AIA Young Patrons have been treated to a visit of the ANS and its vast collection of ancient coins, which includes hundreds of thousands undocumented coins of the sort the AIA has condemned before the State Department's Cultural Property Advisory Committee. See http://www.archaeological.org/news/aianews/8634
The ANS only exists because of the generous contributions of collectors and dealers, though archaeologists associated with the AIA have also condemned them as no better than looters.
Yet, condemning collectors and dealers has not stopped the AIA from profiting from the ANS' wonderful collection of unprovenanced coins.
Hopefully, the more inquisitive of the AIA's young patrons will question the hypocrisy of the the AIA's actions.
Or, perhaps, this experience will be treated as a bit of a "guilty pleasure."
Saturday, March 31, 2012
Friday, March 30, 2012
American Digger: Worth A Watch
I watched the first episode of American Digger last evening.
I wonder what all the fuss was about.
It was entertaining. Ric Savage, a former wrestler, has a rather straightforward business plan. Do some research about sites of historic interest. Ask landowners for permission to dig in return for a piece of the action. Look for artifacts. Recover them. Sell them.
In the first episode, Savage and his crew flew up to Alaska. He negotiated a deal with a landowner to explore his property, which was on the site of an old mine. He excavated some old mining equipment and a saw, which he then sold to a local antiques store for $6,000. He then split the proceeds with the landowner, who could use the money to help him build an addition to his house.
Were the artifacts of great historic value? No.
Is the property one where archaeologists were likely to tread? No.
Would the artifacts slowly rust away if Ric did not salvage them? Yes.
Would it have been nice if the artifacts were recorded at a local historical society? Yes, but they are now recorded on video.
What is the big deal?
Let Ric and the boys have some fun, tell us something about American history, and make some money.
I wonder what all the fuss was about.
It was entertaining. Ric Savage, a former wrestler, has a rather straightforward business plan. Do some research about sites of historic interest. Ask landowners for permission to dig in return for a piece of the action. Look for artifacts. Recover them. Sell them.
In the first episode, Savage and his crew flew up to Alaska. He negotiated a deal with a landowner to explore his property, which was on the site of an old mine. He excavated some old mining equipment and a saw, which he then sold to a local antiques store for $6,000. He then split the proceeds with the landowner, who could use the money to help him build an addition to his house.
Were the artifacts of great historic value? No.
Is the property one where archaeologists were likely to tread? No.
Would the artifacts slowly rust away if Ric did not salvage them? Yes.
Would it have been nice if the artifacts were recorded at a local historical society? Yes, but they are now recorded on video.
What is the big deal?
Let Ric and the boys have some fun, tell us something about American history, and make some money.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
PAS on Tour
Roger Bland of the PAS will be speaking about the PAS and Treasure Act before a number of AIA chapters around the country. See http://finds.org.uk/news/stories/article/id/233
Given the audience, the lectures will touch not only successes of the system but gaps in the system as far as archaeologists are concerned. See http://www.archaeological.org/lectures/abstracts/5775
No system is perfect, but hopefully the AIA grandees will also pause to consider how the system in Britain and Wales compares with the systems (such as they are) in places like Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, and Italy, when it comes to encouraging members of the public to report their finds.
Given the audience, the lectures will touch not only successes of the system but gaps in the system as far as archaeologists are concerned. See http://www.archaeological.org/lectures/abstracts/5775
No system is perfect, but hopefully the AIA grandees will also pause to consider how the system in Britain and Wales compares with the systems (such as they are) in places like Bulgaria, Cyprus, Greece, and Italy, when it comes to encouraging members of the public to report their finds.
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Archaeological Blather Obscures Rational Approaches to Metal Detectors
The archaeological blogosphere has been filled with rather colorful denunciations of metal detecting in response to popular TV shows about the practice in both the US and the UK.
Though metal detecting has been widely popular since the 1970's, apparently some archaeologists still can't accept that reality or perhaps the fact that the devices make it easier for amateurs to encroach on their turf.
There is even some real question whether metal detecting really harms archaeology at all. In the UK at least, most metal detecting takes place on ploughed land, i.e., land where the archaeological context has already been disturbed. Second, though metal detectors are becoming more accurate, most metal detectorists still only excavate items found quite near the surface, i.e., an area that archaeologists would in any event likely dig through on their way to far "juicer" strata below.
