Professional Numismatist Publishes Lord Renfrew's Coin Collection

Lord Renfrew, a vocal critic of the antiquities trade, has graciously allowed his collection of Etruscan coins to be published in Italo Vecchi�s impressive new corpus. The work publishes thousands of specimens from private and public collections and includes many coins that cannot be traced back to the 1970 date favored by archaeologists and some museums.

In supporting this endeavor, Lord Renfrew has demonstrated a commitment to scholarship shared by many collectors and,  indeed, professional numismatists like Italo Vecchi.

Barford Takes on the Mudlarks

Somehow, NPR has tapped archaeo-blogger Paul Barford to speak for U.K. archaeologists in a story about "mudlarking" on the Thames though he has not lived in the U.K. for decades, no longer actively digs, and has no PhD in the subject matter.

Today, however, most U.K. archaeologists (like the other one quoted in the story) have largely made peace with metal detectorists.  The fact is most metal detectorists dig in ploughed fields and places like river beds where any context has already been disturbed.   And let's not forget the Portable Antiquities Scheme has given us a far better picture of the past than is the case in countries where confiscatory laws actually discourage finders from doing anything but keep their finds to themselves.

Debate with Tea and Biscuits?

Archaeo-blogger Paul Barford is promoting a "debate with tea and biscuits" on his blog.  This does not appear to be a real debate between individuals with different views to me. Perhaps, Mr. Barford really is debating tea and biscuits because they won't talk back....

Archaeobloggers Seek "Union Shop?"

The UK's PAS and Treasure Act are popular programs because they encourage the public to report coins and other ancient artifacts they find so they can be properly recorded.  That which the government does not need for its collections is disclaimed, and returned to the finder to do with what he or she will.   Moreover, the State pays fair market value for what it keeps, which incentivizes the State to only retain what it will properly care for, study and display.

What is the result of this win-win situation? The UK's Minister of Culture recently observed surprise, surprise, that incentivizing the public to report what they find has led to more finds being reported in England and Wales than anywhere else:

A little known fact I discovered this week � Britain tops the league table for hoards. I am told, we have more archaeological finds every year than any other country. Whether this is per square foot or per head of the population, I am not sure, but it is a good statistic so I�m going to use it.

However, the archaeological blogosphere does not celebrate, but rather condemns this news, claiming that the U.K.'s system encourages metal detecting rather than the recording of finds.  Yet, take the case of Bulgaria.  It has been estimated that 100,000-250,000 Bulgarians conduct illicit excavations, and little is  actually recorded because all the incentives in that corrupt system discourage people to report what they might find.  So, which system is better?

Clearly, the U.K.'s system, no?  Yet, the archaeological blogosphere begs to differ.  Instead, they claim that even the most common artifacts like coins should be left in the ground for some future archaeologist to find.  But the reality is that archaeologists will always be few in number and it is highly unlikely any will ever actually tread where many of the artifacts reported by the PAS and Treasure Act are found.

Thus, one really must wonder whether the archaeological blogosphere is more concerned about preserving and recording the past or ensuring that cultural heritage is a union shop for card carrying archaeologists.

More Success from Treasure Act and PAS

The Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme have reported another good year, which again begs the question why the US archaeological lobby is so hostile to any suggestion that a similar program should be tried elsewhere and barely tolerant of the program even for England and Wales.

Indeed, it's a bit of a puzzle why the archaeological lobby (and by default their allies in the State Department Cultural Heritage Center) seem more influenced by the views of the corrupt and/or bankrupt and/or authoritarian governments of places like Bulgaria, China, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece and Italy than by the fair play of our longstanding ally, the United Kingdom. 

Perhaps, some of the millions of dollars of US taxpayer money committed to archaeological projects in places  like Iraq and Egypt should instead be invested in a pilot Portable Antiquities Scheme program in a place like Bulgaria.  That would help Bulgaria record many of the coins that now are not recorded, and show our support not only for Bulgaria, but for our ally, the United Kingdom.

