Tag: Portable Antiquities Scheme

An Unkind Response to my PAS Article (LATE UPDATE)

I have just noticed that Paul Barford has produced a very long response to my article on the Portable Antiquities Scheme. Initially I was pleased that my article had gained some notice. Imagine my dismay then when Barford accuses me of producing, ‘glib spin’, bad writing, claims I’m ignorant, and even hints that I’ve committed plagiarism. And he didn’t even do me the courtesy of sending an email.

I hope there might be a serious scholarly response to the article at some point, and I look forward to reading it. At present I’m not aware of any thoughtful scholarly work (peer-reviewed for example) which criticizes the PAS. Perhaps Barford would be inclined to produce something like this? Given the tenor of his blog though, I wonder if he is capable of passing peer-review.

I don’t really have a lot to say about the points he raises, because there aren’t any intellectually honest arguments. Rather he’s displayed an unfortunate tendency to produce Rovian and Hannity-style discourse. He takes my arguments out of context, wilfully twisting them in a way which indicates an inability to conduct any kind of meaningful discourse.

To take one example, he writes:

[T]he PAS allegedly represents a policy that: “sharply contrasts with the context-focused narrative found in most culture heritage scholarship”. This gives a totally false impression of the PAS and its aims… It is all about context of the finds in its database.

Right, well here’s what the article states:

The PAS is the voluntary system created to record and document objects that are not encompassed by the Treasure Act and are unearthed legally. The PAS is a novel approach to undiscovered antiquities, which rests on a legal framework that essentially allows amateur and unprofessional digging. This policy cuts against the overriding policy choices of most nations of origin and sharply contrasts with the context-focused narrative found in most cultural heritage scholarship.

He also accuses me of stating the PAS pays finders and detectorists. No. I state very clearly “If the object is deemed treasure, the finder is entitled to a reward based on the market price of the object.” One of the main reasons I wrote the piece was to make clear that the PAS does not pay finders of non-treasure objects! Finders of treasure recieve a reward, and have since the 19th century; the PAS works in conjunction with this legal framework to encourage voluntary reporting of objects the Crown has no legal claim to.

I don’t expect everyone will agree with my perspective, but at the very least an individual who claims to be an academic would be able to respond in an honest and thoughtful way. I’d encourage Barford to adopt the perspective of Kimberley Alderman, who has recently started a very nice blog:

Here are the things I think would promote more meaningful discourse:

1. Less polarization between what have been characterized as competing “sides” of the argument.

2. Less emphasis on doctrinal positions (on both sides) and more emphasis on solving the mutual goal of cultural preservation.

3. More emphasis on what is working as opposed to what is not.

4. Less emphasis on what positions people have espoused in the past (too often used as a means to unproductively attack).

5. More precision in language used …

That’s very good advice I think. It’s a brief statement of a similar kind of argument made by Alexander Bauer recently. A. A. Bauer (2008). “New Ways of Thinking About Cultural Property,” Fordham International Law Journal 31:690-724.

I’m happy to accept legitimate criticism. Petty attacks aren’t doing anyone any favors though. Barford is not a fan of the PAS. He’s entitled to that opinion, but give me some clear reasons why the current system is harmful, and provide a better legal or policy framework. If you’ve got a better ‘mousetrap’, tell us about it — if you can do so respectfully.

LATE UPDATE:

I see Barford has responded here. Regrettably the newer post is only slightly less strident.

As he rightly points out, I neglected to include a link to his extended response to the article which is here. He claims to have pointed out “serious problems” with the article. I’m afraid we will have to agree to disagree on that point. I’m happy to have a spirited debate on the PAS, but mis-characterizing my position and taking statements out of context makes such a productive discussion impossible, and he has yet to correct these errors. When my first year law students make these kind of analytical mistakes its an indication of weak analysis and insufficient research.

At its core, I argue in the article that a national ownership declaration is an important legal strategy; but this declaration in isolation does not necessarily create the best cultural heritage policy. In fact there’s legal precedent which makes this very point (see US v. Johnson 720 F.Supp. 810, 811 (C.D.Cal.1989)) and the US accession to the UNESCO Convention via the CPIA takes the efforts of nations of origin into account when the CPAC considers export restriction requests.

