When is "Citizen Archaeology" archaeology?

Citizen Archaeologist Denny Erikson, a Tottenham plumber, has identified an object in the collections of the British Museum as clear evidence of ancient space travel. "The so-called experts in the Museum will not admit it", he says smugly, "but I think we've heard enough from experts".  This is one of a number of objects in the museum which are evidence of the unwritten cosmic history of the world.

Denny says the images in the top part of the sculpture represents a space ship, which is proven by the fact that it is shown flying next to the moon, so outside its orbit. "In the foreground are two figures obviously wearing some kind of space suits with close-fitting round helmets and there is some kind of breathing apparatus between them" observes Denny. He is scathing of the museum's explanation of the sculpture as some kind of "ritual" scene when it quite clearly shows the parting of two astronauts and the clinching evidence is in the inscription which mentions an "Anunnaki".  Citizen archaeologist Denny disagrees with the museum's scholars about its interpretation. "The evidence is there staring them in the face", laments Denny, who is a keen collector of space memorabilia, "this must refer to Annekin who as we all know was one of the Jedi but as the myths tell us then turned to the dark Side. The sculpture shows the young Annekin".

Hanna Boltox, Head of Ideology, Tourism and Public Outreach  of the British Museum comments, "this is a really exciting development, more and more citizens are just looking at old things and coming up with all sorts of new interpretations untrammelled by stuffy notions of methodology and analysis, and can imagine all sorts of amazing information about the past. This is true citizen archaeology at its very best". Ms Boltox said that the British Museum will be soon redoing some of the downstairs galleries in the spirit of the new citizen interpretation of history.
 

2012 Olympics Opening Ceremony

The 2012 Olympics have gobbled up so many funds that would otherwise have gone elsewhere, including culture. Anyhow after seven years of planning, the Games have finally got underway and even the die-hard sceptics like myself were probably agreeably impressed by the workmanlike job and finish of the opening ceremony celebrating these "Isles of Wonder" with some jaw-droppingly how-did-they-do-that amazing moments. The first part was a dramatisation of the industrialisation of Britain ("the Workshop of the World") following a rather romanticised depiction of British country life with a nod to the older traditions (Glastonbury Tor).

 But what are the two guys in the left middle foreground doing? On permanent pasture?

"Britain's Secret Treasures" Drinking Game

.
In order to make the parade of the remains of archaeological contexts dismembered by metal detector wielding treasure hunters and artefact collectors on ITV1 next week more palatable, Portable Antiquities and Heritage Issues has devised a drinking game to accompany the programme.

THE “BRITAIN’S SECRET TREASURES” DRINKING GAME*

A game that gives you a good reason to get drunk and argue about archaeology!

Preparation:

Assemble a group of friends in front of the TV just before “Britain’s Secret Treasures” begins.  Before they arrive, make sure that all the necessary equipment is present. You will require:

• alcohol -- strong spirits have the best results, but beer or cider are more authentic (note to continentals: the beer in Britain is the warm-fermented type, and is served at room temperature…);  
• assorted mixers, ice cubes and snacks (for sustenance and variety);
• glasses; 

Ensure that everyone is seated comfortably at a safe distance from the television. Ascertain before the game starts that nobody came by car (those that did they are automatically disqualified from participation, but can act as impartial adjudicators).

The Game:

Everyone must have a drink to hand.  The general rules of this game are no different from any other drinking game. A drink is either a shot or a good gulp from a beer (or cider). Different events call for different numbers of drinks and all you do is watch the programme and play along.

 

Take 1 drink if:

• You hear the phrase "only in it for the history",
• Someone says "the money is not important, and I never sell my finds",
  
• sweeping generalisations are made,
  
• Nylon trousers, strap-on kneelers, baseball caps or camo gear are seen.   
• A metal detecting club's own "code of conduct" is referred to by a metal detectorist (two more if it is mentioned by an archaeologist).
• Someone says "we hate nighthawk[er]s/ nighthawk[er]s are not real metal detectorists" (it does not matter whether said by a detectorist, archaeologist or presenter).
• David Lammy or "unsung heroes of the heritage" are mentioned,
• There is a comment about the Treasure Valuation Committee or the speed and/or fairness of the 'Treasure Process'. 
• Hughes does her 'google-eyed' look.

Take 2 drinks if:

• You hear the phrase “revolutionizes our understanding of history”,
• you hear the word “context” (four if it is a metal detectorist that says it),
• The find being discussed is not of metal,
• resistivity meters or magnetometers are shown,
• people solemnly waving metal detectors over an excavation to no obvious end are shown,
• an historical re-enactment group are shown,
• Computer generated graphics and 'bright historic haze effects' are shown,
• The display of an object on the screen is accompanied by a 'leap of imagination' story, trite, dumbed-down and baseless narrativisation,
• The name of a member of the British royal family (dead or alive) is dropped into the conversation (those based on Geoffrey of Monmouth etc do not count). One drink if the ruler is foreign. 
• "Roman soldiers" are invoked (two more if there is a re-enacter in full armour shown on the screen at the time)

Take 3 drinks if:

• Mention is made of “agrichemical and plough damage”, 
• Preservation in situ is referred to as “left rotting in the ground”,
• A metal detectorist (or archaeologist) does silly stunts on camera like licking jellyfish or cross-dressing, 
• Interpretations involve human sacrifice, strange 'ritual' acts or gory deaths,  
• there is product placement (a metal detector brand is identifiable, or a metal detector producer’s logo is visible in the shot) - look at the clothing as well as equipment, 
• The object discussed is of iron.  
• The NCMD Code of Conduct is referred to by a metal detectorist (two more if it is mentioned by an archaeologist),
• Cotton gloves are not used while handling artefacts,

Take 5 drinks if:

•  A landowner has waived his "reward money".
•  eBay is mentioned by a detectorist,
• The Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England and Wales is referred to by a metal detectorist (none if it is mentioned by an archaeologist, three more drinks however if is shown being presented to a landowner),
• Any mention is made of a metal detectorist's personal artefact collection,

Take 7 drinks if:

•  A metal detectorist has waived his "reward money".
• The completion of a full publication of one of the discussed finds is mentioned (two more if it actually shown on screen),
• Any health risks from metal detector use (electromagnetic radiation, harmful nanovibrations etc.) are referred to,
• There is any mention of international conventions,
• There is any mention of any of the theoretical literature on heritage issues, from either side (White Hat Guys, Gill, Renfrew, Elia, SAFE etc. or the Dark Side - finds identification manuals, coin catalogues and price guides do not count).