PAS Harnesses the Power of the Public

The Art Newspaper has written favorably about the PAS and its efforts to record evidence of the past in Britain and Wales.  Of course, the PAS records coins and other artifacts, but this effort has fostered academic research as well.  As the article explains:

The information provided by members of the public over the last 15 years is available for all to see on the PAS database. This now contains around 810,000 items and spans objects dating from the Stone Age to Anglo-Saxon, Roman, medieval, and post-medieval times. Every entry includes archaeological information on the object in question, details of where it was discovered and often incorporates notes of scholarly interest. The database provides a historical snapshot of human settlement in England and Wales and is an awesome example of what can be achieved by harnessing the power of the public.

�It�s now a major academic resource,� says Bland. �There are 66 people using it for their PhDs and 140 other post-graduate students or undergraduates using it for their dissertations as well as around 12 major funded research projects [working on it], one of them with �150,000 from the Leverhulme Trust to allow us to analyse the factors underlying the data.�

Given these successes, it's hard to understand the hostility still shown it in parts of the archaeological blogosphere and the unwillingness to consider whether it can be adapted in some fashion in countries like Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, and Italy. 

The amounts spent on PAS would seem to give far more "bang for the buck" (or perhaps pound in this case) than many archaeological programs.  Perhaps the Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs and USAID should consider funding a pilot program in a source country like Bulgaria. The costs could be minimal compared to the amounts spent on archaeology in places like Iraq and Egypt.

Fund an Inclusive Approach to Archaeology

With limited funding available in challenging financial times, should the Government continue to fund a program that promotes recording finds and an inclusive view of archaeology that is popular with members of the general public?   I would say yes and view claims that funding should be reprogrammed to fund "crumbling castles" as promoting a false choice.  If there needs to be cuts, why not defund programs that only benefit a tiny group of insular archaeologists?  Professor Gill,  are you a good value for the UK taxpayer? 

If You Can't Beat Them Why Not Join Them?

The archaeological blogosphere is full at the moment with all sorts of snobby, condescending blather about a new TV show in the UK that highlights some of the most interesting finds made under the PAS and Treasure Act.  I think it would be better if archaeologists recognized that metal detectors are a fact of life-- even in countries like Italy, Greece, Cyprus, Turkey, Bulgaria etc. where we have heard that they are either banned outright or heavily regulated.

It's a bit amazing to me that archaeologists can abandon a site for 10 months or so out of a year, and then be shocked that locals with metal detectors show up in their absence.  Even worse, some of these same archaeologists then argue the only people who should be "paying for the damage" are American collectors who should be banned from importing coins from abroad-- an argument foreign cultural bureaucrats and their American counterparts are apparently all too happy to buy because it diverts attention from the need to address the problem at the source.

If archaeologists are not going to ensure their sites are secure in their absence, perhaps then they should at least explore the sites themselves with metal detectors, and get there first.   Archaeologists in the UK have long used metal detectors to assist them with their digs.  Archaeologists in countries like Cyprus, Italy, Greece and Turkey should do likewise.  At a minimum, perhaps they will then find all those coins that never get recovered because they are either so small that they go through sieves or are stuck in clumps of excavated earth.

For most people-- but perhaps not archaeo-bloggers or other archaeologists who want to complete control over anything old-- an ounce of prevention is worth far more than a pound of cure.

Huge Iron Age Coin Hoard Found in Jersey

Coins Weekly discusses a huge coin hoard found on the Island of Jersey.   Metal detectorists found the hoard, but archaeologists excavated it making for a good example of the collaboration that is still possible between the groups where laws are not of a confiscatory nature.