I assume that effectively guarding every archaeological site is impossible given limited resources. Even in the US, a wealthy nation, there is widespread looting of Native American sites. A nation like Peru has even more difficulty given its developing economy and the remote location of many sites. The looting of these sites in North and South America is a travesty. This is a foudational problem with heritage policy. One potential solution is a policy framework and network of PAS-style liason officers. But that’s not to say that these states should encourage metal-detecting or the like.

Rather I think outreach and education is badly needed. Barford argues this exists in many nations of origin already. Perhaps he is right, but we are merely talking speculatively. Where is the evidence? I’d be delighted to read some thoughts on this. The PAS works in conjunction with the law, which was of course a compromise postion between heritage advocates and landowners. A very strong legal regime may in a perfect world be the best policy. But what good are they if they aren’t meaningfully enforced? These laws can be compared with abstinence only sex education or America’s ill-advised “War on Drugs”. When it comes to practice, they aren’t producing the desired results — less teen pregnancy or drug abuse for example. In the heritage context, the PAS and metal detectorists are producing contextual information. It’s a different kind of information, which we can characterize as shallow but extremely broad; rather than a thorough documentation of sites which might be narrow but very deep.

This more permissive legal regime has actually produced important contextual information, which historians, researchers and archaeologists are using to write scholarship. Research is being produced with the PAS and its database, and it is including the broader public in heritage and archaeology, which will ideally bring more attention to heritage issues generally. Did Hiram Bingham include locals in his efforts to excavate Macchu Picchu? Modern-day Peruvians think not, which has led to a host of very public disagreements between Yale and Peru.

The PAS policy unquestionably sacrifices some archaeological context, but is there any nation of origin which is able to ensure all of its sites are professionally excavated or remain untouched? Is some contextual information better than none?

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

My Article on the Portable Antiquities Scheme

I’ve posted on SSRN my article from the August edition of the International Journal of Cultural Property, A Coordinated Legal and Policy Approach to Undiscovered Antiquities: Adapting the Cultural Heritage Policy of England and Wales to Other Nations of Origin 15 Int’l. J. Cult. Prop. 347 (2008). Here’s the abstract:

Blanket ownership laws, export restrictions, and the criminal law of market nations are the default legal strategies currently used by nations of origin to prevent the looting of archaeological sites. Although they have been remarkably successful at achieving the return of looted objects, they may not be the best strategies to maximize the recording and preservation of archaeological context. In England and Wales a more permissive legal regime broadly applied and adopted by the public at large has produced dramatically better results than the strong prescriptive regime of Scotland, which can be easily ignored.

This article attempts to clear up any misconceptions of the cultural policy framework in England and Wales. It accounts for the legal position accorded undiscovered portable antiquities, and describes how this legal framework is perfected by a voluntary program called the Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS). This approach stands in stark contrast to Scotland, which has used a legal strategy adopted by most other nations of origin.

The domestic legal framework for portable antiquities in England and Wales is unique and differs from the typical approach. Coupled with the PAS, this legal structure has resulted in a better cultural policy, which leads to less looting of important archaeological sites, allows for a tailored cultural policy, and has produced more data and contextual information with which to conduct historical and archaeological research on an unprecedented scale. Compensating finders of antiquities may even preclude an illicit market in antiquities so long as this compensation is substantially similar to the market price of the object and effectively excludes looters from this reward system. Although the precise number of found versus looted objects that appear on the market is open to much speculation, an effective recording system is essential to ensure that individuals who find objects are encouraged to report them.

I wanted to write what I hope is a thoughtful piece which describes in an objective way what the PAS does, and how it creates a pragmatic compromise. Many of the very best heritage scholars are still seemingly under a misimpression about what it does and does not do. It’s not a perfect system, but it has produced some dramatic results, and may change the way we conceptualize heritage and context. I hope those interested in the scheme and archaeology will do me and the employees of the PAS the courtesy of reading the piece before dismissing my position. Sadly I’m afraid some already have reacted, without even reading the piece.

I have no doubt that some of my assertions may prove controversial, and I’m happy to have a vigorous debate, but I think everyone interested in heritage issues needs to work harder to make sure they are leaving room for meaningful discourse and disagreement and that we’re respectful of differing views and positions.

