Public Consultation on Proposed Changes to UK's Treasure Act

The UK Government is considering changes to the Treasure Act.   Collector based organizations have supported the Treasure Act because it encourages the reporting of finds.  It also ensures the State pays fair market value for finds it keeps and remits back all others to the finder, who may sell them on the open market.  The coins that are recorded are then uploaded on a publicly accessible website.   This has led to the availability of coins on the numismatic market that can be identified as coming from specific, UK find-spots and hoards. 

 Most of the proposed changes appear non-controversial, but certain of the proposals that require permits to metal detect, that create a new offense for purchases of undeclared artifacts, and declare archaeological finds Crown Property, are potentially very problematic. 

 A permit requirement could be used to preclude detecting from “archaeologically sensitive areas,” which could mean everything.

 The proposed new criminal sanction could catch unwary buyers of objects that did not realize they were buying "treasure."  Moreover, collectors should oppose the proposal's efforts to shift the burden of proof in a criminal matter.

 Declaring all finds crown property may be a way to avoid paying fair market value for finds the State retains.

If you are a metal detectorist, an ancient coin collector, or just think the UK's current PAS and Treasure Act do a great job of bringing the public, museums and archaeologists together in a joint effort to record and preserve the past, please consider commenting.

 

Comments are due on or before April 30, 2019.

 

For more about the issue, see https://culturalpropertynews.org/uk-changes-treasure-act/

 

For a direct link to the consultation, see https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/revising-the-definition-of-treasure-in-the-treasure-act-1996-and-revising-the-related-codes-of-practice

System Now Rigged; Underlying Facts Have Not Changed

    This is what I said, more or less, at today's CPAC meeting about the renewal of the current MOU with Cyprus.  The reaction from those opposed to collecting was predictable, but I was happy to get support from archaeologists for the idea of paying fair wages to site workers to discourage looting and promoting the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities scheme to ensure coins found outside recognized archaeological sites are adequately recorded.  I hope to be able to prepare a full report of the CPAC meeting in the near future:  

         I am speaking on behalf of the International Association of Professional Numismatists and the Professional Numismatics Guild, which represent the small businesses of the numismatic trade.  In many ways, this hearing is greater test for CPAC than for ancient coin collectors.  We've heard a lot from first the Sanders and now the Trump campaigns that the system is rigged. Here, unfortunately, there is strong evidence that may be the case.

          For 25 years after the CPIA was passed, there were no restrictions on coins.   This should be no surprise.  Coins are items of commerce.  So, it is difficult for modern nation states to justifiably claim them as their “cultural property.”  They are probably the most common of historical artifacts and are not of “cultural significance.”  They are avidly collected and traded worldwide—including in places like Cyprus.  It simply makes no sense to preclude Americans from importing coins where there is no real “concerted international response.”   Indeed, when the CPIA was being discussed, Mark Feldman, a high ranking State Department lawyer, represented to Congress that it was “hard … to imagine a case where we would need to deal with coins except in the most unusual circumstances.” 

          In 2007, this changed with Cypriot coins.   According to the declarations of two former CPAC Members, including Former Chair Kislak, that change was made against CPAC’s recommendations.  Moreover, there was an attempt to mislead the public and the Congress about CPAC’s true recommendations.  Even worse, it has recently come to light that the decision maker at the time made the decision after she had already announced she was leaving for a job at Goldman Sachs, where she was recruited and works for the husband of an AIA Trustee who has been very active lobbying on cultural heritage issues.  Nor is the situation better now.  In fact, the AIA just gave an award to the current State Department decision maker at the swank Metropolitan Club, again courtesy of this same well connected couple.   Under the circumstances, how can collectors and the small businesses of the numismatic trade think the system is fair? 

           Let me touch on some issues brought up in papers by members of the AIA and related groups trying to justify these restrictions.   First, there is the claim that Cypriot coins did not circulate in any numbers.  But this does not mesh with Cyprus’ status as an Island astride major trade routes or information in the scholarly paper attached to the IAPN submission.  Indeed, as referenced in one letter by an AIA member, there was a Smithsonian exhibition several years back entitled, “Cyprus: Cross Roads of Civilizations.” That pretty much says it all.  In any event, the governing statute only authorizes restrictions on coins that were first discovered within and are hence subject to the export control of Cyprus.  Thus, the standard is whether such coins are “exclusively” found in Cyprus, not generally found or some lesser standard.  Only coins actually found in Cyprus can be subject to Cypriot export controls. 

