British metal detecting: RAP30: Espoli, Tràfic Il·lícit i Falsificacions de Biéns Arqueològics

 

The latest volume (30) of the periodical of the University of Lleida "Revista d'Arqeologia de Ponent" is devoted to looting illicit trafficking and falsification of archaeological material in Europe and beyond. It has two texts critical of the approach of a little island off the coast of the European mainland, the first is by this blog's author: 'Some Aspects of the Collection-Driven Exploitation of the Archaeological Record in England and Wales' (RAP 30, pp 101-125) written in September 2019. It is a view that I hope balances some of the pro-PAS stuff that dominates the discussions of the issue of artefact hunting in the UK. There is another coming out in a couple of weeks that is its counterpart. 

My paper in RAP is preceded by Neil Brodie's paper on the PAS and "metal detecting" in England and Wales. This is an unfortunate consequence of a joint work involving different writers working independently. The presence of two texts on the same subject is rather unfortunate because it makes it look as if what happens in the UK has any real relevance to the rest of the world. It does not. There is also a frustrating overlap between the two. I was amused to see this blog (and Heritage Action's) merely referred to on Brodie's p95 as an "untapped information lode". Yet on this blog are posts directly referring to some of the questions posed in his paper by Brodie and indeed offering some of the information he was struggling to find (and some of these gaps are filled by my own text in the same volume). This is interesting in the light of Brodie's own comments about 'boundary fixing'.

There are some interesting contributions to this volume (see contents below: photo byNellie Abboud). There is the expected focus on Near Eastern stuff (including one on the issue of ISIL looting), I was intrigued to see two from Argentina, several on fighting "archaeolooting" (it means metal detectors) [lovely word: 'arqueofurtivisimo'], one that defends the good name of metal detectors as an archaeological tool (but pro-tekkie archaeologists should look however at how it ends pp 145-6). Really quite interesting in this context was the grouping of three papers at the end about the cognitive consequences of fake artefacts. The editors of this volume are to be congratulated on this useful contribution to the discussion. 

Coming back to my text, PAS head office will be receiving a copy of my text as a matter of courtesy (together with the second paper when it comes out). Anyone who wants a pdf of the first is invited to write either directly, or to the comments below with an email address (that will not be published) and I will send it next week.  Critical substantive discussion, comment and reasoned polemic are, as usual welcomed. Especially from the PAS and Helsinki Gang.  [And yes, before someone gleefully points it out, I am aware that there is - despite (or perhaps due to) several revisions - there is an incomplete sentence on p.  114, grrrrrrr. But the sense is clear]. 

Reference:

Barford, Paul 2020, 'Some Aspects of the Collection-Driven Exploitation of the Archaeological Record in England and Wales', Revista d'Arquelogia de Ponent 30, pp 101-125.

 

Polish Detectorists Have a Go at Polish Archaeologists: Introduction

Some metal detectorists in Poland are very similar to the majority in the UK in many ways. Here's a trailer for a film they've created to help smooth the path to closer collaboration and persuade lawmakers to effect detectorist-friendly legislation. The film, Ciemna strona archeobiznesu- cz.1 [the Dark Side of the Archaeobusiness - Part 1] is out, but in Polish, but the trailer gives a flavour of the tone adopted:

Posted on You Tube by Polski Związek Eksploratorów

They are trying to discredit archaeologists and archaeology (and so therefore archaeological resource preservation). This is no more than the usual 'two wrongs' artefact hunters traditionally apply. Let's see where that gets them. I'll review the film for the non-Polish speakers when we get more parts, at the moment it's pretty pathetic (and both detectorists and archaeologists not only committed mistakes here, but showed a hefty dose of ill will). 

Here is is for the hardy... Despite the dramatic music and sound effects it's pretty slow-moving and poorly-edited. The first 5 minutes 12 seconds is a ("what we're going to show you") preamble, the actual contents start at 5:13, with a film of some metal detectorist going over a site that he asserts is Niewieścin site 36 in 2018... 

Posted on You Tube by Polski Związek Eksploratorów

Told you so.