Pictured here are a horse and rider found in Cambridgeshire which appeared in the 2007 PAS annual report, via the PAS flickr page.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Community Archaeology Conference

Via the Portable Antiquities Scheme Blog, I noticed there is an upcoming community archaeology conference in early 2009:

Community Archaeology in South West England
Free Conference held at Exeter University on the 21st of February 2009.

For abstract submissions and registration please see their website or contact Faye Simpson at fs216@exeter.ac.uk.

The South West of England has a plethora of innovative community archaeology projects working within the region to provide archaeological outreach to local communities. These archaeological outreach and education projects are varied in both there approaches and organisation. They range from ‘grass roots’ projects initiated and organised by interested amateurs, individuals and local societies, to ‘top down approaches’ by commercial archaeology firms and universities. Furthermore, they include a range of hands on activities such as standing building surveys, historical research, field-walking, oral history projects, excavations and finds processing, to name just a few.

As hosts, the Heritage Lottery Fund and University of Exeter’s Exploring Archaeology Project (XArch), provides the means in which the conference can act as a forum to discuss the variety of community initiatives in the South West of England, and assess how they work in practice. It will also open up communication between these different individuals, groups and organisations as to where the future lies for community archaeology in this region, and investigate the possibility of partnerships between these groups and projects.

Abstracts for papers should be no longer the 200 words in length and should be received by the 30.09.08.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Update on Wednesday’s Art Crime Panel

Wednesday’s panel at the British Society of Criminology was very engaging, and would have garnered a great deal of attention among cultural heritage scholars. But I’m sad to report that I’ve had considerably more folks email me to ask about the presentation than were actually present at the presentations.

Lucky for us, all of the papers we were discussing are published (or in my case will be soon).

My presentation was based on a forthcoming article in the International Journal of Cultural Property on the Treasure Act and the Portable Antiquities Scheme. I’ll shamelessly self-promote that when I have a copy available.

Simon Mackenzie‘s paper is: “Performative Regulation: A Case Study in How Powerful People avoid Criminal Labels” British Journal of Criminology 2008 48(2):138-153.

Carolyn Shelbourn’s presentation was based on a few articles:

Shelbourn, C “Time crime” – looting of archaeological resources and
the criminal law in England and the United States [2008] Criminal
Law Review, 204-213.

Shelbourn, C. Protecting Archaeological Resources In The United
States: Some Lessons For Law And Practice In England? [2007] Art
Antiquity and Law, 259-278.

Shelbourn C, Bringing The Skeletons Out Of The Closet? The Law and
Human Remains In Art, Archaeology and Museum Collections [2006] Art,
Antiquity and Law 179-198.

These two presentations were excellent and I enjoyed them a great deal. One problem with the current state of Heritage Law Scholarship, is that many of the best work is in specialty journals that can be hard to find. I think in particular a lot of the work by UK academics is underutilized by American authors because they don’t know about it. I’m working on a project which should help to correct a lot of those problems, and I’ll have a lot more to say about that in a few weeks hopefully.

Some of the journals, in particular Art, Antiquity and Law are not available electronically as far as I am aware. This is a real shame, and I think more authors should consider putting their work online so it can be accessed via sites like SSRN and others (or those journals need to consider putting stuff online). There are tradeoffs perhaps, and some Journals may not like stuff being given away, but I don’t see much point in writing articles if people are unaware of them or don’t read them.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Looting in Southern Illinois

Len Wells of the Evansville Courier Press had an interesting article Sunday on the looting of Native American burial grounds in Southern Illinois.

“We noticed a trail going out through a wheat field and followed it,” said John Schwegman of Metropolis, Ill., who works with the Kincaid Mounds Support Organization. “We found they had dug a hole about 6 feet long, 4 feet deep and 3 to 4 feet wide.”

Schwegman said the same site had been looted last summer. The hole was filled in then, but it was targeted again this spring.

“We believe there are at least two, and maybe more looters working, since they were working two holes at the same time,” Schwegman said. “They’re pretty bold, since they parked their vehicles in our own parking lot.”

Investigators said the looters have dug three holes in the Pope County ground and a fourth one a short distance away in Massac County. Pieces of broken flint and stones were discovered near the holes after looters abandoned the sites. The first holes were discovered about six weeks ago.

