argued he could not be a court expert as he had no archaeological training, and had earlier been quoted in newspapers calling the Operation Cerberus 'entrapment'), the court decided he could testify (Artifacts Dealer is an 'Expert' Says Federal Judge). The defence of the accused argued that establishment of the monetary value of the items concerned was important because there is a minimum value in federal law for felony charges. Loss of archaeological value of course cannot be measured.
"About 1,000 relics stolen during Egyptian unrest"
.
A number of newspapers are covering the story:
We are faced with the same problem as before, all the information that is coming out of Egypt about any aspect of antiquities and archaeological resource preservation is being filtered by a single person. We note that among the new posts being announced in the revived Ministry of Antiquities, press officer is not one of them. Which is a shame.
While the authorities there persist in their approach that the people out there looting are criminals "looking for gold or mummies and who lack knowledge of the value of the items they stole”, then they are not going to get anywhere with combating the problem.
It is also notable that western internet egyptologists, who at the beginning were logging all the reports of looting so the scale of the activity was emerging, seem to have bored of this and are now apparently making only a desultory effort to keep up the service they were doing for the rest of us. Keeping the ongoing development of the problem in the international public eye is the way to help get something done through international co-operation, constant assurances from an office in Cairo that nothing is happening and its all under control is not. What is happening in the fields and sand dunes?
Vignette: Various "Egyptian antiquities", like those that fill the no-questions-asked market.
A number of newspapers are covering the story: "Thieves stole around 1,000 relics from Egypt’s museums and archaeological sites after public protests against the country’s government broke out in January [...] Egypt's minister for antiquities Zahi Hawass told Spain’s El Mundo".Firstly the number of artefacts known to have been stolen from storerooms may (or may not) have been around "a thousand", but the number of items looted from sites is unknown (but "number of items stolen" is not the important statistic, though easier to count than "amount of archaeological information destroyed"). Secondly of course the "uprising and the weeks of unrest thereafter" has not by any means ended yet. Egypt has much political turmoil ahead precipitated by the sequence of events begun in January 2011.
We are faced with the same problem as before, all the information that is coming out of Egypt about any aspect of antiquities and archaeological resource preservation is being filtered by a single person. We note that among the new posts being announced in the revived Ministry of Antiquities, press officer is not one of them. Which is a shame.
While the authorities there persist in their approach that the people out there looting are criminals "looking for gold or mummies and who lack knowledge of the value of the items they stole”, then they are not going to get anywhere with combating the problem.
Hawass told the Spanish daily that the thieves were not organised. “They lived near the archaeological sites where the objects were kept. They would take advantage of the night to enter the archaeological sites and pillage," he said.I suspect we'd find that the truth is somewhat different if we had access to more information than that which Dr H. is putting out. This is odd because he himself was fighting several organized groups trading Egyptian antiquities before 25th January 2011. Why does he want western journalists to forget this and think the problem suddenly disappeared with Mubarak?
It is also notable that western internet egyptologists, who at the beginning were logging all the reports of looting so the scale of the activity was emerging, seem to have bored of this and are now apparently making only a desultory effort to keep up the service they were doing for the rest of us. Keeping the ongoing development of the problem in the international public eye is the way to help get something done through international co-operation, constant assurances from an office in Cairo that nothing is happening and its all under control is not. What is happening in the fields and sand dunes?
Vignette: Various "Egyptian antiquities", like those that fill the no-questions-asked market.
Blanding Artefacts Sentence Cut
.
Readers might remember the curious case of a US District Court judge (Clark Waddoups) who says looting of the archaeological resource in the United States of America is "justified", even if in contravention of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. He was the one who sentenced the first two defendants in the Four Corners looting case, setting a precedent of lenience which makes a mockery of the whole procedure of investigation and apprehension of people engaged in looting archaeological sites for collectable items for personal entertainment and profit. The two had admitted to multiple felonies of excavating, possessing and selling prehistoric pottery and personal ornaments in contravention to US law. As part of the plea, Jeanne Redd had agreed to give up all of the artefacts in her collection, surrendering 112 boxes of artefacts, including reportedly human remains. As part of a plea bargain, she had pleaded guilty to seven felonies: two counts of violating the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, two counts of theft of government property and three counts of theft of American Indian tribal property. Each carried potential fines of $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison. Daughter Jericca Redd, admitted to three felonies for digging up a seed jar, a vase and a pottery vessel in 2008, on the Navajo reservation. They both got probation and a fine. According to the Deseret Times:
.