If all goes well, you should all be so drunk by the end of the programme that you will not be able to fire off a strongly-worded letter of complaint to ITV about the misrepresentation of the nature of archaeology. Hopefully the next morning you will have forgotten what you saw.

Happy Drinking!

* Inspired (obviously) by ‘The Time team Drinking Game’ http://www.assemblage.group.shef.ac.uk/4/4drink.html (see also http://www.ringthis.com/tvdrink/tv.php)
Vignette: : Keith Morris/Alamy

Britain's Secret treasures, ITV 1 16th-22nd July 2012

FAME not noticed this before...

.

FAME (Federation of Archaeological Managers and Employers - formerly the Standing Committee of Unit managers) "the only organisation solely devoted to representing the interests of archaeological employers and managers within the profession and the business world" seems not very much on the ball. Somebody sent me a link in a great panic ("but please don't mention my name" - OK Xavier, I will not) as it seems that FAME has just noticed there are resources out there like this and (only now?) consider it a "matter for concern". If they were so jolly concerned, they could do better than read my blog, I've discussed this guy twice and had at least one reply from him to my comments. By the way the blurb says "Uploaded by exmoorbeast on Apr 26, 2009", so coming up to three years ago... I reckon Exmoor beast has sold a good number of copies of this artefact collectors' resource by now.

FAME was asked "is there anything that FAME can do?" Well, is there? Or are they going to sit back longer and not observe what is going on under their noses? Or are they going to "be a voice" questioning current British policies towards the archaeological heritage? I bet they do not even have a policy statement about artefact hunting, collecting and trade, do they? But isf archaeology in Britain is "partnering" artefact hunters and collectors, should it not have?

Of course there is another side to this, there is a specialist body within the structure of British archaeology which actively "partners" artefact hunters and collectors and it is costing the British taxpayer millions of pounds to do so. Should this organization not be responsible for addressing such issues as these "databases of archaeological site locations for detectorists" and liaising with other archaeological organizations to publicise, discuss and deal with the issues? Or is the PAS merely a largely passive, very expensive public-funded "UK Detector Finds Database"? Is British "policy" on artefact hunters and collecting from the archaeological record a coherent and workable one, or is it just some ill-considered, non-sustainable ad hoc wallpapering over cracks?

"Academic Publishers: Suicide Bombers Against the Academy"

.
There is a really thought-provoking article here "Academic Publishers: Suicide Bombers Against the Academy" by Daniel Shoup on his Archaeopop blog.

This system can’t last forever (though its pernicious effects might). The big four will eventually see revenues drop as they squeeze the last drops of blood out of the world’s universities. But even as they undermine their own business model, they will destroy the power of universities to generate knowledge for the betterment of society. (Yes, I’m old-fashioned that way.) Meanwhile, universities, governments, corporations, and ordinary citizens will turn to other sources of information – which they can get for free, or at least affordably – undermining the relevance of public scholarship.

For-profit academic publishing is a suicide bombing mission against the academy. In pursuing their doomed business model, the big publishers risk turning the work we do as scholars into a giant echo chamber. Students take on a lifetime of debt, partly to pay for journal subscriptions that enrich a few corporations. Scholars are turned into serfs who must feed the beast new product for it to sell, or risk losing their already tenuous livelihoods. Institutions bankrupt themselves paying for ever more expensive journals without which they cannot compete. Fewer and fewer people can read the rapidly increasing number of scholarly articles.

One other thing is not mentioned, those "enterprising" publishers from developed countries scamming authors from the less fortunate countries into paying to publish their articles in "Western" e-journals which (in the business model) other people are then expected to pay to access. I have seen several such "offers" floating around recently.

The situation described here deserves attention from academics as well as those amateurs who claim to be producing history by their collecting activity. Surely this is an opportunity for them since they are not hindered in their publication activity by the need to get their work into a fixed range of journals. The situation described by Dr Shoup however certainly restricts THEIR access to cutting-edge literature.

Vignette: who controls academic publication?

Detecting Under the Microscope 13: Finds or Portable Antiquities? What is Being Thrown Away?

.
Those nasty "detractors" of the depletion of the archaeological record by unregulated artefact hunting are accused by John Winter of making up stories of the rate of erosion. After thirteen years of public funded (costing at least thirteen million quid) liaison and partnership, one might thought the Portable Antiquities Scheme might have provided some proper figures on the basis of which the effects of this activity on the archaeological record could be reliably assessed. Of course the Bloomsbury Good Old Boys have done no such thing. However an attempt is at last being made to rectify this omission by Katherine Robbins at Southampton University, who has initiated a survey among "metal detectorists" to try and find out just what it is they get up to in the fields. Question seven of this survey, if the tekkies answer it honestly, seems likely to provide a measure of the veracity of the Heritage Action Erosion Counter algorithm...

7.) On average, how many pre 1700AD finds do you collect each time you go out?

	1-2
	3-4
	5-6
	7-8
	9-10
	11+

Or does it? What does an archaeologist consider a "find" and what does an artefact collector? What would an archaeologist record from an investigated area, and what does a collector think worth stooping for? The imp[ortant fact that is so often ignored is that artefact collecting is not ersatz archaeology, it is something else entirely. Collecting costume Barbie dolls is not ethnography, still less ethnology.

Collectors accumulate "finds" very selectively (but at the same time randomly). What they take from the fields has no relation to what was there in the first place. The aim of artefact collecting is not to make a collection which is a representative sample of an assemblage, but is a selection of collectables from that assemblage.