Artefact Hunters and the Archaeology of WW1 in Western Flanders

A "hobbyist" cannot make an investigation of and record
 such a complex feature with just a metal detector and a spade
 ( photograph  Q 3990 by John Warwick Brooke )

Another special pleading text on behalf of the artefact hunting community by the same merry band of myopic grant-seekers from the Helsinki EPFRN academic network. Suzie Thomas and Pieterjan Deckers have recently published an open access article titled "‘And now they have taken over’: hobbyist and professional archaeologist encounters with the material heritage of the First World War in western Belgium" in the International Journal of Heritage Studies. "The article stems from research carried out in Western Flanders during a research visit to Vrije Universiteit Brussel by Thomas and a collaboration with Deckers".

Abstract:

Since almost immediately after the fighting ended, the First World War (WWI) sites of conflict in Western Flanders, Belgium, have attracted attention from visitors and collectors. Heritage management questions came to the fore especially in the run-up to WWI’s centenary years (2014–2018), and professional archaeologists representing the authorities in Flanders had already begun to take a greater interest in the war’s archaeological remains. The activities of hobbyist amateurs, particularly metal detectorists, came under greater scrutiny. In this article, we explore the perspectives of local hobbyist enthusiasts and heritage professionals in the context of changing attitudes towards and values associated with the material heritage of the WWI in Western Flanders. We reflect upon the tensions that emerge when different interest groups clash, the disagreements between professional and amateur interests, and also upon the particular context of conflict heritage when there are numerous interests and stakeholders involved. 

Here we see these two plugging their usual object-focused arguments ("increasing realisation of the potential of metal-detected finds for contributing to archaeological knowledge if recorded properly" p. 3) and they attempt to frame the discussion "in terms of three dimensions of power in relation to archaeological heritage" (p. 1). They wrote of collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record as "hobbyists who have spent time making their own investigations on the area – with differing degrees of archaeological rigour”. The point is though, surely, the material heritage is not just "digging up things" and people protect rhinos from poachers and whales, or campaign against plastic in the seas as an expression of "power" . And archaeological rigour is what separates responsible use of a resource and its destructive squandering. It is what is responsible for making a contribution to archaeological knowledge. The authors' text contains not a single feature plan or site plan resulting from a hobbyist's "own investigations" of this fragile archaeological resource. 

German army belt buckle
 WW1, Wijtschate

Archaeology is more than just hoiking out loose objects ("here's another belt-buckle, ooo this one's been nicked by shrapnel!")  from x-marks-the-spot. Sites like the one in the photo above have complex stratigraphy recording how they were created, used, damaged and modified. A metal detectorist blindly digging a deep but ultimately narrow hole down through the decayed remains of this because he "got a good signal" is destroying the contextual and archaeological evidence of that site - and thus obliterating the very story the hobbyist hoiker has the ambition to tell. They "navigate" the evidence by digging blindly down through and cherry-picking most of it. 

There was an Eastern Front too, it's a shame - in the interests of transnationality - that these writers do not take a wider view of the question they are discussing and do not reference any literature from recent work on the eastern Front in Poland where some of these issues have also been discussed, and the role of amateur digging in the destruction of the fragile and complex (and contentious) archaeological record highlighted. These sites cannot be "investigated" by just running a metal detector across the top, and anything else is just removing evidence (and disturbing remains). When you look at what is lost through this, it is difficult to see why archaeologists should be ambiguous about the ethical issues here.

Deckers (Aarhus) and Thomas (Helsinki) are among the six academics that authored a paper (2018, 322) that decry polarised "opinions" about collection-driven exploitation of the archaeological record and place "ethical standpoints" on the same footing as "emotive arguments". They suggest that such a position loses ground when counterpointed by "a thorough understanding of the background, practices and impacts of nonprofessional metal detecting". It is a shame therefore that they do not consider the impact of hoiking out selected artefacts (only) on the complex stratigraphies of sites of twentieth century conflict due to the "background and practices" of hobbyist "metal detecting". When they do, they might then be in a better position to preach to the rest of us (Thomas and Pitblado 2020) how "harmless" their spades are. 