          Next, there is the claim that coins tell us something about Cypriot history.  Maybe so, but virtually all of what we have learned we learned well before import restrictions were imposed.  Limiting Americans’ access to such coins simply won’t help add much to that knowledge.  Moreover, Professor Joan Connelly makes the point that she has spent an astounding $100,000 per coin in “dig dollars” to recover coins worth perhaps a few dollars on the open market at her site.  This begs the question whether perhaps at least some of these “dig dollars” might be better spent on site security during the long off season and paying her local workers a fair living wage so they will not be tempted to do any looting in the long off season.   

          Finally, the State Department and Cyprus have never seriously considered alternatives to import restrictions like the Portable Antiquities Scheme and Treasure Act.  Import restrictions do more harm to legitimate collecting and the appreciation of Cypriot culture than good.  Indeed, it's a real shame that they particularly hurt the ability of Cypriot and Greek Americans from getting in touch with their heritage.  Such restrictions should be ended or limited to coins actually found in Cyprus. 

PAS Under Threat?

This news should be of concern to everyone.   Due to budget pressures in the UK, the Portable Antiquities Scheme will be folded into another department at the British Museum and likely suffer budget cuts despite its popularity with both the public and many British archaeologists.   As a result, Roger Bland, who has run the PAS since its inception, will be leaving his post.   

The PAS has been instrumental in bringing archaeologists, metal detectorists and collectors together in a shared effort to help record the past.  So, perhaps it's not surprising that the BM states that the PAS is being placed in the Department of Learning, Volunteers and Audiences as part of an effort to help the BM with public outreach to help make it the "museum of the country" by working with partners outside of London. If so, CPO hopes that the BM will ensure this important asset remains adequately funded despite obvious budget pressures.  

For more, see here.  

Monopoly vs. Better, Faster, Cheaper

A turf battle in France between public and private sector archaeologists has led to the Louvre being occupied by angry public sector archaeologists.  Meanwhile, in the nearby United Kingdom as interested amateurs publish thousands of finds, materials excavated by professionals languish in warehouses.

Of course, the situation is far worse in the favorite countries of the archaeological lobby-- Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Egypt,   There, amateur archaeologists are treated the same as looters for profit  while underfunded and corrupt archaeological establishments are poor stewards of even the most  important artifacts.

Perhaps, the answer is more competition.  Unleash the passion of private individuals and groups in community archaeology efforts.  And, of course, let them share redundant artifacts with the state and landowers.  As long as items are properly recorded, preserved and published, why not?

Paying People to Loot?

Archaeologist/children's author Jordan Jacobs suggests that the UK pays people to loot.   But what the UK does instead is to give the State a right of first refusal for artifacts found on private land that are properly reported to the authorities.  That's called fair compensation for a taking.

Doesn't Jacobs believe the State should compensate people for what it takes?  After all, the alternative is state sanctioned theft of the sort found under Communism.  Does Jacobs really believe the State should steal from its own citizens?  Or, has he not thought through his tweet?

Archaeological Snobs Criticize Significant Reported Find

While the rest of the world is celebrating the discovery of a large hoard of Anglo-Saxon coins that was excavated with the help of a trained Portable Antiquities Scheme finds liaison officer, the archaeological snobosphere is going full out criticizing everything about the find.  Yet, the finders were detecting on private land with the permission of the landowner.  It's highly unlikely that any British archaeologists would have ever surveyed the site on their own and if the find were made in a country like Greece it's also highly unlikely any such find would ever have been properly reported much less recorded.

Too Much Information?

Archaeo-bloggers David Gill and Paul Barford have taken the Portable Antiquities Scheme to task for allowing archaeologists to post finds on the database that was designed to record non-Treasure finds by the public.  Of course, PAS is a voluntary scheme and while it is not mandatory for archaeologists to post finds, really what's wrong with them doing so?   In the end, shouldn't it be about creating the most complete record of significant finds possible?  As it is, without archaeologists reporting, there is a hole in the PAS record.  Sure, archaeologists should report details of their finds to the local Historic Environment office, but is such information as accessible as the PAS database for scholars and anyone else interested in learning more details about what is found?

Hypocrisy

Archaeo-blogger Sam Hardy has an interesting post about the Cypriot Department of Antiquities looking the other way while connected Cypriot collectors added looted material from both occupied and unoccupied Cyprus into their collections which were then "legalized."

While the Cypriot Antiquities Service would plead "extenuating circumstances," the information Hardy provides should cast the archaeological lobby's moralistic attacks on coin collectors for contesting import restrictions on "coins of Cypriot type" in a new light.

And what of Cyprus itself?  Wouldn't it be better to institute a program open to all  akin to the UK's Portable Antiquities Scheme and Treasure Act than one based on insider access to looted material?

