Thursday 28 March 2024

British Museum Initiates Proceedings Against Ex-Curator Over Alleged Thefts

Artnet reports: 'The British Museum Initiates Proceedings Against Ex-Curator Over Alleged Thefts' (Eileen Kinsella March 26, 2024).
The British Museum is hitting back against a former longtime employee who allegedly stole and often sold some 1,800 objects from its collection. Attorneys for trustees of the museum made a 24-page filing in the High Court of Justice King’s Bench Division against Peter Higgs, who was employed in the museum’s department of Greece and Rome for 30 years, from 1993 until 2023, when  he was fired for “gross misconduct.” At the time of his dismissal, he was a senior curator of ancient Greek collections and the acting head of the department. According to the filing [...] the museum has “compelling evidence” that between 2009 and 2018, Higgs “abused his position of trust” by stealing gems, jewelry, gold, silver, and other items from its collection[...] the museum estimates that more than 1,800 items were stolen or damaged, and that hundreds were sold or offered by Higgs, who used eBay and PayPal to transact the sales and receive payment. London’s Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) informed the museum that Higgs made 96 sales of objects similar to those held in the museum’s collection from his eBay account between May 2014 and December 2017. Those sales were made to some 45 different buyers for relatively small amounts of money—double-digit or low triple-digit sums—the court papers stated. As part of the claim, the museum is asking eBay and PayPal to turn over related documents [...].

There is also a coin collection, found in Mr Higgs' home that is in dispute. He says he had received it from "a deceased relative named Mary Patricia Bellamy".


Wednesday 27 March 2024

Trying to Get Poland's New Metal Detecting Legislation Reversed.


Petycja: Protestujemy przeciw zmianie prawa dla poszukiwaczy zabytków

The amendment to the Act on the Protection and Care of Historical Monuments of June 5, 2023, adopted by the Sejm of the Republic of Poland on July 13, 2023, removes state control over the search for monuments under the pretext of introducing facilitations for the so-called treasure hunters. Permits issued by the provincial conservator of monuments are waived in favor of applications to be handled by an automatic application. The application does not exist yet and it is not known what functions it will have, apart from automatically accepting applications requiring only two things: registration and sending the application.

Preferential rules are introduced for treasure hunters, different from the rules applicable to people who discovered a monument accidentally or during earthworks or construction (who must stop after each discovery), not to mention scientists, who are still obliged to submit their plans in writing for analysis conservation services.

The project equates the search for small metal elements in forests and fields with the search for deposits and hidden treasures inside buildings, crypts and other historical objects, which will also only require notification, without the possibility of the provincial conservator of monuments establishing operating rules.

The element of the permit system that caused the most problems for searchers, the written consent of the land owner to search, was replaced by a statement that such consent had been obtained, without the need to indicate that contact had been made with the owner at all.

The proposed regulations do not in any way protect [...]
Nowelizacja Ustawy o ochronie zabytków i opiece nad zabytkami z 5 czerwca 2023 roku, uchwalona przez Sejm RP 13 lipca 2023 roku, usuwa kontrolę Państwa nad poszukiwaniem zabytków pod pretekstem wprowadzenia ułatwień dla tzw. poszukiwaczy skarbów. Rezygnuje się z pozwoleń wydawanych przez wojewódzkiego konserwatora zabytków na rzecz zgłoszeń, które obsługiwać ma automatyczna aplikacja. Aplikacja jeszcze nie istnieje i nie wiadomo, jakie będzie miała funkcje, poza automatycznym przyjmowaniem zgłoszeń wymagających jedynie dwóch rzeczy: rejestracji i wysłania zgłoszenia.

Wprowadza się dla poszukiwaczy skarbów preferencyjne zasady, różniące się od przepisów dotyczących osób, które odkryły zabytek przypadkowo bądź w trakcie robót ziemnych lub budowlanych (które muszą zatrzymać się po każdym odkryciu), nie wspominając o naukowcach, wciąż zobowiązanych do pisemnego przedstawienia swoich planów do analizy służbom konserwatorskim.

