Permit-Regulated Artefact Hunting in Europe

[note: Raimund Karl of Bangor suggests that Austria
 should be 'green', not red   but his convoluted arguments
 for an alternative and  specific legalistic interpretation
 of the relevant legislation have not yet convinced me
- see his extensive comments in the comments section
 below and decide for yourselves, the Father-Christmas-
buried-in-a-flower-border  stunt shows the sort of
'evidence' this professor considers clinching]

I am writing something today and just wanted a quick aide memoire about where intrusive intervention in the archaeological record and in particular its Collection-Driven Exploitation (with or without metal detectors) is regulated or restricted by permit systems, and where it is more or less like the laissez faire situation in England and Wales. I quickly knocked up a map (in part initially based on this list with corrections and additions), but realised that since there's apparently not anything like this on the internet, it might be worth posting here. So for what it's worth, here it is, a rough version, green marks areas with liberal legislation, allowing digging, metal detecting and other forms of artefact hunting without a permit, red is where you need a permit. The yellow countries are those where I have not yet worked out what the situation is, though I expect that when I do, they will be red too. It is a little more nuanced than shown here of course (for example a permit system in N Ireland, but this gives a rough idea how it looks.

It is interesting to see how all the 'CDE-liberal' countries are on the North Sea and Baltic Sea littorals. Or perhaps its a northern European phenomenon, or somehow related to Protestantism?. 

UPDATE 4th November 2018
I have been contacted by a couple of people about this map and have decided to update it. The situation as I read it originally was ambiguous in the Russian Federation, where it seems that while known sites were protected, archaeological sites on private land were not and I was unclear on the position over loose artefacts. I have been told that since 2013 federal law No 245 has been passed and this now means that all movable archaeological objects in the ground, on the ground and underwater have been declared by law as State property (regardless of their registration, origin and relation to the known archaeological sites). 'They are not covered by the civil-legal definition of treasure, and therefore must be unconditionally returned to the state bodies under threat of prosecution'. That's good news and allows me to change the colour of the big patch on the right of the map.

Another change is that for some reason I had Latvia as a liberal country in the same way, but somebody pointed me to a very interesting document which acts as a sort of Red Book for Latvian antiquities (interesting with regard to the 'Viking' [not really] objects that are still flooding eBay from this region) which clarifies that Latvia's colour also needs changing on my map.

Also I was a bit wary of marking Ukraine green on the first version of this map, Sam Hardy however points out (“Black archaeology” in Eastern Europe: Metal detecting, illicit trafficking of cultural objects and “legal nihilism” in Belarus, Poland, Russia and Ukraine- referring to the 2004 Ukrainian 'Law on Protection of Archaeological Heritage'Art. 8-10)

It turns out that Luxembourg has a permit system.

Albania's legislation is a bit unclear to me, but it seems art. 33 and 41-2 of this 2003 law (9048 for the cultural heritage) means artefact hunting is subject to a permit system too.

Also, the position with regards to Norway is unclear (Jostein Gundersen, Josephine M. Rasmussen, Ragnar Orten Lie 2016, ‘Private Metal Detecting and Archaeology in Norway’ Open Archaeology 2016; 2: 160–170). I am leaving it green, but it seems from the article that technically, under existing heritage legislation, a permit is needed to search for archaeological material.

I am struggling a bit with the five Balkan states. Bosnia and Herzegovina has a permit system for excavations on archaeological sites, but I cannot determine whether this also replies for searching for archaeological material where there is no known site, probably though this is the case. Mention is made here (National report on the implementation of the 1970 Convention on the means of prohibiting and preventing the illicit import, export and transfer of ownership of cultural property) however of the problem that reporting finds is not mandatory, so the situation remains unclear. The situation in Macedonia, Serbia, Kosovo, and Montenegro is unknown to me. I'd be grateful for more information to help me fill in the empty areas on this map.

Metal-Detecting for Cultural Objects until 'There Is Nothing ...

A thought-provoking article by Sam Hardy, 'Metal-Detecting for Cultural Objects until ‘There Is Nothing Left’: The Potential and Limits of Digital Data, Netnographic Data and Market Data for Open-Source Analysis', Aug 2018

Abstract This methodological study assesses the potential for automatically generated data, netnographic data and market data on metal-detecting to advance cultural property criminology. The method comprises the analysis of open sources that have been identified through multilingual searches of Google Scholar, Google Web and Facebook. Results show significant differences between digital data and market data. These demonstrate the limits of restricted quantitative analysis of online forums and the limits of extrapolation of market data with “culture-bound” measures. Regarding the validity of potential quantitative methods, social networks as well as online forums are used differently in different territories. Restricted quantitative analysis, and its foundational assumption of a constant relationship between the size of the largest online forum and the size of the metal-detecting population, are unsound. It is necessary to conduct extensive quantitative analysis, then to make tentative “least worst” estimates. As demonstrated in the sample territories, extensive analyses may provide empirical data, which revise established estimates. In this sample, they corroborate the detecting community’s own perception that they are ‘beat[ing these sites] to death’.

