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.
Showing posts with label metal detecting. Show all posts
Showing posts with label metal detecting. Show all posts
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.
American Digger: Worth A Watch
I watched the first episode of American Digger last evening.
I wonder what all the fuss was about.
It was entertaining. Ric Savage, a former wrestler, has a rather straightforward business plan. Do some research about sites of historic interest. Ask landowners for permission to dig in return for a piece of the action. Look for artifacts. Recover them. Sell them.
In the first episode, Savage and his crew flew up to Alaska. He negotiated a deal with a landowner to explore his property, which was on the site of an old mine. He excavated some old mining equipment and a saw, which he then sold to a local antiques store for $6,000. He then split the proceeds with the landowner, who could use the money to help him build an addition to his house.
Were the artifacts of great historic value? No.
Is the property one where archaeologists were likely to tread? No.
Would the artifacts slowly rust away if Ric did not salvage them? Yes.
Would it have been nice if the artifacts were recorded at a local historical society? Yes, but they are now recorded on video.
What is the big deal?
Let Ric and the boys have some fun, tell us something about American history, and make some money.
I wonder what all the fuss was about.
It was entertaining. Ric Savage, a former wrestler, has a rather straightforward business plan. Do some research about sites of historic interest. Ask landowners for permission to dig in return for a piece of the action. Look for artifacts. Recover them. Sell them.
In the first episode, Savage and his crew flew up to Alaska. He negotiated a deal with a landowner to explore his property, which was on the site of an old mine. He excavated some old mining equipment and a saw, which he then sold to a local antiques store for $6,000. He then split the proceeds with the landowner, who could use the money to help him build an addition to his house.
Were the artifacts of great historic value? No.
Is the property one where archaeologists were likely to tread? No.
Would the artifacts slowly rust away if Ric did not salvage them? Yes.
Would it have been nice if the artifacts were recorded at a local historical society? Yes, but they are now recorded on video.
What is the big deal?
Let Ric and the boys have some fun, tell us something about American history, and make some money.
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.
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.
Labels:
AIA,
Blogging,
Bulgaria,
Bulgarian MOU,
CPIA,
Cyprus,
Cyprus MOU,
metal detecting,
pas,
Treasure Trove
An Archaeologist in Every Backyard?
From the looks of it, the archaeological establishment wants an archaeologist in every backyard to make sure you are not excavating anything of historical value on your own land: See http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/arts/television/spikes-american-digger-draws-concern-from-scholars.html?_r=2&hpw
The Spike TV show "American Digger" takes place on private land, but that is of little moment to Susan Gillespie, an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Florida. She is quoted as stating:
�Our main issue is that these shows promote the destruction and selling of artifacts which are part of our cultural heritage and patrimony.�
But Spike TV's star, Ric Savage, counters that,
�I�ve been a digger my whole life,� he said in a telephone interview on Monday. �But I never had the funds to get the right kind of detector or the time to go out and do it.� After he retired from wrestling more than a decade ago, he devoted himself to digging.
�When you find something of value and hold it in your hands, that�s what it�s all about for me,� he said. �It�s about touching history. You can read or watch history, but the only way you can touch or feel it is to dig it out of the ground.�
That�s about what the anthropologists and archaeologists would say as well. They just argue that this sort of entrepreneurial artifact hunting is antithetical to the more straightforward goal of preserving the past. And also that shows like this could, as Dr. Gillespie put it, �encourage people to dig not on private property� but on federal land, battlefields and American Indian burial grounds.
Mr. Savage said he avoided such areas. He seeks out private property, makes a deal with an owner to, say, dig up his yard or pool, and split with him the proceeds from the finds.
Before any dig takes place, his team, led by his wife, Rita Savage, researches the historical record of an area, compares period maps with contemporary maps and makes a guess about sites where something of value might be found.
That value is mainly derived from what private collectors might pay. For example, Mr. Savage, a Civil War buff, said that buttons from Confederate uniforms are so plentiful that museums have boxes of them that they no longer bother to put on display. But a private collector might still pay him several thousand dollars.
Is the archaeological establishment's campaign really about preserving artifacts or is it instead motivated by snobbery, self-promotion and a desire for control?