Projekt zrównuje poszukiwanie drobnych elementów metalowych w lasach i polach z poszukiwaniem depozytów i ukrytych skarbów wewnątrz budynków, krypt i innych obiektów historycznych, które też będą wymagały jedynie zgłoszenia, bez możliwości ustalenia przez wojewódzkiego konserwatora zabytków reguł działania.

Element systemu pozwoleń, który przysparzał poszukiwaczom najwięcej problemów, czyli pisemną zgodę właściciela terenu na poszukiwania, zamieniono na oświadczenie, że taką zgodę uzyskano, bez konieczności wskazania, że w ogóle nawiązano kontakt z właścicielem.

Projektowane przepisy w żaden sposób nie chronią [...] Read More


My Comment:

Używanie wykrywaczy metali do wyciągania ze stanowisk archeologicznych i historycznych artefaktów kolekcjonerskich W ŻADEN SPOSÓB nie jest metodą akceptowalną jako „ochrona” zakopanego dziedzictwa archeologicznego Polski. Powinniśmy powiedzieć „nie” rabusiom, ale zamiast tego ustawa uchwalona przez poprzedni rząd daje im wolną rękę! To krok wstecz do sytuacji w Polsce sprzed 1918 roku. Ta znowelizowana ustawa, przyjęta wbrew poważnym zastrzeżeniom polskich uczonych i prawników, stanowi zagrożenie dla dziedzictwa archeologicznego naszego kraju. Nowelizowana ustawa poprzez błędne sformułowanie (oraz niezgodność zmian z pozostałymi częściami ustawy) spowoduje chaos legislacyjny. Zdaniem specjalistów zajmujących się dziedzictwem, które będzie musiało wdrożyć ustawę w nowym brzmieniu, jest to niewykonalne przy obecnym i tak już niedoinwestowanym stanie polskich służb konserwacji archeologicznej. Ustawa w swoim obecnym kształcie stoi w sprzeczności z zasadami przyjętymi w całej UE („Konwencja o ochronie dziedzictwa archeologicznego Europy (zmieniona)” Valletta, 1992). Zagraniczni specjaliści z niepokojem przyglądają się temu rozwojowi wydarzeń w Polsce (por. np. „oświadczenie Europejskiego Stowarzyszenia Archeologów w sprawie ochrony dziedzictwa kulturowego w Polsce – 10 sierpnia 2023 r.). Pośpieszne uchwalenie tej nieprzemyślanej ustawy (bez wątpienia desperackiej i cynicznej próby zdobycia głosów społeczności poszukiwaczy-złodzieji dziedzictwa w ostatnich wyborach) było szkodliwym i kosztownym błędem ostatnich tygodni poprzedniego rządu. Moim zdaniem należy uchylić tę decyzję.
The use of metal detectors to hoik collectable archaeological and historical artefacts from sites is is NO WAY a method acceptable as "protecting" the buried archaeological heritage of Poland. We should say "no" to the looters, but insteasd the law passed by the former government gives them a free hand! This is a step back to the situation in Poland before 1918.

This revised Act was approved against the severe reservations of Polish scholars and legal specialist, it is a threat to the archaeological heritage of our country. The novelised act, through its faulty formulation (and inconsistence of the changes with other parts of the Act), will cause legislative chaos. In the opinion of the heritage professionals that will have to implement the Act in its new form, is unworkable in the present already under-invested state of the Polish archaeological conservation services.

In its current form, the Act goes against the principles adopted throughout the EU ("Convention for the Protection of the Archaeological Heritage of Europe (revised)" Valletta, 1992). Foreign specialists are looking with concern at these developments in Poland (see for example the 'statement of teh European Association of Archaeologists on the Protection of the Heritage in Poland - 10 August 2023).

Hastily passing this ill-conceived law (without doubt a desparate and cynical attempt to garner the votes of the commiunity of searchers-heritage stealers in the last election) was a damaging and costly mistake in the last weeks of the former governnment. In my opinion, the decision must be reversed.