Readers might remember the curious case of a US District Court judge (Clark Waddoups) who says looting of the archaeological resource in the United States of America is "justified", even if in contravention of the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. He was the one who sentenced the first two defendants in the Four Corners looting case, setting a precedent of lenience which makes a mockery of the whole procedure of investigation and apprehension of people engaged in looting archaeological sites for collectable items for personal entertainment and profit. The two had admitted to multiple felonies of excavating, possessing and selling prehistoric pottery and personal ornaments in contravention to US law. As part of the plea, Jeanne Redd had agreed to give up all of the artefacts in her collection, surrendering 112 boxes of artefacts, including reportedly human remains. As part of a plea bargain, she had pleaded guilty to seven felonies: two counts of violating the Archaeological Resources Protection Act, two counts of theft of government property and three counts of theft of American Indian tribal property. Each carried potential fines of $250,000 and up to 10 years in prison. Daughter Jericca Redd, admitted to three felonies for digging up a seed jar, a vase and a pottery vessel in 2008, on the Navajo reservation. They both got probation and a fine. According to the Deseret Times:
On Monday, U.S. District Judge Clark Waddoups terminated the remaining 18 months and six months, respectively, of probation for [...] Jeanne Redd, and daughter Jerica Redd. Both had paid fines in full and had complied with all conditions of their probation, according to court records.It is a good job then that Judge Waddoups did not require that the two restore the integrity of the archaeological record at every single point from which they dug thousands of artefacts a selection of which was in those 112 boxes. That of course is considerably more difficult than persuading jovial Judge Waddoups to let them off. In fact it is impossible. Through their deliberate, selfish and illegal activities these women have destroyed that evidence for ever. And the US legal system apparently does not really give a hoot, after all, its not really "US cultural heritage" (sic) is it, its just "injun pots" involved isn't it? No wonder collectors and dealers over there cannot be persuaded to respect other countries' heritage protection laws when it seems civil society over there apparently has so little respect for their own.
.
"Farm Business" Magazine on Treasure Hunting Rage
.
I do not know if you can read this 'Business innovation' page from Farm Busines magazine of 17th December 2010, if you can't its probably just as well for the blood pressure of all who care...
.
The proposal is to collect money from leasing access to land for metal detectorists ("professional treasure hunters") to come in and strip the archaeological collectables from the soil on an industrial scale. They describe metal detecting in these terms: This is a business, not a hobby..........
The business plan contains some interesting numbers: "About 30 000 metal detectorists dig at least twice a week in the UK " (that is three times the Heritage Action estimate - you know that Erosion Counter everybody says is excessive). Furthermore "Demand is forecast to grow by 25% per year" (so by the end of the decade there will be 105000 of the blighters? Thirteen times the current HA estimate). This is assigned to the fact that "valuable finds are well reported in the media" (let us note: often by PAS press releases, unbelievably there were even plans to make a TV series about this with PAS involvement).
In this commercial Treasure hunting operation, land will be ‘graded’ depending on what historical resource it has in it and (since the archaeological record of any piece of land is a highly finite resource) „how much it has been detected on” in the past. The revenue will come in from ticket sales - the article shows what enticingly high sums can be raised by giving this organization a monopoly to search this land.
The organization is called "Hunters Corporate", Barry Wayne, Mark Becher and Victoria Bosworth. It is obviously related to this: Hunters Events UK and Hunters of Hertfordshire. they even say they have Codes of conduct - but there's inexplicably ONE MISSING, ISN"T THERE?