(and yes, purists, I know the photo is The Somme and not Flanders, and its a formerly German trench being manned by British soldiers, which further complicates the archaeological record)

References

P Deckers, A Dobat, N Ferguson, S Heeren, M Lewis, S Thomas 2018, 'The complexities of metal detecting policy and practice: A response to Samuel Hardy,‘Quantitative analysis of open-source data on metal detecting for cultural property’(Cogent […]' Open Archaeology 4 (1), 322-333.

Suzie Thomas and Pieterjan Deckers (2020) ‘And now they have taken over’: hobbyist and professional archaeologist encounters with the material heritage of the First World War in western Belgium, International Journal of Heritage Studies [unnumbered pages]

Suzie Thomas and Bonnie L. Pitblado 'The dangers of conflating responsible and responsive artefact stewardship with illicit and illegal collecting' Antiquity 2020.

Patrimoine archéologique pillé : une saisie douanière record

 Shocking video on You Tube: 

Posted on You Tube by  DOUANE FRANÇAISE Dec 16, 2020 13,421 views

Once again, an artefact hunter attempts to get round the laws by making up a false provenance. 

Un ensemble d’objets archéologiques d’une valeur encore inestimable saisi grâce à une coopération exemplaire entre les autorités belges, le ministère de la culture et la Douane. Une enquête menée en coopération avec les autorités belges, les services déconcentrés du ministère de la culture et la douane, a permis la saisie de 27 400 objets classés biens culturels. Cette saisie de pièces archéologiques pillées est à ce jour une des plus importantes jamais réalisée en France. En septembre 2019, un résident français en Belgique déclare la découverte fortuite sur son terrain d’un trésor monétaire composé de 14.154 pièces de l’époque romaine. L’examen de ces pièces conduit les autorités belges à remettre en cause la véracité de ce récit et à partager leurs soupçons avec la direction régionale des affaires culturelles (DRAC) de la Région Grand Est. Celle-ci se tourne alors vers la direction nationale du renseignement et des enquêtes douanières (DNRED), en charge de la lutte contre les trafics de biens culturels.

C’est lors d’une visite domiciliaire que les enquêteurs des douanes, accompagnés d’archéologues de la DRAC Grand-Est découvrent un ensemble de pièces archéologiques d’une qualité exceptionnelle. Parmi les objets saisis, figurent des bracelets et torques (colliers) datant de l’âge du Bronze et de l’âge du Fer, un dodécaèdre romain dont il n’existe qu’une centaine d’exemplaires connus et dont l’utilisation demeure une énigme archéologique, mais également des fibules romaines, des boucles de ceintures mérovingiennes, médiévales et de la Renaissance, des éléments de statues, des monnaies romaines et gauloises pillées dans des ateliers de fabrication référencés comme sites archéologiques. Au total, 13 246 objets sont saisis.

Les enquêteurs obtiennent à cette occasion confirmation que le trésor monétaire à l’origine de leurs soupçons est bien issu de divers pillages en France. [...].

More Details on "Patrice T"

The unnamed metal detector user facing a court case on illegal artefact hunting comes from the east of France and had "deep archaeological knowledge" (AFP 'Priceless' haul of over 27,000 artefacts seized in France', 16/12/2020). - 11:32

French authorities have seized a "priceless" haul of over 27,000 archaeological artefacts ranging from Bronze Age bracelets to Roman coins that had been secretly amassed by a single person in the east of the country, customs said Wednesday. The seizure of the 27,400 objects was the result of a year-long investigation conducted by French customs, Belgian authorities and the French culture ministry. The hoarder, who has not been named and now faces a criminal probe, had built up the collection for personal and trading purposes, the French customs service said. He had amassed the collection himself using metal detectors as well as what appears to be a deep archaeological knowledge. The man had first aroused suspicion in 2019 when he told authorities he had found almost 15,000 Roman coins by chance on land he had acquired in Belgium. The French customs service then confirmed that this haul had actually been built up through "the looting of various sites in France", it said. The case has now been handed to the judiciary, with the man risking a colossal fine and possibly jail time.

Where is meant? Champagne-Ardenne, Franche-Compte, Alsace, or Lorraine maybe? What comprises "deep archaeological knowledge" in the contexct of finding things? When they allege that Mr T had "built up the collection for personal and trading purposes", did the French customs service actually catch him selling stuff, or is that just a surmise based on a stereotype?