Tuesday 26 March 2024

Scholar Did not Have His Day in Court


The wheels of justice turn slowly, on November 30, 2021 a document was submitted to Oklahoma Western District Court concerning the issue of a judgement in the case of default in the civil process for breach of contract in "Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. v. Obbink" ("It appearing from the docket maintained in this action that defendant Dirk D. Obbink has failed to appear or otherwise defend this action, the default of defendant Dirk D. Obbink is hereby noted"). There is now a judgement:
DEFAULT JUDGMENT : Judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiff Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. and against Defendant Dirk D. Obbink, in the amount of $7,085,100.00, together with prejudgment interest from February 5, 2013, at the rate of 6% per annum, as specified in 15 Okla. Stat.§ 266, postjudgment interest at the rate provided in 28 U.S.C § 1961 until the judgment is satisfied, and attorneys fees and costs. Signed by Judge David L. Russell on 03/11/2024.
Ouch. Note to self, academics really should not get mixed up in the antiquities trade, they should steer well away from it.

I believe this comment from autumn 2019 is the last statement by the scholar on the matter:
"“The allegations made against me that I have stolen, removed or sold items owned by the Egyptian Exploration Society collection at the University of Oxford are entirely false,” he stated. “I would never betray the trust of my colleagues and the values which I have sought to protect and uphold throughout my academic career in the way that has been alleged.
“I am aware that there are documents being used against me which I believe have been fabricated in a malicious attempt to harm my reputation and career. I am working with my legal team in this regard.”
I'd say not turning up in court to refute/falsify the allegations would in itself be an pretty big blow to his reputation, and let us see what it does to his career.

Monday 25 March 2024

Dealers Kicking up a Fuss Over EU Regulation for Importing Cultural Goods (2019/880)



The new import licensing regulation for cultural goods (2019/880) comes into force in the EU on June 28, 2025, The art and antiques trade associations have stepped up their campaign to “dilute the worst effects”.

For those not up to date, here is a summary of the Regulation (EU) 2019/880 on the introduction and the import of cultural goods
WHAT IS THE AIM OF THE REGULATION?
The regulation sets out the conditions for the introduction of cultural goods, and the conditions and procedures for the import of cultural goods, in order to safeguard humanity’s cultural heritage and prevent the illicit trade in cultural goods, in particular where such trade could contribute to terrorist financing.
It provides for a system of import licences for the most endangered cultural goods and importer statements for other categories of cultural goods. It does not apply to cultural goods which were either created or discovered in the customs territory of the European Union (EU) which are covered by Directive 2014/60/EU (see summary).

KEY POINTS
Cultural goods are defined as any item which is of importance for archaeology, prehistory, history, literature, art or science and belongs to the categories listed in the regulation’s Annex, Part A.
Meanwhile, instead of kicking up an unseemly and revealing fuss, the ADA explains : 'How will the EUs new import licensing for art and antiques affect you? Here's a brief guide' (Jun 19, 2023):
According to the law, relevant items – all of which must have originated from outside the EU – will be split into two types: those that need a full import licence, and those that can be brought in on the basis of an importer statement. What those items are is set out in a series of three tables in the Annex to the legislation, Parts A, B and C. Any attempt to import an item covered by Part A will be prohibited if it is deemed to have been exported illegally from its country of origin, whenever that was.
So who's kicking up a fuss about that? As the summary iterates:
Prohibited goods
The regulation prohibits the introduction into the EU of cultural goods listed in Part A of the Annex, if these have been illicitly removed from the countries where they were created or discovered (the general prohibition rule).
Seems pretty simple and non-controversial to me. What responsible dealer would want to be involved in handling illegally-removed material, itn other words culture crime? ADA then goes on to explain [so, now we are talking about Import licences and importer statements for the import of cultural goods (i.e. their release for free circulation in the internal market other than transit)]:
Items included under Part B are more than 250 years old and seen as being at greater risk of looting and trafficking than those covered by Part C, and so are subject to tighter rules – in other words these are the pieces that need an import licence rather than an importer statement, and no minimum value threshold applies. This means that unless customs tell the importer otherwise, a licence will be required for every individual item, even where they might be identical, low-priced pieces imported together in large groups.
I guess that's an argument for not trying to take part in mass export of antiquities from anywhere. Part B refers to archaeological objects or parts of monuments at least 250 years old, regardless of the value of these objects. "Applicants for a licence will have to demonstrate that the item in question was exported from the country where it was created or discovered in accordance with the laws and regulations of that country at the time (whenever that was – and it could be centuries ago)" and there is the rub. Cowboy dealers in the past could not have cared less about those laws, or working out whether they can show - or be shown by the seller - that any individual item they want to handle (profit from) has been acquired or moved in accordance with those laws.
Because many of these items will have left those countries decades or more beforehand, that proof may no longer survive, if it was ever there in the first place. So, the law provides a third way of qualifying for a licence: evidence that the item in question has been exported in accordance with the laws and regulations of the last country where it was located for an unbroken period of more than five years [...] [but] wasn’t there for temporary use, or was just there in transit, for re-export or transhipment. You must also show that it was exported from the country where it was created or discovered before 24 April 1972 – when the 1970 UNESCO Convention on trafficking of cultural goods first came into effect.