"The hunters corporate events finds division agreement is written into each landowner/farmer and detectorists contract and states that any items recovered from the ground on a hunters event are subject to this agreement. 40% for the landowner, 40% for the finder & 20% for hunters corporate events". But nothing for the PAS which is expected to be part of the hunters' business plan for free. Well, everybody else pays for that, so the hunters can make money by selling off the past, don't they? But then, where's the fifty-fifty finder-landowner split that Treasure finds normally attract? Both landowner and finder are agreeing to a 10% cut. What about non-Treasure finds? Do Hunterscorporate give landowners 40% of the market value for every collectable removed from their land? How would they administer that? Or are they just going to reimburse the landowner for 10% less than they'd get from the Treasure Valuation Committee in the case of Treasure finds and the finder walks off with the rest? They do say: "the land owner gets the very best treatment from the detectorists and will also get their share in all finds made", which rather suggests that having bought tickets, the finders either have to surrender all their finds to be sold, or pay the landowner 40% of the value of each and the "Hunters" another 20% of their value to take them home. What's in it for them then? Why not just go to a normal commercial rally held on 'prime land' where they can just keep all the non-Treasure items they find with no extra cost?
Would it not be too much to expect that the PAS might say a few words about the scope and nature of their proposed involvement with commercial operations of this sort? Should they not - like any archaeologist that abides by a code of conduct - be contacting landowners (like through their trade magazines) trying to STOP just this sort of exploitation of the archaeological resources of their land? Otherwise one might suspect that they see organized events like this as a good opportunity to get "more finds on the database" with minimal effort. Surely promoting best practice comprises a bit more than that? Do "Hunters Corporate" enjoy the support of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, or is the Portable Antiquities Scheme going to come out publicly and condemn this kind of exploitation?
[A Deep Bloomsburian Silence ensues].
Vignette: Hertford metal detecting wannabe-monopolists Mark Becher and Barry Wayne trying to look like mafiosos with a business plan in green wellies and flares.
I do not know if you can read this 'Business innovation' page from Farm Busines magazine of 17th December 2010, if you can't its probably just as well for the blood pressure of all who care...
.The proposal is to collect money from leasing access to land for metal detectorists ("professional treasure hunters") to come in and strip the archaeological collectables from the soil on an industrial scale. They describe metal detecting in these terms: This is a business, not a hobby..........
The business plan contains some interesting numbers: "About 30 000 metal detectorists dig at least twice a week in the UK " (that is three times the Heritage Action estimate - you know that Erosion Counter everybody says is excessive). Furthermore "Demand is forecast to grow by 25% per year" (so by the end of the decade there will be 105000 of the blighters? Thirteen times the current HA estimate). This is assigned to the fact that "valuable finds are well reported in the media" (let us note: often by PAS press releases, unbelievably there were even plans to make a TV series about this with PAS involvement).
In this commercial Treasure hunting operation, land will be ‘graded’ depending on what historical resource it has in it and (since the archaeological record of any piece of land is a highly finite resource) „how much it has been detected on” in the past. The revenue will come in from ticket sales - the article shows what enticingly high sums can be raised by giving this organization a monopoly to search this land.
The organization is called "Hunters Corporate", Barry Wayne, Mark Becher and Victoria Bosworth. It is obviously related to this: Hunters Events UK and Hunters of Hertfordshire. they even say they have Codes of conduct - but there's inexplicably ONE MISSING, ISN"T THERE?
"The hunters corporate events finds division agreement is written into each landowner/farmer and detectorists contract and states that any items recovered from the ground on a hunters event are subject to this agreement. 40% for the landowner, 40% for the finder & 20% for hunters corporate events". But nothing for the PAS which is expected to be part of the hunters' business plan for free. Well, everybody else pays for that, so the hunters can make money by selling off the past, don't they? But then, where's the fifty-fifty finder-landowner split that Treasure finds normally attract? Both landowner and finder are agreeing to a 10% cut. What about non-Treasure finds? Do Hunterscorporate give landowners 40% of the market value for every collectable removed from their land? How would they administer that? Or are they just going to reimburse the landowner for 10% less than they'd get from the Treasure Valuation Committee in the case of Treasure finds and the finder walks off with the rest? They do say: "the land owner gets the very best treatment from the detectorists and will also get their share in all finds made", which rather suggests that having bought tickets, the finders either have to surrender all their finds to be sold, or pay the landowner 40% of the value of each and the "Hunters" another 20% of their value to take them home. What's in it for them then? Why not just go to a normal commercial rally held on 'prime land' where they can just keep all the non-Treasure items they find with no extra cost?