PAS on Tour

Roger Bland of the PAS will be speaking about the PAS and Treasure Act before a number of AIA chapters around the country. See http://finds.org.uk/news/stories/article/id/233

Given the audience, the lectures will touch not only successes of the system but gaps in the system as far as archaeologists are concerned. See http://www.archaeological.org/lectures/abstracts/5775

No system is perfect, but hopefully the AIA grandees will also pause to consider how the system in Britain and Wales compares with the systems (such as they are) in places like Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, and Italy, when it comes to encouraging members of the public to report their finds.

Archaeological Blather Obscures Rational Approaches to Metal Detectors

The archaeological blogosphere has been filled with rather colorful denunciations of metal detecting in response to popular TV shows about the practice in both the US and the UK.

Though metal detecting has been widely popular since the 1970's, apparently some archaeologists still can't accept that reality or perhaps the fact that the devices make it easier for amateurs to encroach on their turf.

There is even some real question whether metal detecting really harms archaeology at all. In the UK at least, most metal detecting takes place on ploughed land, i.e., land where the archaeological context has already been disturbed. Second, though metal detectors are becoming more accurate, most metal detectorists still only excavate items found quite near the surface, i.e., an area that archaeologists would in any event likely dig through on their way to far "juicer" strata below.

The issue of metal detectors is also relevant to the State Department's process for imposing import restrictions on coins. Coins can typically only be found with metal detectors. This begs the question why we are imposing import restrictions on all coins of a given type coming here to the United States when it would be far more effective (and fair) to regulate metal detectors at the source. The CPIA is quite clear that self help measures like effective regulation of metal detectors should be tried first before import restrictions, but the State Department regularly reads this requirement out of the CPIA (as it does with most every other requirement).

What does effective regulation look like?

Look no further than Ireland, Scotland, Britain and Wales.

Ireland has banned the use of the metal detector, and critically it did so before the use of the metal detector took off in that country.

In contrast, Scotland has a common law system of treasure trove and Britain and Wales have statutory requirements of the Treasure Act along with the voluntary Portable Antiquities Scheme.

I much prefer these systems to that of Ireland as they encourage the discovery of coins that would otherwise never be found by archaeologists (who are limited in number and who are only interested in relatively few sites) their recordation into a database accessible to all (in Britain and Wales), and depending on the circumstances, their display in museums or their return to finders who can then sell them to collectors who will cherish them.

Yet, I must acknowledge that the Irish system is at least a coherent one.

And what does ineffective regulation look like?

Look no further than Cyprus and Bulgaria.

Each country has laws on the books that in theory at least limit the use of metal detectors, but in practice they are widely used, often right under the nose of the authorities.

In Cyprus, they even turn a blind eye to British tourists bringing them to the Island on holiday.

And to exacerbate the problem, both countries have few, if any incentives for metal detectorists to report their finds, or any coherent system to record them even if they were reported.

Yet, some archaeologists still hold up such countries as some sort of model.

And what of the United States? Here, our Constitution protects our liberty to exploit our own land, but you would not know that from the AIA's indictment of a popular show on Spike TV. I do think that historical artifacts should at least be recorded, but American archaeologists should work with American detectorists to create a system of voluntary recording, rather than making wild claims about their supposed "rights" to control what people do on their own land based upon their self-appointed status as stewards of the past.

As Brit-TV Celebrates PAS and Treasure Act, Cranks Come Out to Throw Stones

It's a bit amazing that purportedly serious journalists sometimes take cranks seriously. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/26/tv-show-most-important-archaeological-find?CMP=twt_fd

I guess its all about contrast, but if archaeologists like Lord Renfrew have accepted the UK's system as a workable compromise, why give such heed to the ravings of lunatics?

If It's Good Enough for Lord Renfrew...

Roger Bland's paper in the ABA Art & Cultural Heritage Law newsletter notes that eminent archaeologist Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn currently chairs the Treasure Act's valuation committee.

Lord Renfrew's engagement with the Treasure Act reflects the fact that archaeologists in the UK have largely made peace with metal detectorists.