To take an example, if we search the PAS database (today 470,264 records) for "key" we find 1673 Roman to post-medieval examples. If we look for lock mechanism, we find nine items. There are very few examples of the collection of any part of the mechanism that articulated within the lock with them. If we look for "lock" we get 199 hits, but most of them are knobs all for some reason interpreted as from Roman "lock pins" (though other interpretations are possible) and cast copper alloy slide bolts from Roman padlocks. Yet locks in which a key is turned each have a number of moving parts, precision made, differentially tempered. Just those bits of metal are not as "collectable" as a key. Here's one mechanism for example:
Which of these pieces would join the average metal detectorist's collection? How many of them would thence turn up on a FLO's desk? What is happening in the fields is the equivalent pieces of the ancient locks to which those keys fitted are simply being dug out of their place in the archaeological record and being discarded by collectors. The information they contain about lock typology, development, manufacturing techniques is simply being lost because artefact hunters are not doing archaeology, but looking for geegaws to collect (or sell). Lock mechanism fragments most frequently end up in the scrap bucket and not in anyone's collection, still less on anyone's database.


Another example are tools. Many of the metal objects "metal detectorists" collect and sell are decorated with inscribed lines or 'chip carving' or zig-zag (rocker) tracer lines. The tools that made these marks would be small iron spikes with a tempered steel (or at worst work-hardened) and sharpened ends. This type of decoration is very common. How many of the tools that made it have been found by metal detectorists? Interestingly there is not even a category "tracer" in the PAS keywords list. Perhaps they'd go under 'burins' (a steel burin could be used for woodworking, and leather working - making the stitch holes in shoes for example) so there should be a lot of tracers and burins resulting from 10000 tekkies searching "productive" sites up and down the country. A search of the PAS database reveals 32 - all of flint - have been collected and reported. Many Roman metal objects have traces on them of having been finished with 'needle file' like tools - where are they in the PAS database? The saws used to cut the teeth of the bone combs on Roman and post-Roman sites? The list of things that are not being collected by artefact hunters is a long one. Typing "waste" gets some metalworking waste (mostly lead) but 91 fragments is surely no guide whatsoever to either the quantities of metalworking waste in the post-Roman archaeological sites of Britain. After all, the 400 000 metal detected objects on the database had to be made some time somewhere. Artefact hunters might pick up the odd piece from time to time as a curiosity, but generally not information. Most of the evidence for post-Roman (or earlier even) metal working dug up from archaeological assemblages by metal detectorists probably goes in the scrap bucket.

Therefore artefact hunters could be taking from the archaeological many more "pre 1700AD finds" than will register in their conscience as something that may be archaeological evidence that may be reportable to the PAS. The answer they give to Robbins' question 7 will therefore reflect that perception. I suspect also the individuals answering the questionnaire will include an unknown number deliberately trying to create "statistics' which prove the "detractors" wrong and it is unclear how Ms Robbins intends analysing the results she gets to filter out this effect. Still, it will be interesting to see what answer they give.

Taking and Giving Credit

.
Washington lawyer Peter Tompa finds my blogged comments on what goes on in the world of collecting and dealing in archaeological artefacts "obnoxious" and on that basis suggests that in some way I am "No Credit to the Archaeological Community". In particular he objects to my commenting upon the views of collectors who have been "forced by the State Department's "green initiative" to post their comments about the Bulgarian MOU on line" on what he says are the "State Department's and the AIA's efforts to suppress ancient coin collecting in this country".

Well, first of all the manner in which the common archaeological heritage is treated should indeed be an open, inclusive and public debate with the potential involvement of all stakeholders. Having it online is an entirely laudable thing, it is a shame that collectors feel they are being "forced" to openly say what they think. We all know that dugup artefact collectors ("metal detectorists" and coineys in particular) prefer closed forums and discussion groups where normal people who may question what they see there cannot see what they do or say. They are not kiddie-porn collectors and surely doing nothing that needs shielding from public view, the public who are the major stakeholder in the heritage.

Once again we spot the attempted sleight-of-hand alarmist phrase: "efforts to suppress ancient coin collecting in this country". The State Department is doing nothing other than looking after US interests abroad (the cynics among us will see that if there were no US interests in doing any of this, we may all be sure the US government would not be lifting a finger). I have already dealt with what the AIA's policy on collecting actually is, it is a shame (but wholly typical of the milieu) that Tompa can't be bothered to read it. What anyone with more than half a braincell can see is that the measures under discussion are intended to do is curb smuggling of artefacts. Note that it is the dealers' lobbyist here whose Freudian slip is in effect warning here that if we were to succeed in cutting out the smuggled artefacts, the US antiquities market - one of the biggest in the world - would collapse. He said it, not me.

The lawyer asserts:

"Barford seems to suggest that coin collectors are failing to specifically comment on these provisions of the CPIA" [followed by a cut-and-paste of section 303(a)1 of the CCPIA - I think actually the first time he has ever presented it on his blog]

No, there is no "seems to suggest" about it. I state it outright. Members of the public are specifically and clearly asked only to comment on section 303(a)1 of the CCPIA. I note that if we look, we find that in the submitted online comments, they on the whole talk about anything BUT section 303(a)1 of the CCPIA. I do not "suggest" it, I state it as an incontrovertible fact, and back it up with links to and quotes of what they actually do say. That is what we call discussion Mr Tompa. The next bit of Tompa's text is extraordinary:

But how would most collectors be in any position at all to comment intelligently on most of this legalese?

"Legalese"? What in that fragment of text (just 219 words) is so difficult for anyone of an average intelligence to understand? But surely if lawyer Tompa wants to help coineys make an intelligent contribution to the debate, it would be easy for lawyer Tompa to sit down and write a text translating this alleged "legalese" into simple English to help them understand what the issues are. I've done this for the benefit of any of my readers who might need it, and it really is not so complicated (I also invited coineys do do not understand Washingtonese to look at my exegesis to aid them formulating a comment). If Tompa cannot be bothered to acknowledge that his coiney supporters might have difficulty comprehending what is involved, he could provide a link to my post to save him having to do it. Yet he does neither.