The issue of metal detectors is also relevant to the State Department's process for imposing import restrictions on coins. Coins can typically only be found with metal detectors. This begs the question why we are imposing import restrictions on all coins of a given type coming here to the United States when it would be far more effective (and fair) to regulate metal detectors at the source. The CPIA is quite clear that self help measures like effective regulation of metal detectors should be tried first before import restrictions, but the State Department regularly reads this requirement out of the CPIA (as it does with most every other requirement).
What does effective regulation look like?
Look no further than Ireland, Scotland, Britain and Wales.
Ireland has banned the use of the metal detector, and critically it did so before the use of the metal detector took off in that country.
In contrast, Scotland has a common law system of treasure trove and Britain and Wales have statutory requirements of the Treasure Act along with the voluntary Portable Antiquities Scheme.
I much prefer these systems to that of Ireland as they encourage the discovery of coins that would otherwise never be found by archaeologists (who are limited in number and who are only interested in relatively few sites) their recordation into a database accessible to all (in Britain and Wales), and depending on the circumstances, their display in museums or their return to finders who can then sell them to collectors who will cherish them.
Yet, I must acknowledge that the Irish system is at least a coherent one.
And what does ineffective regulation look like?
Look no further than Cyprus and Bulgaria.
Each country has laws on the books that in theory at least limit the use of metal detectors, but in practice they are widely used, often right under the nose of the authorities.
In Cyprus, they even turn a blind eye to British tourists bringing them to the Island on holiday.
And to exacerbate the problem, both countries have few, if any incentives for metal detectorists to report their finds, or any coherent system to record them even if they were reported.
Yet, some archaeologists still hold up such countries as some sort of model.
And what of the United States? Here, our Constitution protects our liberty to exploit our own land, but you would not know that from the AIA's indictment of a popular show on Spike TV. I do think that historical artifacts should at least be recorded, but American archaeologists should work with American detectorists to create a system of voluntary recording, rather than making wild claims about their supposed "rights" to control what people do on their own land based upon their self-appointed status as stewards of the past.
Though metal detecting has been widely popular since the 1970's, apparently some archaeologists still can't accept that reality or perhaps the fact that the devices make it easier for amateurs to encroach on their turf.
There is even some real question whether metal detecting really harms archaeology at all. In the UK at least, most metal detecting takes place on ploughed land, i.e., land where the archaeological context has already been disturbed. Second, though metal detectors are becoming more accurate, most metal detectorists still only excavate items found quite near the surface, i.e., an area that archaeologists would in any event likely dig through on their way to far "juicer" strata below.
The issue of metal detectors is also relevant to the State Department's process for imposing import restrictions on coins. Coins can typically only be found with metal detectors. This begs the question why we are imposing import restrictions on all coins of a given type coming here to the United States when it would be far more effective (and fair) to regulate metal detectors at the source. The CPIA is quite clear that self help measures like effective regulation of metal detectors should be tried first before import restrictions, but the State Department regularly reads this requirement out of the CPIA (as it does with most every other requirement).
What does effective regulation look like?
Look no further than Ireland, Scotland, Britain and Wales.
Ireland has banned the use of the metal detector, and critically it did so before the use of the metal detector took off in that country.
In contrast, Scotland has a common law system of treasure trove and Britain and Wales have statutory requirements of the Treasure Act along with the voluntary Portable Antiquities Scheme.
I much prefer these systems to that of Ireland as they encourage the discovery of coins that would otherwise never be found by archaeologists (who are limited in number and who are only interested in relatively few sites) their recordation into a database accessible to all (in Britain and Wales), and depending on the circumstances, their display in museums or their return to finders who can then sell them to collectors who will cherish them.
Yet, I must acknowledge that the Irish system is at least a coherent one.
And what does ineffective regulation look like?
Look no further than Cyprus and Bulgaria.
Each country has laws on the books that in theory at least limit the use of metal detectors, but in practice they are widely used, often right under the nose of the authorities.
In Cyprus, they even turn a blind eye to British tourists bringing them to the Island on holiday.