Yet, vehement critics of the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme remain within the archaeological community, though mostly in the United States and Poland, apparently. Perhaps they should mind their own business.

The Future of Recording the Past in England, Wales, Scotland, Ireland and the United States

On October 12, 2011, the American Bar Association International Law Section and its Art and Cultural Heritage Law Committee sponsored a panel about the law of finds in England and Wales, Ireland, Scotland and the United States for ABA members attending a fall meeting in Dublin:Program Chair and Speaker: Patty Gerstenblith, DePaul University College of Law.Program Chair and Moderator: Peter K. Tompa, Bailey & Ehrenberg PLLC.Speakers:Roger Bland , British Museum.Stuart Campbell, Treasure Trove Unit, Scottish National Heritage.Eamonn Kelly, Irish National Heritage. The panel brought together these experts to consider the benefits and disadvantages of the systems in each of these countries, the policy goals fostered by each, and the effect the current economic crisis on the implementation of these different systems.

Eamonn Kelly (�EK�) spoke first about Irish law. After Independence the new Irish Republic looked to recognized experts to help formulate policy towards finds of archaeological artifacts. In 1928 a Government Select Committee under the chairmanship of Nils Litberg, (a Swedish ethnologist and museum director), began looking at these issues. Based on the Select Committee�s recommendations, the Irish Republic passed a Monuments Law in 1930 that regulated, by license, the excavation, export and conservation of archaeological objects and required that the finding of archaeological objects be reported to the National Museum.

Subsequent legislation dating from 1994 made it illegal to be in possession of an unreported archaeological object or to trade in unreported antiquities. Unreported antiquities could be seized as State property. There is broad consensus in Ireland that newly found archaeological objects should be treated as State property and that finders should receive discretionary awards. Irish maintain a direct connection to their land and their ancestors that helps make looting taboo.

Patty Gerstenblith (�PG�) spoke next about American law. PG explained that there is a division of responsibility between the federal and state governments. The federal government regulates federally-owned and controlled lands, including Native American tribal lands, and also controls interstate and international commerce in archaeological resources. In contrast, State governments maintain responsibility for state-owned and controlled lands.

The federal government owns approximately 30 percent of the landmass in the United States. State and local governments indirectly control activity on private land, in part through zoning and other land-use regulations, but archaeological resources located on private land remain largely unregulated. Most federal government landholdings are in the West, which means that this land receives more protections than the land in the Eastern part of the country.

The Constitution's �takings clause� limits the ability of state and federal governments to protect archaeological artifacts on private land. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act (�NAGPRA�) generally precludes the removal of Native American artifacts from federal land. The Archaeological Resources Protection Act (�ARPA�) also governs removal of artifacts from federal land. Most states have equivalents of each statute.

Stuart Campbell (�SC�) next discussed Scottish law. The Scots have retained common law treasure trove. Treasure trove derives from medieval law. Awarding found treasure to the King was a way to add money to the treasury. The concept is similar to an intestate estate going to the crown. Over time, rewards were offered to finders. Today, Scotland offers fair market awards to finders who comply with the law. The weakness of common law is its lack of definition. However, this lack of definition also allows for flexibility. Any system needs public buy-in making it essential to offer awards. The general public typically views illicit excavation as being no worse than a traffic violation. Over time, public education can make people change behavior. For example, drunk driving is no longer publicly acceptable. There are only about 400 metal detectorists in Scotland. In contrast, there are approximately 10,000 in England and Wales. Accordingly, Scottish officials have to deal with fewer finds and fewer problems than their English and Welsh counterparts.