What is extraordinary is the admission that in his 'call to arms' to oppose this proposal (currently being put out by several major coin dealers), he is asking coin collectors to publicly comment on what he now admits he knows they are in no position at all to comment intelligently upon. So this suggests that as far as he is concerned, just any old unintelligent comment is for the sake of coiney propaganda better than none - in this brand of US democracy, quantity takes priority over quality?

So is Tompa himself saying that his coiney mates are too unintelligent to actually find out a bit about the background before making a public comment? In what way is that different to my pointing out that - in the context of what had been requested - the whole series I looked at were singularly unintelligent comments? Surely both lines of argument lead to the same conclusion?

Tompa suggests that instead of the questions posed in section 303(a)1, the President might instead consider - through his advisory committee - whether American collectors are being discriminated against (not mentioned in section 303 - and I'll address that comment in the blog post below this one) and whether import restrictions go directly to the "use of ancient coins as educational tools" (for the latter see my earlier comments). Tompa concludes by suggesting:

In any event, it certainly does no credit to other members of the archaeological community that one of their number is in effect seeking to suppress the First Amendment rights of American collectors as well as the views of collectors outside the US with his obnoxious ridicule of those forced to comment publicly on the regulations.gov website.

I am not suppressing ANYONE's so-called "First Amendment rights" (a much-abused term in the US it seems to me). Are the words and deeds of collectors and dealer somehow sacrosanct and immune to analysis? Or don't I too have my own right to say what I think about what they dealers say and do? I do not consider that those rights are in any way being "suppressed" by lawyer Tompa saying he does not agree with me or like (or thinks other archaeologists would like) the way I am saying what I say. It is called discussion Mr Tompa.

Let the archaeologists who Tompa suggests consider I do them (sic) no credit come onto my blog and tell me why they think smuggling dugup artefacts out of Bulgaria and into the US is a jolly good thing for archaeology, and why we should be extra-specially nice to all those who want a part in the process.

AIA on Helping to Preserve Archaeology in Belize and Bulgaria

.
The Archaeological Institute of America is committed to preserving the world's archaeological resources and cultural heritage for the benefit of people in the present and in the future. As part of its Site Preservation Program it supports the requests by Belize and Bulgaria to help curb the trade in smuggled artefacts from those countries. Both countries have now asked for the USA to pay closer attention to the paperwork of imported artefacts from those countries than hitherto - despite being states parties of the 1970 UNESCO Convention. The material presented by the AIA in support of their position on these requests can be found here:

Preserving Archaeology in Belize and Bulgaria: Cultural Property Advisory Committee (CPAC) to Consider New Bilateral Agreements to Protect Belizean and Bulgarian Archaeological Heritage

It is short and to the point. Although (unlike the coiney appeal does not contain "what to say" bits to cut-and-paste) I think it is worth giving this campaign some support just to show that not all are on the side of the cultural philistines who don't give a hoot about the smuggling of archaeological material and ethnographic objects from Belize and Bulgaria (although I will be concentrating on Bulgaria, because "somebody else" will, let's not forget Belize either).

Sadly the AIA forgot to put a clearly visible link on their webpage showing where people who wish to submit a comment can go, which is a bit dozy of them. So here they are:

Link for Comments on Belize MOU.

Link for Comments on Bulgaria MOU.

Coiney Teacup Storm

.
I asked ('Coiney Silence: Capitulation or Calm Before Storm?') whether the several days' silence from the coiney camp on the Bulgarian MOU request was the calm before another storm of philistinic coineyish protest. Now we've seen what they intend to do, it is difficult to say. It's all a bit pathetic really, and of course once again shows that they are being induced to write about things that are not in the CPAC's request for comments and indeed not in the CPIA. (What's new?) They complain that their comments have not been listened to by the CPAC on previous occasions where coin imports have been discussed. There is a very good reason for that, when you look at what they actually wrote (where that is available, and I spent a while posting about them on this blog) virtually NONE of it was actually on topic. In any administration, that will lead to it being binned rather than considered.

This time is no different. This time though the coineys are being urged to comment mainly on the alleged "maladministration" of the Department of State. The "evidence" for this is that "they" did not consider coiney complaints and that they gave "short notice" of the comment gathering period. Two weeks is however not really all that short for a person of adequate literacy to submit a comment. These pathetic individuals however are being urged to write comments to a presidential advisory committee containing a complaint against the DoS. Where is the logic in that? More to the point, if you look at the CCPIA with any care, you will see that nowhere in the description of the operation of the CCPIA is there any mention that it has to be swayed by any public input. In its composition, both the public and the antiquities trade are adequately represented in the statutory composition of the Committee. When the Act was written internet-lobbying was still unthought of.

With reference to the text I discuss below, coineys might like to look at the CCPIA (section 305) to see at what stage of the process the definition of what is and what is not covered is added or revised, and by whom. They might be surprised, because lawyers for the coin trade apparently do not consider they need to be kept informed of details like that in order to make a meaningful contribution to the public debate. that seems not to be their function in the tactics of coiney lobbying.

The coin trade's professional lobbyist Peter Tompa has created a text called: "Bulgaria: Call to Comment" which begins "Please consider sending this to any coin collector you know". One wonders why he only wants coineys to comment, surely this affects anyone who deals in and collects "minor antiquities" coming from recent metal detecting in the Balkans and Bulgaria in particular, why does Tompa feel that these collectors will not support the coineys? Tompa's text has the following sections:

What is at issue? [which of course fails to say what is at issue in fact, which is restrictions on import of coins which cannot be documented as legally exported from the Bulgaria]

Why bother? [...]
and the all important for those with sawdust instead of brains:

"What should I say?"
This section for the collectors unable to work out for themselves why they are writing to the CPAC is priceless:

Tell the State Department and CPAC what you think about the bureaucracy’s efforts to deny you the ability to collect common ancient artifacts that are available worldwide. You might also consider noting that coins from Bulgarian mints are common and often very inexpensive. Tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands exist in collections around the world, and because of the low price the vast majority of these coins will never have been through an auction and will have no verifiable provenance.