Would it not be too much to expect that the PAS might say a few words about the scope and nature of their proposed involvement with commercial operations of this sort? Should they not - like any archaeologist that abides by a code of conduct - be contacting landowners (like through their trade magazines) trying to STOP just this sort of exploitation of the archaeological resources of their land? Otherwise one might suspect that they see organized events like this as a good opportunity to get "more finds on the database" with minimal effort. Surely promoting best practice comprises a bit more than that? Do "Hunters Corporate" enjoy the support of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, or is the Portable Antiquities Scheme going to come out publicly and condemn this kind of exploitation?
[A Deep Bloomsburian Silence ensues].
Vignette: Hertford metal detecting wannabe-monopolists Mark Becher and Barry Wayne trying to look like mafiosos with a business plan in green wellies and flares.
Negligence Writ Large
.
Travellers along the busy A14 dual carriageway in Cambridgeshire got a good view last week of The Central Searchers' Keyston Metal detecting Rally taking place on the earthworks of Medieval field systems under pasture. This is the sort of thing they saw, British archaeological heritage protection in action:
Commercial rallies like this are extremely damaging to the archaeological heritage, hundreds of individuals descend on an area of the historic landscape (the more historic, the better the tickets sell) and strip anything collectable out and take it away for collection or sale, and strip anything not collectable out and throw it away. If at any stage in the future a landscape archaeology project would be contemplated it would find the dataset skewed to an unknown degree by the localised effects of this activity. Rallies are not discussed much in the pro-collecting propaganda, they are in fact an enormous weak point in the fluffy-mouthed airheadedness that passes for justifications of a "partnership" between archaeology and this type of archaeological asset-stripping. The3re is supposed to be a "code" of practice. Heritage Action ("Running detecting rallies: it’s a living, innit?") has a few comments on that:
Photo: This is the way the British "protect" the country's archaeological heritage (courtesy of an A14 motorist who reads this blog)
Travellers along the busy A14 dual carriageway in Cambridgeshire got a good view last week of The Central Searchers' Keyston Metal detecting Rally taking place on the earthworks of Medieval field systems under pasture. This is the sort of thing they saw, British archaeological heritage protection in action:
Commercial rallies like this are extremely damaging to the archaeological heritage, hundreds of individuals descend on an area of the historic landscape (the more historic, the better the tickets sell) and strip anything collectable out and take it away for collection or sale, and strip anything not collectable out and throw it away. If at any stage in the future a landscape archaeology project would be contemplated it would find the dataset skewed to an unknown degree by the localised effects of this activity. Rallies are not discussed much in the pro-collecting propaganda, they are in fact an enormous weak point in the fluffy-mouthed airheadedness that passes for justifications of a "partnership" between archaeology and this type of archaeological asset-stripping. The3re is supposed to be a "code" of practice. Heritage Action ("Running detecting rallies: it’s a living, innit?") has a few comments on that:Only two rally organisers agreed to the official guidelines. Central Searchers wasn’t one of them (and one of the two has pulled out). We can’t help thinking that if this landowner had been given a full official account of the implications this event might not have taken place. So all in all it seems high time (and a duty owed) for PAS, CBA, EH and DEFRA to make it crystal clear to landowners, detectorists and the tens of thousands of people that travelled along the A14 last Saturday that what was going on was damaging and that such rallies are against all professional advice and wishes. After all, those thousands of landowners and motorists may well think that since rallies are obviously not nighthawking (and are often dressed up as “for charity”) they must be beneficial – for that is the broad message that has been constantly delivered to them for years!Well, of course when PAS (though I do not think they attended this one) relies on commercial artefact hunting rallies for achieving its 'aims', they are not going to speak out about them, are they? Commercial artefact hunting rallies concentrate hundreds of artefact hunters in one place busily engaged in hoiking hundreds of luvverly 'recordable' artefacts out of the archaeological record, and then line up at the PAS tables in the beer tent to show them. The FLO does not even have to get off his seat to add hundreds of new records to the PAS database ("that field over there? Right mate"). After all, the PAS presents itself to