Viking Hoard

A significant Viking era treasure was recently found in Scotland and reported under its Treasure Trove law.  More evidence-- if any is needed-- that systems that encourage the public to report their finds with the prospect of compensation are much preferable to those which don't.

And the Millionth PAS ....

"find is a Roman coin in a  hoard of 22,000 others dating to around AD341 found in Seaton, Devon. The copper alloy coin, called a nummus, was struck in AD 332 at the mint of Lyon (Gaul). It shows the personification of Constantinopolis on the obverse and a Victory on prow on the reverse. This very common type was struck by Constantine the Great across the Empire to celebrate the inauguration of the new city of Constantinople which was to become the capital of the Eastern Empire."

Congratulations again to Roger Bland and the Portable Antiquities Scheme for this achievement.  

1 Million Recorded

The Portable Antiquities Scheme has now recorded 1 million objects.

It should be no surprise there are no similar achievements in countries like Bulgaria, Cyprus, Egypt, Greece and Italy.  Confiscatory laws and fiats against collecting, the stuff of dictators, don't work.  Fair play-- which ensures the State pays fair market value for what finds it wants to keep-- does.  The PAS recognizes metal detectorists, collectors, and other interested members of the public as legitimate stake holders, and they have responded enthusiastically.  The proof is not only in the numbers, but in what all those finds reported by the public have told us about English and Welsh history.

CPO congratulates the PAS and Roger Bland for this important milestone. 

An Archaeo-Blogger's Manifesto

Archaeo-blogger Paul Barford has issued yet another manifesto against the Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme, going so far as to characterize it as the "British disease."  His underlying assumption (and that of his fellow archaeological hardliners) is that only state cultural bureaucracies and their chosen archaeologists should have access to and control over artifacts of the past.  Barford apparently believes all the coins and artifacts that have come to light and recorded under the programs would be best left off in the ground for future archaeologists to find.  But the vast majority of these artifacts are found on private farmland where context has already been disturbed by agricultural activities.  It's doubtful that archaeologists would ever be excavating in these areas and, indeed, it's far more likely that if left in the ground these artifacts would be lost forever due to the impact of chemical fertilizers or other human activities.  Barford also claims UK authorities can't keep up with the finds and that they shouldn't have to pay fair market value for what artifacts are retained for state collections.  But that's only an argument for more efficient efforts at recording and more judicious decisions on what the State should keep.  The fact is there are so many coins around, all but the most significant ones are better off in the hands of private collectors who have every interest in preserving them.  And let's not forget, focusing on any shortcomings in the Treasure Act and PAS ignores how much we've learned about coin finds in Britain and Wales compared to places like Cyprus, Greece, Italy and Bulgaria, where finders have little incentive to report what they find.  Finally, Barford laments that most British archaeologists don't share his distaste for the Treasure Act and PAS, but perhaps that's just because they recognize the benefit of engaging interested members of the public as partners rather than adversaries.

Real Archaeologists Without an Agenda Say Metal Detectors' Damage Limited; PAS Adds to Archaeological Record

Real archaeologists without an agenda have acknowledged for some time that amateur metal detectorists do little real damage to the archaeological record.  Archaeologists are few; so where they end up digging is limited.  And when they dig, they don't typically record and preserve what is located in the top layers of the ground anyway.  Rather, they dig right through to concentrate on archaeological strata of interest and end up just dumping the top layers they excavate, with little, if any study of what it may contain.  Sure, sometimes archaeologists conduct "surface surveys," but amateur metal detectorists have added far more to the archaeological record under the the PAS and Treasure Act.  Because of their hard work, archaeologists in England and Wales have become aware of promising sites which otherwise would have gone unnoticed.  A win-win for anyone who loves history.  

So, why does an archaeo-blogger in far off Poland go on and on about the evils of metal detecting, even where finders properly record the artifacts they find under the Portable Antiquities Scheme and Treasure Act?  And why do American archaeologists who depend on nationalistic foreign cultural bureaucracies to provide them with excavation permits go on and on about the same issue in order to justify import controls on common collectors' coins of the sort widely and legally collected here and abroad?   Is it about conservation or is it really about control?

Exceptions or Rules and Prevailing Trends in Archaeology?

Archaeo-blogger Nathan Elkins has accused CPO of "intellectual dishonesty" for questioning the assumption that archaeologists promptly and  carefully excavate and record everything of significance at their digs.

According to Elkins,

"The point is, Tompa, that you paint exceptions, some true and some anecdotal, as rules and prevailing trends. That's what we call intellectually dishonest. Try a broader perspective for once."

But poor professional practices are important to consider when archaeological fanatics like Elkins, David Gill and Paul Barford regularly attack the Treasure Act and PAS because they allegedly encourage "unscientific excavations" by amateurs wielding metal detectors.