Archaeology, Collectors and Preservation

Archaeology, Collectors and Preservation: a Reply to David Gill
Paul Barford
Archaeoblogger (http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/) We have become accustomed to assessing both the PAS and Treasure Act in terms of important finds preserved in national collections and the numbers of recorded pieces of information about objects found by members of the public. This however conflates the results of two different processes, the first is accidental finds made by members of the public going about their everyday lives, while the second source of these objects is from the deliberate exploitation of the archaeological record as a source of collectables for entertainment and profit. While the first is wholly uncontroversial, the latter involves a complex of issues connected with the way the archaeological record is treated and managed. David Gill however questions the degree to which a reporting system like Treasure Act/ PAS prevents damage to the archaeological record from the activities of artefact hunters and collectors. His text is an important contribution to the ongoing wider discussion of these complex and difficult issues [more here...].

European Heritage Days

It is interesting to see where the European Heritage Days events - a joint action of the Council of Europe and the European Commission - are taking place this month, and where the heritage is being promoted:

Map of heritage sites participating

Apparently most of England does not see itself very much as part of the European heritage zone, but look at Ireland (and then recall the differences in attitudes to the Collection Driven Exploitation of the archaeological record in both countries).  Poland, in the centre of Europe, is well-represented. France is a bit of an odd blank  on this map.

The aim of European Heritage Days is to:

- raise the awareness of European citizens to the richness and cultural diversity of Europe;
- create a climate in which the appreciation of the rich mosaic of European cultures is stimulated;
- counter racism and xenophobia and encourage greater tolerance in Europe and beyond the national borders;
- inform the public and the political authorities about the need to protect cultural heritage against new threats;
- invite Europe to respond to the social, political and economic challenges it faces.

Find out more at www.europeanheritagedays.com

 

Responsible Hoard Finder, There Are Some

Sunbeams   Early morning sunbeams and
  fog near Obrenovac in Serbia by aremac

Can you imagine this? Forester Bogusław Szwichtenberg found two pots with medieval silver coins in them last year and they were worth half a million, he handed them over (as the law requires) and was given a treasure reward, fifty thousand and the thanks of the Minister of Culture for his responsible behaviour in not taking the objects to a dealer, but handing them over to a museum. Of course this was not in the UK where Treasure hunters would not dream of accepting anything less than their market value - for otherwise they'd have no problems flogging the stuff off.  But the Polish leiter of the newly-formed "European Council for Metal Detecting" wants to bring British attitudes to the heritage to enrichen the honest detector users of Poland. I'll not wish them luck ('Znaleźli prawdziwe skarby, ale oddali je państwu' [in Polish]).

The Portable Antiquities Scam

This was ten years ago in a TAG session called 'CRITICAL APPROACHES TO ARTEFACTS'. Nothing much has changed since then, the public is still being scammed athat artefact hunting is in some way a good thing for archaeology and the archaeological record.

The Portable Antiquities Scam 

Paul Barford (Warsaw, Poland) 

By means of the Portable Antiquities Scheme the private exploitation of archaeological sites by artefact hunters and the personal collecting of archaeological artefacts is encouraged in the guise of “archaeological outreach” to the British public. During its seven years operation, the Scheme has largely concentrated on making contacts with the metal detecting fraternity and “recording” their finds in order to increase the size of its “database” (which it seems to regard as its main raison d’etre). Despite its active ‘propaganda of success’, it must be admitted that the Scheme’s achievements have fallen short of potential, both in terms of numbers of artefact hunters reached, but especially in terms of actual “archaeological outreach” to them. Liaison is superficial and fragile and - despite great effort and expenditure - in real terms seems to have achieved little. PAS has furthermore been primarily focussed on the artefactological aspects of its work rather than nurturing any form of more generally archaeological approach or encouraging discussion of heritage management issues. The artefactological focus seems also to be a major component of the ‘theoretical background’ of the Scheme. The operation of the PAS has merely resulted in a confirmation of the ‘stamp collecting’ approach within the artefact hunting fraternity, isolated from any wider archaeological or conservation concerns. Liaison however goes both ways, the focus of one of the better funded archaeological schemes in the country today is not without influence on the profession itself but in particular on the perceptions of archaeology of its broader public audience.

 

Mr. Jorrocks' Hunt

 

Metal Detectorist Arrested in Greece

The seized artefacts (Greek Reporter)

Antiquity looting and smuggling are a pervasive problem in Greece, the Greek police make dozens of arrests per year in connection with the trade. Greek police announced the arrest on Monday of a 72-year-old Greek man accused of violation of cultural heritage law, possession of illegal weapons, as well as embezzlement. The 72-year-old man had reportedly been involved in similar activity in the past.

Investigation of the man’s home in a village near the city of Alexandria in northern Greece revealed 1,061 ancient copper coins. Most date from the Hellenistic period – the third to first centuries BC – the Byzantine period – 330 AD to 1453 AD – and the Ottoman period – the 15th to the 19th centuries AD. Police said that the coins were seized on Sunday, along with 30 silver coins dating to the same periods, 16 copper rings, as well as precious jewels of the Byzantine and post-Byzantine eras. Police also found an assault rifle, seven pistols of various calibers, six handguns, two hunting rifles, 15 metal detectors [...] . 

The photo accompanying the article shows a heap of uncleaned coins which were either in his own personal collection or were destined for the market, and artefacts among which is something which looks like aqn radiate headed fibula. One of the objects however, while it may be 'Byzantine', I suppose looks awfully like the sort of things that come out of the SE Baltic/ NW Russian regions. Is this collection a mixture of locally found and imported artefacts? Only closer analysis can tell.

Nikoleta Kalmouki, 'Greek Man Arrested for Illegal Possession of Ancient Coins' Greek reporter Sep 30, 2014.