Perhaps Spike TV should start its own campaign: Archaeologists: NIMBY! And, of course, use the controversy to increase buzz and ratings.
The Spike TV show "American Digger" takes place on private land, but that is of little moment to Susan Gillespie, an associate professor of anthropology at the University of Florida. She is quoted as stating:
�Our main issue is that these shows promote the destruction and selling of artifacts which are part of our cultural heritage and patrimony.�
But Spike TV's star, Ric Savage, counters that,
�I�ve been a digger my whole life,� he said in a telephone interview on Monday. �But I never had the funds to get the right kind of detector or the time to go out and do it.� After he retired from wrestling more than a decade ago, he devoted himself to digging.
�When you find something of value and hold it in your hands, that�s what it�s all about for me,� he said. �It�s about touching history. You can read or watch history, but the only way you can touch or feel it is to dig it out of the ground.�
That�s about what the anthropologists and archaeologists would say as well. They just argue that this sort of entrepreneurial artifact hunting is antithetical to the more straightforward goal of preserving the past. And also that shows like this could, as Dr. Gillespie put it, �encourage people to dig not on private property� but on federal land, battlefields and American Indian burial grounds.
Mr. Savage said he avoided such areas. He seeks out private property, makes a deal with an owner to, say, dig up his yard or pool, and split with him the proceeds from the finds.
Before any dig takes place, his team, led by his wife, Rita Savage, researches the historical record of an area, compares period maps with contemporary maps and makes a guess about sites where something of value might be found.
That value is mainly derived from what private collectors might pay. For example, Mr. Savage, a Civil War buff, said that buttons from Confederate uniforms are so plentiful that museums have boxes of them that they no longer bother to put on display. But a private collector might still pay him several thousand dollars.
Is the archaeological establishment's campaign really about preserving artifacts or is it instead motivated by snobbery, self-promotion and a desire for control?
Perhaps Spike TV should start its own campaign: Archaeologists: NIMBY! And, of course, use the controversy to increase buzz and ratings.
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.
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
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
Snob Appeal
The AIA has put American metal detectorists in its sights with its protest of two new TV shows, �Diggers� and �American Digger,� on the National Geographic Channel and Spike TV. See http://www.archaeological.org/news/aianews/8256
Instead of acting like archaeological snobs, why doesn�t the AIA take a more positive approach and work with the show�s producers to encourage American metal detectorists to properly record their finds and share any significant information they find with the archaeological community?
The AIA might not like it, but with some very limited exceptions, people can do pretty much what they want on their own private land. It�s the American way.
Instead of acting like archaeological snobs, why doesn�t the AIA take a more positive approach and work with the show�s producers to encourage American metal detectorists to properly record their finds and share any significant information they find with the archaeological community?
The AIA might not like it, but with some very limited exceptions, people can do pretty much what they want on their own private land. It�s the American way.
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
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
On the Highway to Hell
Raimund Karl of Bangor University in the UK has written a thought provoking piece entitled, On the Highway to Hell: Thoughts on the Unintended Consequences for Portable Antiquities of Section 11 (1) Austrian Denkmalschutzgesetz. See http://www.ngoe.at/publikationen/HEN_Karl.pdf
He concludes that a change in Austrian law has led metal detectorists to stop reporting finds they would otherwise report:
By effectively outlawing the use of metal detectors by members of the public to search for archaeological finds through � 11(1) DMSG, the many responsible amateur archaeologists who would be both willing to assist and interested in assisting with the protection of the archaeological heritage have been criminalized. This has completely removed many people�s motivation to report finds, intended to be strengthened by � 8 DMSG awarding a half share in the ownership of legally found and reported finds to the finder. As a result, most have practically stopped reporting any of their finds: this would, after all, be an at least implicit admission of having broken the law, resulting in the loss of any ownership rights to the finds according to � 400 ABGB, and possibly even inviting prosecution.
After reading his article, one might conclude that Professor Karl seems to be blessed with common sense that has detoured him away from the "highway to hell" that has been taken by some of his more ideological colleagues in the archaeological community.