Roger Bland (�RB�) spoke last about English and Welsh law. The Treasure Act mandates that most significant metal detector finds be reported. If the state decides to keep the find, it must pay a fair market reward. Many finds (typically of ancient coins) are returned to the finder. There are approximately 20,000 protected sites in the United Kingdom that are off limits to metal detectorists. There has been a significant increase in reported finds since the Treasure Act went into effect in 1996. There also is a voluntary �Portable Antiquities Scheme� (�PAS�) which encourages finders to report artifacts not subject to mandatory reporting under the Treasure Act. A recent significant find is the Stratfordshire Hoard of Anglo-Saxon artifacts. Gaps in the law get addressed when the Treasure Act is reviewed every five (5) years. There was a recent controversy about the Crosby Garrett Roman Parade Helmet. Because it did not fit the legal definition of �treasure,� it was auctioned off. However, PAS recorded its find spot.

Question and Answer Period

EK noted that the Irish sought to distance themselves from the British system when they sought advice from experts in archaeology. There was already a regulatory system in place before the advent of the metal detector. The Irish feel close to the land of their ancestors so looting is rare. Moreover, unlike England, most Irish land is not plough land but pasture land, which is much more difficult to dig.

Tight government spending has impacted the Irish, Scots, English and Welsh. The popularity of PAS and the Treasure Act has meant that its funding has been preserved. However, it has become more difficult to raise money to pay a fair market rewards so that artifacts can be kept in museums. RB still believes that no important finds covered under the Treasure Act have been returned to the finder for lack of funds. It�s harder to attract interest in less significant finds of coins and these often are returned to the finder. In Ireland, there has been a fall off in construction projects and hence rescue archaeology funded by developers.

EK, SC and RB discussed their favorite finds. EK described a 4th Century burial of a trader of African origin who lived among the Irish. SC described a find of antique toys. This find was not valuable but nevertheless was a touching reminder of children who lived long ago. RB mentioned both the Stratfordshire Hoard of Anglo Saxon artifacts and the immense Fromme hoard of late Roman coins. The Fromme Hoard contained rare issues of Usurper Emperors who controlled Roman Britain. Careful excavation of the pot containing the hoard has led to a reevaluation of such hoards as votive deposits.

Papers from this conference have been just posted here under "Winter 2012 Newsletter":
http://apps.americanbar.org/dch/committee.cfm?com=IC936000

Archaeology Acknowledges Treasure Act (Sort of)

Archaeology Magazine has publicized a newly discovered Viking coin type of a previously unknown Viking king reported under the UK's Treasure Act. See
http://www.archaeology.org/1203/artifact/silver_viking_coin_king_airdeconut.html

Though the circumstances of the coin's discovery are only briefly mentioned and the fact that it was reported under the Treasure Act is not mentioned at all, it is interesting that the AIA's Magazine is publicising the discovery of an artifact not found in professional archaeological excavations, and under a system of cultural preservation that has be criticised by elements within the archaeological community.

Metal Detectorists Preserve Artifacts Archaeologists Often Destroy or Ignore!

Karl also makes this intersting observation in his "Highway to Hell" article cited below:

But what are Austrian metal detectorists really digging up? Do they typically dig sizeable trenches, and do they dig down into stratified contexts? As far as can be ascertained from the results of my survey, they normally do neither. Rather, the overwhelming majority restrict their activities mostly to digging just the topsoil (Figure 10) and to digging pits of less than one-quarter of a square metre (Figure 11).

Yet, the topsoil is that part of an archaeological stratigraphy that is usually removed by a mechanical digger on the vast majority of Austrian excavations. This is true for pretty much all rescue excavations, and even for many, if not most, research digs. Manual removal of the topsoil is the rare exception to the rule, and even where this happens, the topsoil is rarely thoroughly searched for finds (least of all using a metal detector), if at all.

Thus, most of the activity of metal detectorists seems to be limited to those parts of archaeological stratigraphies neither observed nor documented in systematic archaeological excavations. It thus seems rather peculiar that we accuse these amateur archaeologists of intentionally destroying the archaeological contexts of their finds. After all, professional archaeologists rarely even bother attempting to recover the finds that derive from topsoil contexts; rather, they run them over with a large digger or remove them rapidly and with little regard for implementing intensive recovery strategies.