The Kincaid Mounds Historic Site consists of 105 acres in the heart of the Kincaid Mounds Archaeological Site. Portions of the site extend to private property north and east of the site. The state property has been designated a National Historic Landmark and is on the National Register of Historic Places.

Portions of the site had been excavated, but not the area targeted by the looters. The $2,000 reward is a good incentive, but the odds appear slim that these objects will be found or the culprits caught. This kind of theft carries criminal penalties under the National Stolen Property Act, as well as the Archaeological Resources Protection Act. However these criminal measures will likely not assist in bringing these looters to justice, and the huge land area makes patrolling this and other Native American sites – which would allow officials to catch the looter in the act – difficult and impracticable.

Can we consider eliminating the market in these objects? Yes, but for many objects found on private land in the United States, not associated with burial grounds or religious practices, it is legal for individuals to excavate. I’m not aware of how many native American objects are purportedly found on private land, I’d expect most objects come from National Historic Places, or Federal or State parks which have been set aside, and are protected de jure, but this may not always result in de facto protection.

There is a tendency perhaps to get too focused on looting which just occurs in Italy or the Mediterranean. The reality is it takes place everywhere, and the current legal and policy measures aimed at stopping it are having some effect, but much more can and should be done. Perhaps more scrutiny of the Portable Antiquities Scheme in England and Wales could help alleviate some of these problems…

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Debate on the Portable Antiquities Scheme (UPDATE)

The domestic legal and policy framework for portable antiquities in England and Wales is unique, and differs from the typical approach. Three things set it apart from most other nations of origin. First is the limited state ownership of undiscovered antiquities, the second compensation to finders of the full price of their finds if the find is acquired legally, and perhaps most importantly is the legalization of indiscriminate digging in many areas.

Metal detecting is legal in the UK, and is only prohibited in specially designated areas, known as scheduled ancient monuments.

Only limited classes of objects become the property of the crown when they are discovered. This includes objects composed of at least 10% gold or silver, multiple ancient coins, and prehistoric base-metals, which are objects such as bronze. Pottery and carved objects become the property of the finder.

All other objects become the property of the finder, and in some cases landowners and finders share the value of finds. Finders of objects encompassed under the Treasure Act are entitled to the full market value of the find, as estimated by an evaluation committee.

The PAS is a voluntary scheme which fills the gaps left by the treasure act. There exists some confusion about the scheme, as a lot of commentators incorrectly talk about the scheme as shorthand for compensating finders of antiquities. Such a measure already exists outwith the PAS. However, the PAS is a voluntary network, organized by a national network of finds liaison officers. They speak with metal detecting groups about good practice, conduct community outreach programs, and most importantly record finds. They are often based in local museums or archaeology departments. In some cases, museums approach finders and purchase these objects.

One of the most positive impacts of the scheme is its database, an impressive accumulation of information, with over 300,000 objects recorded.

The scheme has led to a dramatic increase in the number of objects being reported, and a dramatic increase in objects which finders have always been legally-required to disclaim.

This begs the question: should the approach of England and Wales to Antiquities be adapted to other nations? I think the national network of FLO’s has been tremendously successful, and setting aside the issues of cost and implementation, would ideally be implemented everywhere. In England and Wales, nearly 90% of finds take place on cultivated land, where industrial farming practices and chemicals can potentially damage objects near the surface.

The question of whether the limited state ownership of undiscovered antiquities, the compensation to finders of the full price of their finds, and the legalization of indiscriminate digging can be adapted to other nations remains in some doubt. It should be noted that the legal prohibitions on antiquities digging in England and Wales are far more lenient than in nearly every other nation. The policy sacrifices archaeological context without question.

If we compare Scotland, which has an ownership interest in all undiscovered antiquities with England and Wales the data would seem to lend support to the notion that declaring an ownership interest of only limited classes of objects, and only prohibiting digging in limited areas has produced better results. Between 1998 and 2004, Scotland reported an average of just over 300 finds. During the same period, an average of just over 300 objects which qualify as treasure were recorded, but there was an average of nearly 40,000 finds reported by the portable antiquities scheme per year.

The scheme resulted in a dramatic increase in the reporting of treasure. A small portion of this increase may be explained by the widening of scope of the treasure act. However, I think we can draw two conclusions from the scheme:

First, if individuals are compensated for finding antiquities they will look for them, and find them, in some cases this damages the archaeological context of course.