He concludes that a change in Austrian law has led metal detectorists to stop reporting finds they would otherwise report:
By effectively outlawing the use of metal detectors by members of the public to search for archaeological finds through � 11(1) DMSG, the many responsible amateur archaeologists who would be both willing to assist and interested in assisting with the protection of the archaeological heritage have been criminalized. This has completely removed many people�s motivation to report finds, intended to be strengthened by � 8 DMSG awarding a half share in the ownership of legally found and reported finds to the finder. As a result, most have practically stopped reporting any of their finds: this would, after all, be an at least implicit admission of having broken the law, resulting in the loss of any ownership rights to the finds according to � 400 ABGB, and possibly even inviting prosecution.
After reading his article, one might conclude that Professor Karl seems to be blessed with common sense that has detoured him away from the "highway to hell" that has been taken by some of his more ideological colleagues in the archaeological community.
Is It About Conservation or Control?
The PAS is a popular program in England and Wales. As I understand it, the Welsh Government is now expected to pay the modest amount necessary to maintain it as part of a general devolvement of central authority. However, Welsh authorities have been slow to address the issue.
This delay has apparently raised the hopes of PAS' few remaining critics in archaeological circles that any effort to continue to record finds in Wales will be killed off as an austerity measure. See
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/12/portable-antiquities-in-wales-details.html
Of course, that won't stop metal detecting, only efforts to record finds not required to be reported under the Treasure Act.
I've already observed that archaeological fanatics are far more interested in control than in conservation. See
http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/09/ancient-coins-and-cultural-property.html
Isn't this more proof of that observation? So, if this is not a make work program exclusively for archaeologists, PAS is not worth keeping?
This delay has apparently raised the hopes of PAS' few remaining critics in archaeological circles that any effort to continue to record finds in Wales will be killed off as an austerity measure. See
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2011/12/portable-antiquities-in-wales-details.html
Of course, that won't stop metal detecting, only efforts to record finds not required to be reported under the Treasure Act.
I've already observed that archaeological fanatics are far more interested in control than in conservation. See
http://ordinarymag.blogspot.com/2011/09/ancient-coins-and-cultural-property.html
Isn't this more proof of that observation? So, if this is not a make work program exclusively for archaeologists, PAS is not worth keeping?
New Metal Detecting Blog
Here is an interesting blog about metal detecting from John Winter: http://www.johnwinter.net/jw/2011/11/metal-detecting-the-hobby-and-its-detractors-2/
This particular blog does a good job questioning some of the claims made by the archaeological community. Here is the author's conclusion:
In summary, the portrayal of metal detecting by its detractors is one that few informed people, inside or outside the hobby, would recognise. Their propaganda is characterised by distortions and misuse of statistics to portray the hobby in a negative light. They blur the distinction between hobbyists and criminals that use metal detectors, just as they blur the distinction between archaeological sites and land that has no known archaeological significance. They do likewise with spurious statistics regarding numbers of finds made and recorded, deliberately choosing to ignore the fact that the vast majority of items recovered are of no archaeological or historical significance. However, the reality of the hobby�s contribution to knowledge is plain for everyone to see. It is evident in the display cases of our museums, the records on our databases, and the publications on our bookshelves.
As a coin collector I can empathise-- one can easily substitute "coin collecting" for "metal detecting" in the above post. Though each pastime is different, they are both under attack from the same sources-- academics with little use for anyone but fellow academics.
This particular blog does a good job questioning some of the claims made by the archaeological community. Here is the author's conclusion:
In summary, the portrayal of metal detecting by its detractors is one that few informed people, inside or outside the hobby, would recognise. Their propaganda is characterised by distortions and misuse of statistics to portray the hobby in a negative light. They blur the distinction between hobbyists and criminals that use metal detectors, just as they blur the distinction between archaeological sites and land that has no known archaeological significance. They do likewise with spurious statistics regarding numbers of finds made and recorded, deliberately choosing to ignore the fact that the vast majority of items recovered are of no archaeological or historical significance. However, the reality of the hobby�s contribution to knowledge is plain for everyone to see. It is evident in the display cases of our museums, the records on our databases, and the publications on our bookshelves.
As a coin collector I can empathise-- one can easily substitute "coin collecting" for "metal detecting" in the above post. Though each pastime is different, they are both under attack from the same sources-- academics with little use for anyone but fellow academics.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)