Comments:

1) Perhaps sawdust-for-brains folk might need some prompting to work out why these particular coins are so plentiful on the market. Is it because Petrarch and nineteenth century Maryland rural parsons collected coins from Bulgarian ploughmen? Or is it because sites in Bulgaria have been trashed on a massive and industrial scale in the last two decades to allow hundreds of thousands of freshly (and illegally) dug up coins and other artefacts to enter the global (but most especially the US) market? Is it because at least one container-load of such dugups is known to have passed through Frankfurt on its way to the international market, of which the US sector has been estimated by an ACCG dealer as comprising a half? Let's have long lingering look at the Google Earth pictures of Archar. Let sawdust-for-brain people unable to work it out for themselves have a long lingering look at the Wikipedia Commons photo gallery showing the massive scale on which this site has been turned over by gangs with metal detectors and bulldozers to produce the coins and "minor antiquities" that not just one of the US "small businesses" supporting the ACCG and V-coins was started with. Then let them write to the CPAC what they think about that.

2) These coins may be "available worldwide" on a market that is notorious for asking no questions. In which country or countries, the lawyer does not say, are coins illegally dug up and illegally taken out of the country (without an export licence) on sale licitly? Could Peter Tompa provide us, either via his blog of as a comment here, with the names of the other countries that would go on this list:

Table 1: Countries where selling freshly dugup artefacts smuggled out of Bulgaria is licit
(UNESCO 1970 Art. 3 and 8)

3) While he is at it, Peter Tompa can no doubt supply his coiney protégés with the actual reference within the CCPIA which speaks of "provenance". All that is of issue in the whole CCPIA is in fact when an item left Bulgaria. Nothing to do with "auctions" or how much an artefact "costs" or where it was dug up. It is precisely the mass scale of the removal of items (the factor which lowers the cost) which is the problem.

4) Somehow Peter Tompa has forgotten to keep coineys appraised of just what specific aspect of the request the Presidential Advisory Committee has asked for public comments on. Comments on anything else will not be taken into consideration. Get your section 303 thinking caps on coineys - Tompa's not going to help you out there, he wants you writing something else... (his motives for that are not easy to guess).

Finally, how many fresh coins do Tompa and his dealer mates want to see on the market? If people in the US have been collecting coins "since Petrarch", and we hear of container loads of them arriving there (and from another dealer mentioned on this blog about a "tonne") then when is enough is enough? Can the US coin trade quantify roughly how many freshly dug up coins imported from Bulgaria it will need in the next decade? How many have been coming in over two decades? How sustainable is that by current mechanisms?

Why are the dealers and their supporters not urging the coiney community to insist Bulgaria install a Portable Antiquities Scheme in places like Archar (Ratiaria) to voluntarily record the coins and artefacts coming out of the ground of this heavily trashed site? This is surely what they were suggesting for other countries instead of closer US scrutiny of imports, why not here? A little consistency please guys...

In an earlier post, dealers' lobbyist Tompa grumbles:

One must again unfortunately conclude that the State Department and its Cultural Heritage Center really are not looking for informed public comment from the broadest number of stakeholders possible. And doesn't such a tact merely confirm the suspicions of many that the State Department bureaucracy views CPAC as little more than a rubber stamp for imposing the broadest import restrictions possible? While I'm sure Bulgaria's former Communist rulers would have approved of such a farce, what does it say about our own State Department's commitment to the democracy it preaches so loudly to others?

Bulgaria ceased to be a "Communist" state quite a long time ago, and a lot has happened there since. It seems going more than a little too far to compare the US DoS with the totalitarian regime of Todor Zhivkov on present evidence. Methinks Tompa has not the slightest idea what he is talking about here. To what extent are the coineys commenting on the bilateral cultural property agreement well informed by people such as Mr Tompa about what it involves? We will see.

Vignette: Bulgarian ethnic ceramic teacup; Photo, what is left of the archaeology of Ratiaria after the artefsct hunters have been over it (photo by Widintourist Wikipedia Commons do have a look at the whole gallery, it is quite shocking)

Egypt: New Head of SCA

.

.

It appears that Dr Mustafa Amin Mustafa (currently head of the SCA's Islamic & Coptic section) has been appointed the new head of the SCA after the resignation of Mohammed Abdel Fattah on 20th September (he had been appointed only a few weeks earlier, on 18th August - Hawass left office c. 17th July).

It in not clear what status the new head of the SCA has, Fattah had met with Prime Minister Essam Sharaf a week ago and gained some concessions such as a Treasury review of SCA funding and the establishment of his position as a Minister. he still refused to return to the post - quoting health reasons.

Youm7 English Edition, 'Egypt appoints new antiquities chief'

UPDATE: Friday
MENA: 'Sharaf appoints new secretary general for Supreme Council of Antiquities', Fri, 30/09/2011.

Anon, 'Another SCA Secretary General in office ..... But till when???!!!', Luxor Times blog, Friday, 30 September 2011

UPDATE Sunday:

Nevine El-Aref ,'New antiquities head, new plan, protestors satisfied', Ahram Online, Sunday 2 Oct 2011
"The newly appointed secretary general of the Supreme Council of Antiquities says he will meet protestors’ demands, promises reform".

Photo: from Luxor Times note the apparent zebibah.

Collector: "Archaeology Big Business"

.
In a post below this I questioned the use of the term "trade group" referring to bodies like the European Archaeological Association, and said it was sloppy terminology. Nevertheless the author of those words is insistent that it is true:

archaeologists certainly advocate for the business purpose of monopolizing control over antiquities, and let's face the fact that archaeology is a big business now-- what with TV deals, government contracts and the like.