Second, as the specter of increased criminal investigation of the antiquities trade and seems increasingly likely, with massive investigations coming to light in recent days in both Italy and here in California I think certainly the trade itself will have to find ways to justify its continued existence. Should the antiquities trade continue to exist in some form, the approach in England and Wales would seem to offer an interesting, and inarguably a successful model.

It should be noted that legally sanctioning digging, or funding digging would be politically unpopular in many nations with a strong cultural identity, such as Italy. I think cultural policy makers should approach any strategy which might incentivize digging with great caution.

There’s a couple of interesting items on the Portable Antiquities Scheme blog, and I’d like to boost the signal a bit and post them here. First is a video of Peter Twinn, a metal detectorist and archaeology student at Bristol Universtiy, who was interviewed in a brief piece on the BBC.

In addition, this afternoon at 4.30 GMT, there will be a half-hour debate in Westminster Hall on “The Future of the Portable Antiquities Scheme”, and you can watch it live here on Parliament TV. I’ll be watching, and I’ll comment here later on today.

UPDATE:

Essentially the debate was a bit of a letdown. It’s available here. It extolled the virtues of the scheme, but amounted to an argument about whether freezing the funding amounted to a de facto decrease in funding its operations.

I was struck again at how universally popular the scheme appears to be (though funding does not appear to share a correlation with popularity). There were no criticisms that it was perhaps incentivizing the looting of sites, but rather that it was as the Culture Minister Margaret Hodge claimed open to everyone from a secondary school student to doctoral dissertations. That seems the be the tremendous benefit of the scheme. I wonder if such a debate were held in Italy, or Iraq, or another source nation if there would be a similar kind of support for the program, or if its popularity may be a peculiar combination of cultural pride coupled with how and where objects are found in the countryside in most of England and Wales. I’ll confess I haven’t made my mind up on that question.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

US Criminal Penalties and Antiquities


To a casual observer, the recent searches in California would perhaps indicate that American criminal prosecutions and investigations can have a substantial impact on the illicit trade in antiquities. I certainly think they are a welcome sign, and hope that more of them will be supported by investigators and prosecutors. However, that investigation took five years to materialize, and there is still no indication if there will be any arrests. It certainly seems likely, but even this dramatic show of force and investigative might will not, I think, end or even put a substantial dent in the illicit trade. The current regulatory framework in both nations of origin and in market states puts far too much pressure on customs agents, prosecutors, and investigators.

At least that’s what I argue in my now-available article in the Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal, WHY U.S. FEDERAL CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR DEALING IN ILLICIT CULTURAL PROPERTY ARE INEFFECTIVE, AND A PRAGMATIC ALTERNATIVE. 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L. J. 597-695 (2007)

The pragmatic alternative is the approach in England and Wales with its Treasure Act, Portable Antiquities Scheme, and limited export restrictions. This legal framework and attendant cultural policy is unique, in that it effectively incentivizes obeying the relevant cultural heritage laws. It adopts a carrot and stick approach, while many nations use too much of the stick. I argue that the criminal penalties can be brought to bear in cases of clear and egregious violations, or where there are a great deal of investigative resources available. Such was the case in the California searches, in which an undercover agent posed as a buyer. However, it took five years of investigations, and it’s still not clear what the result of these investigations are.

The image above is an Egyptian antiquity which Jonathan Tokeley-Parry bought and sold to Frederick Schultz, who later sold it for $1.2 million in 1993. It’s an image of 18th Dynasty pharaoh Amenhotep III (ca. 1403-1354 B.C.). Tokeley dipped the sculpture in clear plastic and painted it to resemble a cheap tourist souvenir. I discuss prosecutions of both men, which took place in England and the US respectively in the article. A lot of articles discuss the Schultz prosecution, but surprisingly no articles have discussed in any real detail the corresponding prosecution of Tokeley-Parry in England, which I think is key to understanding the international nature of the illicit trade, and the kind of complex multinational criminal investigation which is difficult where criminal investigation and prosecution are time-consuming and expensive. Not to mention the substantial pressures of other and often more-pressing matters such as drugs, violent crime, terrorism and the like.