See more here: http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2012/01/on-highway-to-hell.html

Another Triumph for the Treasure Act

A British Metal Detectorist has discovered and reported an immensely important hoard of Viking era coins and silver artifacts. See http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturenews/8955955/Viking-hoard-provides-new-clues-to-previously-unknown-ruler.html and http://finds.org.uk/news

The hoard contains a coin of a previously unknown ruler as well as coins from from far off Germany and the Middle East. More proof that even in the "Dark Ages" coins travelled long distances from their place of manufacture.

Although archaeological cranks may still find reason to criticize the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme and the cooperation if fosters among members of the public, archaeologists, and museum professionals, how many such hoards are voluntarily reported in their preferred models of cultural heritage management such as Greece, Egypt, Turkey, Italy and Cyprus?

Anglo-Saxons at NATGEO

The National Geographic Society is hosting a fantastic exhibit about the Staffordshire Hoard. See http://events.nationalgeographic.com/events/exhibits/2011/10/29/anglo-saxon-hoard/ and http://www.staffordshirehoard.org.uk/

Archaeological fanatics will no doubt dislike the exhibit's heroic photograph of the metal detectorist who found the hoard, but without him, the Treasure Act and the Portable Antiquities Scheme, it is highly unlikely the hoard would ever have come to light.

This is not a conventional hoard of buried treasure. Rather, it appears to be a collection of battlefield spoils. The hoard was found spread about a farmers field near the site of an old Roman road. There were absolutely no other features to attract the interest of archaeologists, and it is highly doubtful the site would ever have been explored if the find was not reported.

The exhibit itself is by far the best ever I have seen at the National Geographic Society. Great care was taken not only to conserve the objects, but to place them in historical context with the use of reconstructions, videos and computer graphics. Kudos to National Geographic and the many groups that made this exhibit possible.

Chasing Aphrodite at the Walters

On October 29, 2011, the Walters Museum of Art, Baltimore, hosted a discussion about the controversies surrounding the museums collecting antiquities. Jason Felch and Ralph Frammolino, the authors of Chasing Aphrodite, an expose about the Getty Museum�s collecting practices in the 1980�s, critiqued museum collecting from a moral and legal perspective. According to Felch and Frammolino, past museum collecting practices have helped stimulate looting in art rich countries and have violated local law. Arthur Houghton, CPRI President, and Gary Vikan, the Walters Museum Director, rose to defend museum acquisition practices, which both conceded have become more stringent over time. Houghton, who served as a curator at the Getty, provided some context for the discussion. He recounted how the Getty, awash with cash and eager to become a player, took too many shortcuts in an effort to build a world class antiquities collection in record time.

Larger issues were also discussed. Felch and Frammolino argued that changed attitudes have encouraged Italy to make loan term loans to American museums. They also suggested that returning the statue that was the center of the book led to a reappraisal of the work, which has now been identified as Persphone. Houghton argued that construction activities in places like Turkey is a much greater, but little discussed factor, in destroying archaeological context. Audience members also joined the fray. Commenting on the return of the �Aphrodite� to a small Sicilian town, one audience member remarked that she certainly did not want to go to such a place and that the statue will inevitably be seen by far fewer numbers of people than at the Getty. She also noted long term loans are costly to museums because Italy expects museums to spend substantial time, effort and money to conserve the artifacts that are exhibited. Another audience member suggested that source countries themselves could help alleviate the problem of looting by adopting �report and reward� statutes like that in force in the United Kingdom.

Frome Hoard Goes on Display

The Frome Hoard has been put on display in the new Somerset Museum. See
http://www.culture24.org.uk/history+%26+heritage/archaeology/art365271

The Hoard was purchased after a successful fund raising campaign. Other, less significant hoards are typically returned to the finder who can keep them or sell them ultimately to collectors who then will have a coin with a known provenance to add to their collection. Is it really necessary for the State to retain everything?