UPDATE 18th Dec 2020
Despite some innaccuracies, Hannah Thompson ('French customs seizes 27,000 looted archaeological artefacts', the Connection 17 December 2020) seems to have more details:

French customs confirmed on Wednesday December 16 that it had seized more than 27,000 pieces of objects classified as “cultural goods”, hidden at the property of a collector from Lorraine. The pieces are “priceless” and of “exceptional quality”, the ministry for culture said. They include bracelets and torches from the Bronze Age and the Iron Age; a rare Gallo-Roman mosaic; thousands of coins from the Roman Gaul era; and belt buckles from the Merovingian era, the medieval age, and the Renaissance. All of the pieces appear to have been illegally dug up from sites across the east of France. The case dates back to October 18, 2019. A Frenchman who had recently bought a piece of land in Belgium told authorities that he had found a treasure trove of Gallo-Roman coins when digging on his new land. [...] The discovery made the authorities suspicious [...] It is thought he was trying to sell many of the objects in Belgium.

 

French detectorist accused of looting on vast scale after haul discovered at home

 

                       Some of the thousands of objects found                        
when French officials raided Patrice T’s
 house. Photograph: Douane Française

A treasure hunter who claimed to have dug up 14,154 Roman coins in a Belgian field has been accused of being one of the greatest archaeological looters in European history (Daniel Boffey, 'French detectorist accused of looting on vast scale after haul discovered at home', Guardian Wed 16 Dec 2020)

The Frenchman, identified only as Patrice T, told Belgian officials that he found the relics by chance with a metal detector at two sites close to Gingelom, a Flemish town 40 miles east of Brussels, in October last year. In France, metal detectors are only allowed to be used for scientific research, but in Dutch-speaking Flanders they can be used for personal searches. The coins were legally declared as the finder’s property. [...] French officials believe the man, who is awaiting trial, had been exploiting the difference between French law and Flemish regulations to amass his cache of looted goods [...] The offender is liable to imprisonment and hundreds of thousands of euros in customs fines. This is a clear message to those who, for the benefit and selfish pleasure of a few, rob us of our common heritage and erase entire swaths of our history.”

That was from Bruno Le Maire, France’s economy minister, none of that mealy mouthed Brit-nonsense that "the vast majority of these history hoikers are really responsibly hoiking, not like the VERY SMALL MINORITY OF ones that operate illegally" that we meet in every single British news report that even whispers the words "metal detector". In France they see history hoiking for what it is: a group of oiks that "for their own benefit and selfish pleasure, rob us of our common heritage and erase entire swaths of our history”.

One of the Belgian officials first at the scene in Gingelom said the man’s account had not rung true from the start.  Marleen Martens told the Het Nieuwsblad newspaper: “The man said he bought it because he liked to come for a walk in the area and set up a caravan there. He had made the find when he wanted to clean up the ground with a metal detector. I thought he had found some coins, but he took two full buckets from the trunk of his car. “During the site survey we concluded that it was impossible for the coins to come from this site. They were located in an earth layer that was formed after the middle ages. A few coins could exceptionally still toss up. But 14,000?”

Context, you see? 

Some of the hoard found by officials. Photograph: Douane Française

hat tip Dave Coward

Artefact collecting: creating or destroying the archaeological record?

Paul M. Barford2020, 'Artefact collecting: creating or destroying the archaeological record?' Barford, P. M. (2020). Artefact collecting: creating or destroying the archaeological record?. Folia Praehistorica Posnaniensia, 25, 39–91. https://doi.org/10.14746/fpp.2020.25.02

Abstrakt
This paper examines some of the arguments used by archaeologists in favour of collaborating useful for archaeological research and is a form of public engagement with archaeology. It takes as a case study records of 48 600 medieval artefacts removed from archaeological contexts by artefact hunters and recorded by the Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and Wales. The past and potential uses of these records as an archaeological source are objectively reviewed, together with an assessment of the degree to which they provide mitigation of the damage caused to the otherwise unthreatened archaeological record. It is concluded that, although information can be obtained by studying records of findspots of addressed artefacts such as coins, in general the claims made in support of professional archaeological collaboration with this kind of activity prove to be false.

Full article here...