And what of recent news of significant Viking and Egyptian finds not from the field but from storerooms where the artifacts in question had lain for a century or more?  Or information that coins from Roman contexts excavated over a century ago are still awaiting proper publication and study?

Are these exceptions or rules and prevailing trends?  And if the latter, perhaps reports under the Treasure Act or PAS are more "scientific" than stale information dug up a century or more ago by trained archaeologists. They are certainly more timely.

PAS Maps Finds For All to See

The Portable Antiquities Scheme has unveiled this nifty tool to help visualize the distribution of coin finds from different periods within Britain and Wales.  When will the Italians, Greeks, Cypriots and Bulgarians come up with something similar?  Likely never.  Why not?  Simply because they have nothing akin to the Treasure Act and PAS that encourage the public to report finds so they can be recorded and used to tell us something about the distribution and use of historical coinage. But why don't they have such a system?  Well, perhaps because its not primarily about conservation for their cultural bureaucracies, but rather mostly about control.

What's Wrong with Legal Exports of Cultural Goods?

Nothing, but you wouldn't know that reading archaeo-blogger Paul Barford's latest post about legal exports from the United Kingdom.  Mr. Barford also intimates that export permits for coins are required, but under UK Export Guidance that is not so for most numismatic items in trade, i.e., published types not "straight from the ground."  (Detector finds from the UK require export papers).

The UK is to be commended for a workable system of export controls and a PAS and Treasure Act that encourage artifacts found by the public to be properly recorded and retained where they of cultural significance.   If only countries like Cyprus, Greece and Italy were as reasonable, they would likely not be facing many of the same problems they have at present.

PAS and Treasure Act Records over 920,000 Archaeological Finds

Last week's news of the new Bulgarian and renewed China MOUs overshadowed good news coming out of the UK-  the Portable Antiquities Scheme and Treasure Act have now recorded over 920,000 archaeological finds.

It's thus too bad that our own State Department appears to be only interested in helping to prop up corrupt systems in places like Bulgaria and China that only benefit connected insiders.  Why not instead promote the system in place in our friend and ally, Great Britain, one that actually engages the public in helping to record and preserve the past?

The proof is in these numbers.  We know how many archaeological finds the public has reported in Britain and Wales.  How many do you think have been recorded in places like Cyprus, Greece and Italy?

It would be interesting to learn more about such figures from some of the "models" for the anti-collector archaeological establishment, but, of course, these are not readily available, if they are kept at all.

Archaeologists Need Not Report Finds to the Authorities?

Archaeoblogger Paul Barford apparently does not think that English and Welsh archaeologists have an obligation to report finds under the Treasure Act.  But the guidance to archaeologists seems clear on that point.  Presumably,  they should also voluntarily report finds that don't meet the definition of treasure-- only if they do so will the PAS database created with the help of the public be complete as possible.  Perhaps, there needs to be a study whether English and Welsh archaeologists report under the Treasure Act and the PAS and if not, why not?

The Perils of a Registration System

It's an article of faith in elements within the archaeological community that registration systems deter looting of archaeological sites.  But do they work in practice?  This story from Israel suggests otherwise.  Instead, they may in fact only overwhelm everyone with red tape and encourage cheating by the unscrupulous. Isn't it much better to get at the problem with a system akin to the UK's Treasure Act and Portable Antiquities Scheme?  Important sites should be protected by law, but it should also be okay to prospect on private property with permission as long as items that are found are properly recorded.

Metal Detectorists 10, Archaeologists 0?

That's how some are pitching the latest statistics of treasure reported by the public and archaeologists in England and Wales.  But this sets up a false competition between the two groups when their efforts should instead be viewed as complementary.

Even worse, one voice in the archaeological blogosphere has taken all this to an extreme.  Indeed, he goes so far as to demand that what should be considered good news instead requires the resignation of the responsible Government Minister.

Rather than celebrating the knowledge that has come from these finds, he instead claims these artifacts are better better left in the ground for future archaeologists to discover.  But that is pure fantasy.  Archaeologists will always be few in number.  Their digs will always concentrate on significant sites, not the farmer's fields where most treasure is found.  And while we are waiting, it's much more likely that the artifacts themselves will be lost through deterioration and development.

Luckily, most real archaeologists in the United Kingdom have made peace with metal detectorists.  They recognize that the Treasure Act, the Portable Antiquities Scheme, and the knowledge of and preservation of artifacts they bring benefits everyone.   So let's all celebrate the latest finds in England and Wales and salute the "heritage heroes" of the archaeological and metal detecting communities that have made it all possible.