Sunday, March 29, 2020

Retrospect: Archaeological collection discovered after relic hunter’s death

Ten years ago: Monday, 29 March 2010 "Archaeological collection discovered after relic hunter’s death"

This article from Prague Radio of January 2008 seems worth posting here as an example of the size of some of the collections built by metal detectorists. Note that the photos show only relatively large pieces or nearly complete objects, this is obviously a selection of the sort of things that the detectorist was digging up. The rest was presumably deemed "uncollectable" and discarded - despite the fact that they too were archaeological finds. Once again note that there is no information about provenance preserved in this collection.


Listen to the radio broadcast here.
When a young man died in his Prague apartment two years ago after a cigarette set his bed on fire, the firemen who came to help made an unusual discovery. The man’s one-bedroom apartment was chock-full of strange-looking metal objects, obviously from prehistoric times. As the amateur archaeologist had no relatives, experts from the Czech Academy of Sciences’ Archaeological Institute were asked to go through more than 3000 items which would be worth millions on the black market. Miroslav Dobeš of the Archaeological Institute explains what some of the most precious pieces are.
"First I’d like to mention this spectacle-shaped pendant. It is one of the oldest copper objects in Central Europe - we are talking here about the period around 4000 years BC. Roughly ten such pendants have been uncovered in Bohemia, Moravia and Western Slovakia. Since we don’t know where it comes from, its information value is practically non-existent although its material value is incalculable.”

The archaeologists searched the apartment for any records that would show where the artefacts came from, but found nothing about the origin of all the bowls, cups, clips, bracelets, pins, rings and axes. Amateur treasure hunters don’t care about the analytical part of the job and dig wherever their detectors start to beep. This is one of the reasons why professional archaeologists see red when they come across these people at work. Martin Kuna is the deputy director of the Archaeological Institute of the Czech Academy of Sciences. “Another reason is that most of these finds eventually end up in private collections where they lose most of their information, or scientific, value. And few are perhaps aware of yet another reason why using metal detectors for this purpose is harmful – when large amounts of metal objects are regularly brought to light, there are simply not enough archaeologists to examine them properly.”


Experts warn that the case of the dead collector with a huge heap of anonymous items is just the tip of the iceberg. An estimated 10,000 metal detectors are currently used in the pursuit of this hobby in the Czech Republic, and hundreds of thousands of treasures are thought to be stashed in private collections. Some treasure hunters cooperate with museums and only explore locations designated by experts, but on the whole, Martin Kuna says, something should be done to prevent people with metal detectors from causing more damage in the future. 


The law is too weak in this respect. Even when you catch one of those people at the site with a detector and a golden coin in his pocket, you cannot prove that he dug it out right there. Perhaps access to archaeological sites for people with metal detectors should be banned, and perhaps users of metal detectors should be registered.”
I cannot quite see how you'd ban access to sites to only "people with metal detectors".
 

Saturday, January 11, 2020

British Metal Detecting: Britain's 'Treasure Blip'


A few days ago I put up on my main blog a preliminary graph that showed the shortfall between the increase of reported Treasure finds and the estimates of increased numbers of detectorists. It raises a number of questions, but so far the silence from Britain's unconcerned archaeologists is as deafening as ever. They are in no hurry to confront this issue it seems.

But I was looking at the 'blip' in the figures on the right hand side of the Treasure trace. The peak is in 2017, is there a reason for this?

Now, actually when you do an Internet search for graphs showing 'the number of treasure finds between years x to y' (a pretty simple statistic, you'd think, in the circumstances), you'll find that over the past twenty years there have been all sorts of different versions with humps and hollows which later get smoothed out by some mysterious process of spin. But at the upper end of the line there is a big jump in the official statistics as they stand at the moment (2011, 969; 2012, 990; 2013, 993; 2014, 1008; 2015, 966; 2016, 1077; 2017, 1266; 2018, 1096; 2019- ????).

But this 2017 blip... I was wondering whether the blame could be put on the TV programme that the PAS unadvisedly got involved with, 'Britain's Secret Treasures' , but that went out in 2012-3. The warm cuddly comedy show 'Detectorists' had three seasons, 2014-7, however. Was the publicity that this gave the hobby the impetus for folk going out and buying detectors and then some months later when they'd got some experience with the machines making their first Treasure find? If so, the drop off in Treasure find reports the year after might possibly represent a disillusionment of the bulk of those that had bought machines and realised that it was not as cuddly-wuddly as on the TV.

Of course, I am impatient to learn what the real figure for 2019 is and intrigued what it will be for 2020.

Come on Treasure Registrars, get counting.

A search of the PAS database for Treasure records created from 1st Jan 2019 and 31st Dec 2019 gives a result of just 258 records



Monday, November 5, 2018

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.

Monday, August 27, 2018

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’.

Sunday, March 4, 2018

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...].

Friday, September 9, 2016

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

 

Thursday, May 5, 2016

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]).