Leaving aside the emotive (and untrue) formulation "monopolising the control of antiquities" (sic) - which basically means, doesn't it, trying to keep them off the market for illicitly obtained items...

Does archaeology have a "business purpose" (ie commercial purpose) in protecting archaeological record from destruction? Can one say that rhino wardens in national parks are preserving rhinos for commercial reasons (because once the rhinos are gone nobody will pay their salaries to guard them)? Its the same argument, isn't it? I think there are a number of reasons why people make huge efforts to protect a resource and encourage others to help them. Commerce - doing business with it - does not necessarily play a part in it. Make money out of protected wild orchids growing in a field, or an osprey's nest. Perhaps the writer of those words finds it difficult to envisage there being other aims in conducting an activity, or running an institution, than making money. I do not know anyone who has entered archaeology thinking they'll get rich - you've much more of a chance of getting rich buying a metal detector and looking for a hoard or two in likely spots.

In the sense that developer funding plays a large part these days in financing so-called archaeological heritage management (in particular rescue archaeology) and this is contracted out by normal means to commercial archaeological bodies which undertake the work (so none of the institutions we are discussing), archaeology has become more commercialised. But in fact what money is being made from here is the controlled destruction of archaeological context. Perhaps then archaeology could be accused of having commercial interests in retaining context until such a time as commercial groups can be paid to take them apart methodically rather than, as was said above, loose "antiquities"? This however seems to be pushing coiney conspiracyism to its limits. In any case describing commercial archaeology as big business seems rather an exaggeration when the work is tendered out and often the cheapest option gets chosen, and the cost of an excavation is often only a fraction of the cost of a development. I know very few archaeologists who get rich doing rescue work, the ones I do know here in Poland are currently sitting out a jail sentence.

As for "government contracts", I wonder how much money the writer of those words thinks governments hand out to contractors in the field of culture and environment worldwide? These too are frequently tendered out and are often (as we see in the case of Britain's PAS for example) subject to stringent cuts. Thinking about some of the more lucrative UK government contracts I know of, they have been for creating policy documents, surveys or reports, and nothing whatsoever with either having or not having "antiquities" or excavation, just simple paperwork. The contracts in question also went to archaeological entities which have nothing to do with the kind of lobbying about which the anti-archaeological critic was writing.

TV deals, now we get to the crux of it. We all of us of course make a packet from our TV appearances, day after day in the studio and out of it. The makeup, tight filming schedules, paparazzi, autograph hunters... its a terrible life. Now, the PAS - on the back of Treasure hunters - reportedly has made a TV deal, but I do not think the average commercial archaeology makes much money out of filming its work.

Perhaps there is just a hint of jealousy there. One can imagine it now: "Chasing Denarii" presented by Zanny Harris III, Wisconsin coin collector, BBC2 8:00 pm Saturdays. "Come and explore with Zanny the treasures of the ancient world he has in his back bedroom":
"and here's another one, now this may look very much like the other 23 I showed you, but this one is really quite interesting, it was struck just a few years before his death, note the fine cabinet toning. I'll just put it down so the cameraman can zoom in on some of the details of the leaves on the wreath on the forehead [...] and here's another, but this time minted in Antioch! See, there's the mintmark just there..."

Vignette: Men in ties

UK Artefact Hunting Hot Spot Lists Published

.
If you have a metal detector and are not particularly concerned about keeping within the (extraordinarily liberal) laws of the United Kingdom, the British archaeological community has published some wonderful resources for their "partners" and artefact hunting colleagues. There is a full list of important archaeological sites and their status (with maps) published online by English Heritage. Just a click away. From this I learn to my extreme annoyance that an extremely important Roman villa site I published is NOT scheduled (and it should be), but a telephone box in the village is. Another site I have been working on has part of the site scheduled, but just to the north of it is a complex of features containing lots of finds which is obviously part of the same site and which is not scheduled - ideal for artefact hunters (in fact they've already been there - and the gents from the Early Medieval Corpus [coineys] have been happily recording finds from them).

Scottish artefact hunters have a similar resource available.

Councillor Alan Melton and Dr Mike Heyworth - BBC Radio 4 - PM

.
The UK local Councillor from the swampy Fens who said that his council would be lifting the requirement for pre-development assessments and mitigating excavations by "bunny huggers and historic lefties" has just appeared on the BBC. The debate is now available on You Tube.

"Oi mayda speach, ... I just want ter geta debayt going" said the oikey ex-brickey councillor (who certainly did not present it at a developers' meeting in such a manner). This is juxtaposed by "The truth of the matter..." presented in a much more articulate manner by Mike Heyworth, director of the CBA.

Councillor Melton seems not to understand what the words "GPS" mean, or what Sarah Parcak's work in Egypt consisted of and what relevance it has to what he is discussing.

The fracas was mentioned in the Guardian.'Archaeologists furious over councillor's 'bunny huggers' jibe.

UPDATE 23 July 2011: I see ex-Brickie Melton's own gor-blimey style is absent from a recent statement issued by the Fenland local council http://www.fenland.gov.uk/article/3260/Leader-explains-stance-on-archaeology. It would seem they employed a ghost-writer for him to take back what he had earlier said. What a farce.
.

The Lawyer and Archaeological Site Preservation

.
In his most recent post ("Misplaced Priorities?"), Peter Tompa suggests that, instead going after antiquity thefts, source-country Bulgaria should use the resources elsewhere:

It seems to me Bulgarian money would be better spent on security for sites under active archaeological investigation and on a treasure trove program for the rest.

It seems to me that "Cultural Property Observer" is not being very observant about the principles observed by those urging the preservation of the archaeological record. This is not regarded anywhere outside a coiney's cabinet as just a case of keeping looters off archaeological sites currently "under active archaeological investigation" (see post below). Whether part of a site is investigated this year, last year or next year is not the determining factor in whether it deserves to be protected from destruction. Certainly not in the US, where Tompa is writing, nor over here in Europe. I really cannot see where the "observer" gets this idea from (maybe talking to Derek Fincham, another US lawyer who seems from what he has previously written - see here and a second time here - not really to grasp this issue either). Certainly he did not get this from discussing this with archaeologists and heritage professionals.