I would be quite eager to hear any comments or reactions to the piece at derek.fincham “@” gmail.com.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

The PAS

This is the “Staffordshire Pan”, a copper alloy “patera” which is decorated with enameled scrollwork. It was found in 2003, and reported to the Portable Antiquities Scheme, and later acquired by the British Museum, Tullie House, and the Potteries Museum. You can read more about the patera at the PAS website. For those interested in the PAS, I highly recommend their blog.

Below is an interview conducted by Chris Vallance of Radio 4 with Roger Bland, the Director of the PAS, and Roy Clare of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council which currently oversees the program. The object Bland discusses is none other than this very patera. The PAS has received a great deal of attention of late, because it is in jeopardy of funding cuts, as the MLA is itself absorbing a 25% budget decrease this year. The PAS is a remarkably successful program, and as Bland notes in the interview below, utterly unique.

On a related note, there will likely be light posting this week as I will be headed to sunny Los Angeles to discuss some of the policy implications of the PAS. Though it is a remarkable program, and very successful, I’m not sure it is necessarily a solution to looting of antiquities in all source nations, especially in the developing world. I hope to post some more detailed thoughts on that when I return early next week.

Add IPM Radio4’s channel to your page
Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

Axes!

Bus driver Tom Peirce has discovered 500 Bronze Age metallic objects with his metal detector in Dorset. The Daily Mail has the story with photos.

The discovery includes 268 complete axe-heads, one of the biggest hoards ever found in Britain. The find, as it constitutes a “prehistoric” metallic object qualifies as “Treasure” and is the property of the Crown.

Archaeologists believe the hoard was buried in the field as some form of ritual offering to the gods.

Grandfather Mr Peirce, from Ringwood, Hants, said: “When we took them out of the ground, some of them were so pristine you would think you had just bought them at B&Q yet they were 3,000 years old.”

There were so many of the artefacts that the pair couldn’t collect them all so returned the following day with fellow detectorist Brian Thomas,75, to gather the rest.

Mr Peirce, who has been a metal detectorist for five years, added: “We went back and dug in another hotspot and found a load more.

“We were very lucky because there was not much else in the field.

“If we had tried another place or walked in a different direction, we’d never have found them.”

Mr O’Connell, 62, who has owned the farm for four years, said: “Within about half an hour of Tom searching, he came rushing over to me looking shocked.

“During the war, a plane had crashed in the same field and for a minute I thought he had found a bomb.

“We went back up there on my tractor and saw the axe heads. I didn’t have a clue what they were – I thought it was scrap metal at first.

“I have owned the farm for four years and had no idea they were up there. It is very exciting.”

The find will now be valued, and the finder and the landowner will split the market value, which is estimated to be £80,000.

It’s this reward scheme under the Treasure Act which encourages the reporting of these finds. The difference between this policy and the typical approach in source nations is it encourages finders to come forward with finds; however it also encourages more metal detecting, which can be seen as a trade-off. The compensation scheme is a pragmatic balancing of interests, which places a higher value on the acquisition of the find, and bringing discoveries to light, rather than leaving objects in the ground. I think it’s an excellent policy for the UK, but it may be questioned whether such an approach would work as well in other nations without the economic resources to fund the scheme.

Those objects which don’t qualify as treasure are subject to the voluntary Portable Antiquities Scheme. Treasure basically includes precious metals (i.e. gold and silver), prehistoric base-metal like these bronze objects, and objects found with them. Since 1997, objects which don’t qualify as treasure can be recorded by the Finds Liaison Officers which have forged connections with local metal detectorists, and have compiled information which has led to a more complete understanding of important sites.

I should note, that it’s my understanding that Greece and Italy both have similar rewards schemes, but not a lot has been written about them to my knowledge. My initial conclusion is these schemes are not funded as well, and have not produced the kind of results the PAS has. I believe both nations reward finders at something like 25% of an object’s value if it is discovered by chance. If any readers have knowledge of these kinds of rewards schemes I’d appreciate a post in the comments.

(Hat tip: Will Anderson).

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com

The Uneasy relationship between Scholarship and Journalism (UPDATE)


Lee Rosenbaum, arts journalist and fellow blogger at culturegrrl has an Op-Ed in today’s LA Times titled “Make art loans, not war” in which she argues for increased loans from Italy and Greece, a more collaborative relationship between North American “Universal” museums, and an increase in what she calls “citizen archaeology” along the lines of the portable antiquities scheme in England and Wales.