the public only in terms of ""whattalottastuff we've got"; the number of zeros after the number on the "number of objects on the database today" statistic is what is supposed to convince the stakeholders that the PAS is saving the past for the public. It is not. This is artefact fetishism, not a holistic process of heritage management. The PAS database is a sorry record of just part of a process of the denudation of the archaeological record by artefact collectors, day after day, week after week, month after month. It is not even honest enough to actually say that in those terms. The PAS is not "preserving sites" (Gill 2010), its not even talking about it as part of its so-called "outreach", far from it, it is watching on as this depradation goes on and the expansion of its database is a result of this activity. When are the British public going to be told by British archaeology what the rest of the world knows. What is happening in the fields out there is NOT archaeologically justifiable, it is NOT sustainable, it is simply wanton and largely unmitigated damage by selfish exploitive individuals of the archaeological record which (archaeologists say they regard as) the common heritage of an entire generation and the generations that will come after them. Except individuals are brazenly pocketing bits of it under the noses of the entire approving archaeological milieu. Now let those same archaeologists turn round and tell the public and purse-string holders that they need to fork out lots of cash for real archaeology because the fragile archaeological resource needs protecting from damage, what kind of arguments can they offer? None, I would think. Not honest ones.
Photo: This is the way the British "protect" the country's archaeological heritage (courtesy of an A14 motorist who reads this blog)
Italian Industry Leader Chips in to Sponsor Heritage Preservation
.
The global financial crisis is affecting the financing of heritage protection and monument upkeep all over the world. US antiquity collectors, ignoring to the parlous state and vandalism of monuments in their own country, have recently been kicking up a fuss about the state of ancient monuments in Italy and Greece, suggesting that they could look after the illegally exported portable heritage of those countries better than the state administration of those countries. Under the guise of selfless concern for the common heritage they of course merely want to selfishly garner armfuls of it into their own private possession.
A somewhat more publicly spirited form of private sponsorship is a more helpful approach. In Italy it has just been announced that Tod’s, the luxury leatherware manufacturers has pledged $34 million toward the restoration of the Colosseum. The money will go on the cleaning and reinforcing the exterior of the monument, its circular galleries and some underground spaces currently off-limits to the public. Work will be monitored by the Culture Ministry and will begin by the end of the year and is expected to last between two and three years.
On reading this I was reminded of another Italian businessman from a related branch of industry who has thrown in his lot with the ACCG and been vociferous on the US political scene about the measures intended to curb the trade in cultural property illegally exported from Italy. The boss of Ermanno Winsemann Falghera s.r.l. cannot answer my question of whether he applies the approach he recommends adopting for dugup coins to his own dealings in the textile market . Maybe he could do his bit and at least show he nevertheless cares about Italy's cultural heritage by following the lead set by Diego Della Valle and sponsoring some major work on some monuments (like some of those of Milan where they are based)? Or perhaps they already do?
Vignette: Tod's doing its part to preserve the cultural charms of Italy, while other local firms just give Italian cultural preservation the finger.
The global financial crisis is affecting the financing of heritage protection and monument upkeep all over the world. US antiquity collectors, ignoring to the parlous state and vandalism of monuments in their own country, have recently been kicking up a fuss about the state of ancient monuments in Italy and Greece, suggesting that they could look after the illegally exported portable heritage of those countries better than the state administration of those countries. Under the guise of selfless concern for the common heritage they of course merely want to selfishly garner armfuls of it into their own private possession.A somewhat more publicly spirited form of private sponsorship is a more helpful approach. In Italy it has just been announced that Tod’s, the luxury leatherware manufacturers has pledged $34 million toward the restoration of the Colosseum. The money will go on the cleaning and reinforcing the exterior of the monument, its circular galleries and some underground spaces currently off-limits to the public. Work will be monitored by the Culture Ministry and will begin by the end of the year and is expected to last between two and three years.