Likewise, how will giving the artefact hunters who dug up this haul of objects a reward of a million dollars (the value reportedly assigned to the items seized in Canada) help protect the archaeological sites they and other finds like them come from? Why does Tompa think this would not merely provide an incentive for more treasure hunters to go and dig more artefacts out of the ground to claim more reward money? Tompa's notion suggests he simply is unobservant not only about the basic principles of archaeological preservation, but also human nature. How is he going to stop the reported "300 000" Bulgarian treasure hunters exploiting these state payouts to empty the remaining archaeological sites of the remaining collectable objects in them? How would what he proposes encourage site preservation and not site destruction?

Wanborough, Surrey: Archaeological site excavated after it had been "done over"by artefact hunters, most of the holes seen here dug into the stratified deposits are the result of the extraction or metal artefacts for collection or sale by "metal detectors". Coin collector and dealers' pal Peter Tompa apparently wants to 'reward' this kind of behaviour. © 2003 Surrey Archaeological Society

This sort of thing forms a repeating pattern in the arguments offered and accepted by the dugup collecting milieu. This raises the very real question of whether it is possible for anyone who collects antiquities these days to think outside the box, and see beyond the (their) artefact to the context from which they come? It seems to me that Tompa is here thinking very schematically and superficially because he is fetishising the object (the portable antiquity) which for him is the sole embodiment of information about the past ( a la: "numismatics is the window through which I look out on the past") rather than recognising that not only are there other means of studying that past, but the collectors' object fetishism is actually destroying the sources for those other approaches. This is a very narrow - even introverted - view, and an ignorance which surely should be dispelled through a wider outreach of educational programmes. Is it possible to educate dugup antiquity collectors? Is it possible to penetrate the mental fog within which such self-consciously unenlightened milieus wrap themselves? Are dugup collectors ("passionately interested in the past") at all interested in learning about the wider context in which their collecting functions, or do they have their heads down and attention merely focussed on the geegaws they accumulate in their ephemeral personal collections?

Well, let's see. In the post below this I have copied and pasted some information from US archaeological sources, information intended for the average member of the US public (in other words not those that claim to be an elite with a special interest in the past). Let us see if Peter Tompa and his fellow collectors exhibit any sign at all that they have understood it.
.

This is For Peter Tompa and his Antiquity Collecting Followers

.
I think we may all be astounded by the total lack of awareness exhibited by the antiquity collectors, especially the North American ones, when writing about archaeological site preservation. Peter Tompa ("Misplaced Priorities?") is just the most noticeable among them, but this seems to be a repeating pattern. The real danger is of course that as a result of their one-sided and self-interested advocacy, they may lead to a misinformation of the public. Surely all archaeologists and those concerned with the preservation of the remains of the past should be doing their utmost to put the record straight in the face of the "archaeologists have got it all wrong, what they need to do (to accommodate us) is..." claptrap emerging from the dealers' lobbyists and the collector camp-followers both sides of the Atlantic.

Part of the problem seems to be what is considered a "site" in US archaeological literature. When the AIA talks about its "Site preservation program" it is actually talking about what the rest of us would call "monuments" and in fact "restoration" more often than actual preservation. The same goes to some extent for the US State Department's efforts. In fact they do not seem very hot on site preservation in the States. In the Lootier State, Wisconsin, home of the Republican "Collectors' Rights declaration", we learn that

It is estimated that nearly 80% of the archaeological sites that once existed in the state have been destroyed or severely damaged, primarily by modern land practices such as development and farming. Many sites have also been damaged by looting.

New York has an archaeological site preservation initiative ("Enhance the Value of your Community by Saving your Archaeological Heritage"):

We value places and buildings that embody a sense of our history, our community, our local and national identity. [...] Archaeological and historic sites are disappearing rapidly, mainly through construction and development projects, often without any documentation. [...] What Activities Damage or Destroy Sites? Natural forces such as wind and water do a lot of damage. But most damage is done by PEOPLE through construction and development projects, and by unauthorized digging.

The observant reader will note that the object of concern is not just archaeological sites currently under active investigation" nor whether or not the people digging artefacts out of archaeological sites in these areas of the USA are getting any kind of state payout of a financial "reward" for their efforts. That is not what archaeological site conservation is about in the United States of America (and it is therefore difficult to see why any educated American should think it is any different anywhere else).

I could not find the equivalent District of Columbia text, maybe there is one, but here's the other Washington talking about archaeological site stewardship, I'll quote it in in-your-face full for Mr Tompa and people that think like him about archaeological site preservation. It is nicely and thoughtfully written in a clear style and I hope its authors will not mind the fact that the information it contains is more widely propagated among milieus that might not find it themselves:

Archaeology: Site Stewardship

What are Archaeological Sites?
Archaeological sites are the physical remains of past human activity. Wherever people have lived and worked, the land and water may contain evidence of their lives. The prehistoric ancestors of Washington's Indians lived here 12,000 years before the arrival of the first European colonists. They left behind the remains of camps, villages, quarries,and hunting and fishing sites, all scattered across Washington beneath the visible landscape. Traces of structures built since settlement such as the foundations of 19th-century gristmills, stone walls of deserted farmsteads, and abandoned cemeteries all contain valuable information about the lives of the people who lived before we did.

These clues, tangible links to our past, are often invisible from the surface. Traces of earlier occupation may lie under parking lots, buildings, or plowed fields and are only discovered through archaeological survey. As such, archaeological sites scattered across the state represent a tangible link to our past. Because most sites in Washington are privately owned they will be preserved through the generosity of private landowners, or not at all.

All archaeological sites are fragile and irreplaceable; they cannot be rebuilt or remade. In Washington, archaeological sites are disappearing at an alarming rate, and unless landowners take positive steps to preserve and manage these properties, valuable pieces of history will be lost forever. It is important that we all actively participate in the preservation and management of Washington's archaeological heritage.