It’s a well written piece, but it strikes me as a compilation of a lot of other scholarship. I suppose it’s a journalists prerogative to take the work of scholars and researchers and reconfigure it in a more digestible (i.e. better written) form, but it does strike me as a bit unfair that she gets to take credit for some ideas which have been persuasively and compellingly articulated elsewhere. I’d like to point out some of the theoretical foundations for the ideas that Rosenbaum articulates.

John Merryman has long been a champion of “cultural property internationalism“, and Kwame Anthony Appiah also made a compelling argument for a similar kind of idea in his recent work, Cosmopolitanism: Ethics in a World of Strangers.

Antiquities leasing is a particularly interesting idea, and it’s one that’s received some interesting attention recently, including an article by Peter Wendel, a law Professor at Pepperdine University, as well as a recent working paper by Michael Kremer and Tom Wilkening who argue from an economic perspective that long-term leasing of antiquities would allow source nations to earn much-needed revenue from their antiquities, but would preserve their own long-term ownership interests. I’ve even argued here that the agreements forged by the Getty, the MFA Boston, the Met, Princeton, and Yale with Peru are essentially leasing agreements between the two sides. Clearly, the custom established by these agreements leads to the idea of leasing as a workable solution to these intractable disputes.

I found Rosenbaum’s argument for citizen archaeology particularly interesting:

More controversially, I believe that source countries should consider training and licensing citizen archaeologists. The antiquities police can’t hope to end all the looting or shut down the black market completely. But if those who make finds are compensated for reporting them and perhaps trained to help excavate them, midnight marauders who mangle masterpieces and destroy archaeological context may become less numerous and destructive. One precedent for the “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em” approach is Britain’s financial compensation of metal detector-wielding amateurs who turn over significant finds including gold, silver and prehistoric objects to the proper authorities.

This is a subject upon which I’ve written, and what she’s referring to here is the Portable Antiquities Scheme, and the Treasure Act. Their flickr site is particularly interesting, which is where I found the image above of a Roman horseman found in Cambridgeshire last year. The PAS operates only in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland is not a part of the scheme. Unfortunately the PAS is in danger due to budget restrictions and funding for the London Olympics.

I discuss the PAS and the idea of rewarding finders of objects in some detail in my recent article WHY U.S. FEDERAL CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR DEALING IN ILLICIT CULTURAL PROPERTY ARE INEFFECTIVE, AND A PRAGMATIC ALTERNATIVE, 25 Cardozo Arts & Ent. L.J. 597 (2007), available on Lexis and Westlaw. I think she may be under a mis-impression regarding the scheme. The PAS encourages voluntary reporting of finds for those objects which fall outside the scope of the Treasure Act. The scheme has created a massive community archaeology project for objects which are found on private lands and do not belong to the Crown. There has always been a requirement in England and Wales to return valuable metal objects to the Crown, however the introduction of the scheme dramatically increased compliance with the law. Based on this, I argue that it’s not enough for a source nation to declare ownership; to effectively protect sites it must also erect appropriate mechanisms to promote compliance with those ownership declarations. When a metal detector finds a valuable piece of gold on private land (detecting on scheduled monuments is strictly forbidden) the finder is entitled to an award, which thus encourages the reporting of finds. However, such a system may not work in all source nations, as you do not want to encourage haphazard looting. As a result the PAS and the Treasure Act are important policy solutions to consider, but are not a cure-all for the antiquities trade.

In short, there has been a great deal of attention placed on the return of objects to Italy, but nearly all these returns, and certainly the most valuable and significant objects, were returned based on substantial evidence, often photographs, which indicate the objects in question had been illegally excavated. The Medici Conspiracy details the investigation. These returns to Italy are the product of a massive investigation of a single commercial stream (albeit a substantial one) from Italy to North America. The challenge for cultural policy makers is to think about the other source nations and other transactions. Rosenbaum rightly points out some of the innovative potential solutions to these dilemmas, I just think it’s regrettable that the Op-Ed forum doesn’t allow her to reference some of the important work she may have relied on to formulate her thoughts.

UPDATE:

Rosenbaum responds to me here, and also posts reactions from a “prominent curator” and David Gill.

Questions or Comments? Email me at derek.fincham@gmail.com