Speaking at a news conference inside the Colosseum, Diego Della Valle, the founder of Tod’s, said he was pleased to be able to give something back to his country and pledged that he would not exploit the sponsorship for commercial purposes. “I hope other businessmen will follow suit,” he said.I really see no reason why he should not be able to (discretely) use this sponsorship to promote his business, this is common practice in my country, a firm sponsors the restoration of an historic building in the town centre and (apart from the tax benefits), the awnings covering the building (put up to protect the workmen from the rain and passers by from the dust and dirt caused by the stone cleaning) are used to support a huge and highly effective advert for the firm for the duration of the work.
On reading this I was reminded of another Italian businessman from a related branch of industry who has thrown in his lot with the ACCG and been vociferous on the US political scene about the measures intended to curb the trade in cultural property illegally exported from Italy. The boss of Ermanno Winsemann Falghera s.r.l. cannot answer my question of whether he applies the approach he recommends adopting for dugup coins to his own dealings in the textile market . Maybe he could do his bit and at least show he nevertheless cares about Italy's cultural heritage by following the lead set by Diego Della Valle and sponsoring some major work on some monuments (like some of those of Milan where they are based)? Or perhaps they already do?
Vignette: Tod's doing its part to preserve the cultural charms of Italy, while other local firms just give Italian cultural preservation the finger.
Of Obelisks and Obstructionists
.
I was interested to see the connection David Gill made between the fuss made by antiquity collectors about the unfortunate collapse of buildings in Pompeii.
I was interested to see the connection David Gill made between the fuss made by antiquity collectors about the unfortunate collapse of buildings in Pompeii.
There have been suggestions by some that it demonstrates that Italy does not care for its cultural property:and that "North American commentators who hold such views will have been chastened to read the text of a letter that Zahi Hawass has written to the president of the Central Park Conservancy and Michael R. Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York City. It concerns the current state of preservation of the obelisk of Thutmose III (mislabelled “Cleopatra’s Needle,” and stuck out in all weathers in Central Park since 1880). Quick as a flash Cultural Property Observer retorted...indeed, that 130 or so antiquities should have remained in their North American public and private collections rather than going back to Italy.
Apples and oranges. It's hard to protect monuments from weathering in cold places like New York and London. What does Hawass expect? Encasement in glass perhaps? Anyway, New York isn't asking for repatriation of its cultural heritage from Egypt or anywhere else as far as I can tell. In contrast, Egypt and Italy are and should be held to account for it. By whom? Mr Tompa sugests that the obelisk (a single and as we see movable object) cannot be protected from the effects of New York weather but expects the Italians to think of a way to stop the rain falling on Pompeii.
Vignette, obelisk of Tuthmosis III from Heliopolisin in its original setting in Alexandria, it probably would have done much better to leave it and its pair now in London there in its original setting (from Wikipedia).
Rory Tyler: "Rewrite the Artifact Law"
.
Rory Tyler, Moab radio personality and "cowboy poet" has a letter in the Salt Lake tribune (Jan 08 2011) called "Rewrite the Artifact Law" - doing his bit for US collectors' rights that the foreign-dug ancient-coin-focussed ACCG will not do. This is what he says:
First of all let us note that it is for him unquestionable that the looting odf archaeological sites in his country is taking place because people are collecting the things dug up. We note that the US coineys, wholly illogically, deny this connection strenuously. Mr Tyler however sees no need to defend this notion, and - frankly - nor do I.
In his letter, Tyler calls for a legalising of the market in dugup antiquities. Sadly he misses the main point, he has been drawn into artefact fetishisation by the collectors' propaganda. Perhaps here is a point US archaeologists and preservationists need to get over more forcibly. It is of course not "who owns artefacts" that is the problem. The law is not the "Artifact law" (sic) but the 1906 Antiquities Act (see 16 U.S.C. § 431 to § 433) and the 1979 Archaeological Resources Protection Act (Pub.L. 96-95 as amended, 93 Stat. 721, codified at 16 U.S.C. § 470aa–470mm) - designed not to channel "artefacts" into one set of hands or another but to protect the archaeological record from being dug over clandestinely for entertainment or profit in search of collectables.
Under the impression that this is about ownership of clandestinely-excavated artefacts, Tyler proposes a solution for consideration:
This is more or less what Dave Welsh is suggesting for other types of artefacts. Maybe the ACCG should reconsider its policy of not collaborating with local collectors of locally dug artefacts so US collectors are singing from the same songsheet.