Through the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP), landowners are encouraged to preserve, protect, and interpret significant archaeological resources on their property. State archaeologists can provide information about the probable location of archaeological sites and can advise and assist landowners in evaluating and developing alternatives to preserve archaeological sites.

Survey and Registration Archaeological sites discovered through survey that meet certain criteria for significance and integrity can be listed in the National Register of Historic Places and the Washington Heritage Register, the nation’s and state’s lists of significant sites. Registration informs individuals and localities of important resources that they may wish to consider in private and community land use decisions.

Site Stewardship Plan With the help of DAHP a site stewardship plan can be developed to provide specific guidance and recommendations to a landowner with archaeological sites on his or her property. The plan assists the landowner in preserving, protecting, and interpreting archaeological sites in his or her care. The success of the plan depends solely on the participation and commitment of landowners.

Archaeological Sites: Some DOs and DON’Ts

• Do keep records of artifacts found lying on the surface of your property.

• Do report sites discovered on your property to the Office of Archaeology and Historic Preservation. Your report will not trigger any land use decisions but will aid in scientific research and preservation planning.

• Do maintain your site in its natural condition and protect it from inadvertent destruction.

• Do learn more about your site and other nearby sites. Encourage scholarly research to interpret the prehistoric and historic assets of your property.

• Don't allow unqualified persons to "collect" or "dig" at your site. Report any unauthorized activities—"looting"—to the State Archaeologist and local police.

• Don't conduct any earth moving or construction in the immediate vicinity of your site.

Visiting an Archaeological Site: Innocent Acts that can Cause Damage

Archaeological sites are fragile and nonrenewable. Proper etiquette is essential when visiting ancient sites. Appreciate the site and contemplate times long past, but please leave the site undisturbed for others to enjoy. Once damaged, the secrets an archaeological site can tell us are lost forever.

Please take a few moments to read and review these following guidelines before you visit an archaeological site. As you approach an archaeological site, stop for a moment and think about how you can minimize the impact of your visit to the site.

• Stay back from any exposed edges, soils, or rock features.
• Do not step on artifacts.
• Stay on established trails and avoid creating new ones.
• Please do NOT remove or disturb anything. Strict laws prohibit the removal and theft of artifacts. If you do accidentally move something, put it back exactly where you found it.
• Avoid handling artifacts and the vegetation.
• If you are visiting a petroglyph or pictograph site take only pictures with your camera. Avoid touching, rubbing, tracing or chalking the surface. Such actions alter the surface of the image and can damage and alter the image over time.
• Children's natural curiosity and enthusiasm for exploring and collecting is great. Please teach your youngster about archaeological site etiquette.

Brochures/ Guidebooks

Help us Protect Cultural Resources of the Columbia Basin

So there seems to be some awareness among educated Americans that digging artefacts out of archaeological sites (with or without a reward) is not "preservation", and that the only sites that need to be preserved are those currently under active archaeological investigation, so why not among cultural property lawyers and collectors?
.

"I Like the Plundering of Sites"

.

Scottish Pro-Collecting Demagogue Archeolog David Connolly, referring to the terminology I used in my posts yesterday, remarks:

I do like the plundering archaeological sites. after all thats what you do innit? LOL well without doubt there are a small minority that do that, but the way he speaks it makes it sound like every one who wields a detector digs into sites and 'plunders'.

That is exactly what I am saying. Archaeological sites can be investigated according to a defined methodology to produce information, or they can be dismantled selectively and randomly to produce decontextualised collectables. The former process is archaeology, the second is mere plunder. Isn't it? That's what we call it when it happens in Iraq or anywhere else, so why should it raise archaeological eyebrows when we use the same verb for what happens in Britain? That is a question I will address to Mr Conolly (who admits Barford "is better when he sticks to real issues") - that seems to be a real issue, the correct use of the terminology.

But Connolly will never answer, he adds:

I don't look much at what he [Barford] says.. and most archaeologists in the UK don't either... or even know who he is... I was working with a team last two weeks in Wales. Never heard of him - they all said.

What a strange conversational gambit ("Ey, yuu, hav'y'ever come across that Paul Barfart then? Eh? Eh? What a nutter! Eh?" [spits on the ground]).

I suppose that comment is meant to assure Connolly's artefact hunting partners that not all archaeologists in Britain are at all concerned about portable antiquity collecting issues, so they are unlikely to have come across anything said by anyone writing on the topic. Well, we know that already don't we?
.

A Warning From Beyond the Grave for Looters

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

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

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

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


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


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

Hooray for That

.
I see that the British Archaeological Federation ( BAJR Fed) Forum has finally dropped its section for "metal detectorists". A step in the right direction Dave. Now start calling them "artefact hunters" and admit that is what they do. That is just a step away from admitting that collecting decontextualised artefacts is not really "archaeology for all" at all, is it?

No Pockets Needed

.

Bloomsbury Pete, the national representative of Avian Concern for Cultural Heritage, the most vocal portable antiquities issues advocate in Bloomsbury has an ally. No its not the blokes sitting drinking tea and counting their website 'hits' and speaking to TV executives when they are not fondling coins from treasure-hunted hoards in the BM over the way, but a group of conservationists, Heritage Action. Do take a moment to read their take on current forms of British "archaeological outreach" and its partnership with artefact hunting. ("For true amateur archaeologists there are NO POCKETS NEEDED! All else is bluster, and if someone turns up at your farm gate covered in pockets and pouches they’re not amateur archaeologists. Simple").

It seems to me that there is a huge danger in both archaeology and its public (and policy makers) increasingly equating the discipline with a search for displayable and shiny metal objects, and little else.

So that's a flock of WC1 pigeons, a bunch of conservationists, a few scattered archaebloggers, but when are British archaeologists going to get their finger out and get on with discussing these portable antiquity issues properly and in their wider context? (That means you too PAS, it is what you are being paid to do.)