And to exacerbate the problem, both countries have few, if any incentives for metal detectorists to report their finds, or any coherent system to record them even if they were reported.
Yet, some archaeologists still hold up such countries as some sort of model.
And what of the United States? Here, our Constitution protects our liberty to exploit our own land, but you would not know that from the AIA's indictment of a popular show on Spike TV. I do think that historical artifacts should at least be recorded, but American archaeologists should work with American detectorists to create a system of voluntary recording, rather than making wild claims about their supposed "rights" to control what people do on their own land based upon their self-appointed status as stewards of the past.
Tuesday, March 27, 2012
As Brit-TV Celebrates PAS and Treasure Act, Cranks Come Out to Throw Stones
It's a bit amazing that purportedly serious journalists sometimes take cranks seriously. See http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2012/mar/26/tv-show-most-important-archaeological-find?CMP=twt_fd
I guess its all about contrast, but if archaeologists like Lord Renfrew have accepted the UK's system as a workable compromise, why give such heed to the ravings of lunatics?
I guess its all about contrast, but if archaeologists like Lord Renfrew have accepted the UK's system as a workable compromise, why give such heed to the ravings of lunatics?
Monday, March 26, 2012
SAFE: Keeping its Own Secrets Safe?
Saving Antiquities for Everyone (SAFE) has relaunched its website: http://www.savingantiquities.org/
But the snazzy graphics can't hide the fact that the website tells little about who really runs the operation or how it is financed.
There is a ghostly drop down menu under "about us," but it is difficult to access.
After a few tries, I was able to access this page entitled, "Who is Safe?"
http://www.savingantiquities.org/about/who/
And though they state,
"We do not represent or advocate for any particular profession, or academic discipline. We call for open discussions that examine practices and behavior that destroy cultural heritage. We have no “special interest” at stake except for the future of our past."
I beg to differ based on their advocacy program which seems to mark SAFE as merely an adjunct of the AIA.
And who exactly funds SAFE?
Is it solely funded on small donations of individuals, or are there any direct or indirect governmental funders?
An organization that regularly demands transparency from private collectors and dealers should do a better job of providing some basic information about itself.
But the snazzy graphics can't hide the fact that the website tells little about who really runs the operation or how it is financed.
There is a ghostly drop down menu under "about us," but it is difficult to access.
After a few tries, I was able to access this page entitled, "Who is Safe?"
http://www.savingantiquities.org/about/who/
And though they state,
"We do not represent or advocate for any particular profession, or academic discipline. We call for open discussions that examine practices and behavior that destroy cultural heritage. We have no “special interest” at stake except for the future of our past."
I beg to differ based on their advocacy program which seems to mark SAFE as merely an adjunct of the AIA.
And who exactly funds SAFE?
Is it solely funded on small donations of individuals, or are there any direct or indirect governmental funders?
An organization that regularly demands transparency from private collectors and dealers should do a better job of providing some basic information about itself.
Friday, March 23, 2012
At least Give Them a Decent Burial
The Lawyers' Committee for Cultural Heritage Preservation is apparently advocating reburial for repatriated objects. See http://www.culturalheritagelaw.org/events?eventId=462717&EventViewMode=EventDetails ("[I]n other circumstances only an outright return and reburial of artifacts will satisfy the wronged side.")
However, CPO must claim first credit for that proposal in a post dated, April 1, 2009:
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/04/advocacy-group-hopes-to-recontextualize.html
But at the time, CPO suggested it as an April Fools' Joke!
Hopefully, the Lawyers' Committee's [serious?] thinking about such a proposal will be revealed on its website, but without more, doesn't this all suggest that as far as the self-identified "preservation community" is concerned, "context" is indeed far more important than preserving artifacts themselves?
But, if so, is it really all about preservation or control?
However, CPO must claim first credit for that proposal in a post dated, April 1, 2009:
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2009/04/advocacy-group-hopes-to-recontextualize.html
But at the time, CPO suggested it as an April Fools' Joke!
Hopefully, the Lawyers' Committee's [serious?] thinking about such a proposal will be revealed on its website, but without more, doesn't this all suggest that as far as the self-identified "preservation community" is concerned, "context" is indeed far more important than preserving artifacts themselves?
But, if so, is it really all about preservation or control?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