As for Mr Tyler's suggestions, the "new artefacts" would only become available for collectors to swamp the black market if the collectors owning the now-legitimised artefacts decide to sell them, why should they? The other two notions sound like what the PAS is doing in the UK with the artefacts other collectors have dug up all over the place.
What is unclear is how Mr Tyler's suggestion of legalising the market in dugup archaeological artefacts from protected sites, so it is no longer "black", will in any way effect preservation of the archaeological sites from which they are being dug. What would be to stop looters going out to dig up a whole lot more during this period of amnesty? In any case the felony is not so much the "possession of artefacts", but the unauthorised digging into protected sites. I feel that were Mr Tylor's suggestion be adopted, there would be a lot of artefacts which their owners would be claiming were found "over there by my Late Uncle Earl" - rather than admitting that it was they who were wielding the shovel.
Rory Tyler, Moab radio personality and "cowboy poet" has a letter in the Salt Lake tribune (Jan 08 2011) called "Rewrite the Artifact Law" - doing his bit for US collectors' rights that the foreign-dug ancient-coin-focussed ACCG will not do. This is what he says:
[...] clearly there is no way to currently prevent looting of ancient artifacts. Where a black market exists, someone will supply its demands. [...] We need a new paradigm because the current one for protection and preservation is failing. [...] As long as the artifact black market exists, it’s going to be cops and robbers in the canyons.
First of all let us note that it is for him unquestionable that the looting odf archaeological sites in his country is taking place because people are collecting the things dug up. We note that the US coineys, wholly illogically, deny this connection strenuously. Mr Tyler however sees no need to defend this notion, and - frankly - nor do I.
In his letter, Tyler calls for a legalising of the market in dugup antiquities. Sadly he misses the main point, he has been drawn into artefact fetishisation by the collectors' propaganda. Perhaps here is a point US archaeologists and preservationists need to get over more forcibly. It is of course not "who owns artefacts" that is the problem. The law is not the "Artifact law" (sic) but the 1906 Antiquities Act (see 16 U.S.C. § 431 to § 433) and the 1979 Archaeological Resources Protection Act (Pub.L. 96-95 as amended, 93 Stat. 721, codified at 16 U.S.C. § 470aa–470mm) - designed not to channel "artefacts" into one set of hands or another but to protect the archaeological record from being dug over clandestinely for entertainment or profit in search of collectables.
Under the impression that this is about ownership of clandestinely-excavated artefacts, Tyler proposes a solution for consideration:
Today, the richest troves of Southwestern artifacts exist in collections, public and legal, and private and often illegal. Rewrite the Antiquities Act this way: Declare amnesty for possession of all existing artifacts. Record and register them and allow owners to buy, sell, trade or donate them in a regulated market. This would accomplish several things.
First, the new artifacts that would become available to collectors would overwhelm the black market, reducing or ending the incentive for looting.
Second, an artifact’s history, that information valuable to scientists, would be recovered before it’s completely lost — for example, a family story about where Uncle Earl found it.
Third, create a digital catalogue, a virtual museum of items hitherto unavailable to researchers.
This is more or less what Dave Welsh is suggesting for other types of artefacts. Maybe the ACCG should reconsider its policy of not collaborating with local collectors of locally dug artefacts so US collectors are singing from the same songsheet.
As for Mr Tyler's suggestions, the "new artefacts" would only become available for collectors to swamp the black market if the collectors owning the now-legitimised artefacts decide to sell them, why should they? The other two notions sound like what the PAS is doing in the UK with the artefacts other collectors have dug up all over the place.
What is unclear is how Mr Tyler's suggestion of legalising the market in dugup archaeological artefacts from protected sites, so it is no longer "black", will in any way effect preservation of the archaeological sites from which they are being dug. What would be to stop looters going out to dig up a whole lot more during this period of amnesty? In any case the felony is not so much the "possession of artefacts", but the unauthorised digging into protected sites. I feel that were Mr Tylor's suggestion be adopted, there would be a lot of artefacts which their owners would be claiming were found "over there by my Late Uncle Earl" - rather than admitting that it was they who were wielding the shovel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)