Items covered by Part C needing an importer statement are all individually valued at €18,000 or more per item and are more than 200 years old.
To clarify, Part C of the Annex covers items like zoological or botanical collections, coins, ethnographic objects, paintings, sculptures, manuscripts and books that are older than 200 years and have a value above €18,000. Which, apart from the odd dinosaur skeleton or two and incunabula /Gutemberg Bible or suchlike, is not going to be that many.

The regulation has applied in general since 27 June 2019. The general prohibition rule has applied since 28 December 2020. The obligation to obtain an import licence or submit an importer statement will become applicable when the centralised electronic system for the storage and the exchange of information between EU authorities becomes operational, or from 28 June 2025 at the latest.

The 1970 UNESCO Convention however was written in 1969 and many dealers have been ignoring its implications for them ever since. Time for that to STOP. Stop Taking Our Past. 


 


Sunday 17 March 2024

Dumbest Journalist Award 2024 Goes to Tracy

 Tracy is a Liz Truss lookalike and fancies herself as a journalist. So she wrote this: "How detectorists thrashed archaeologists at their own game" (Telegraph 16.03.2024)*. Dumb reporters in the UK are now unable to distinguish between archaeology and metal detecting. They seem to consider both are about finding things, not understanding things. So she talked to two tekkies, Julian and Sophie, did not bother with the archaeologists and wrote... a load of crap.  Of course she starts off with the fictional "Detectorists" series...

On a wider cultural level, TV shows such as BBC’s Detectorists; the Michaela Strachan-fronted Digging for Treasure and new Channel 5 drama Finders Keepers (starring Neil Morrissey, James Buckley and Fay Ripley), are driving the trend.
So it is not about greed at all, its "British kulcha" you see. But once she gets away from "wots on the telly", she flounders:
So popular has public metal-detecting become that every year 96 per cent of all metallic archaeological objects are found by a detectorist compared to 2 per cent from archaeological digs.
Tell that to any collections manager in a county museum. Where did she get that idea from, well, the metal detectrists of course. Innit, Trace? Then its the bit about how much money you too could make if youget a detector and "have-a-go". Cue: so-called Crosby Garrett helmet, Staffordshire Hoard ... but then a novelty, fake-find-Jonesy, the site-seeding tekkie from Wales who "just wanted to grab some glory and tried to pull some mild perception” (sic).
 
Then the de rigeur "it's better for mental health than walking the countrydide with: your wife/kids/ Suzie from the off-licence/ her sister/ birdwatching binoculars/ or dog" which is what they all say now... totally omitting the fact that digging holes into the archaeoogical record and pocketing bits of it, reported or not, is NOT good for the health of the archaeological record or cultural landscape. And THIS is what PAS should be telling them and every journalist in hearing distance.

Another tripup:
Last year, a law change meant that seeking lucrative bragging rights to a find (one coin or artefact) or a hoard (multiple finds in one concentrated area) is becoming more difficult for rogue detectorists. Previously, the UK definition of Treasure under the 1996 Treasure Act was any metallic object with at least 10% of its weight being gold or silver, that is at least 300 years old when found. In 2023, the definition was updated and now any object found after July 30 2023 that doesn’t meet that criteria but is made at least partially of metal, is at least 200 years old and provides insight into an aspect of national or regional history, archaeology or culture by its rarity, the location in which it was found or its connection with a particular person or event.
Where is the end of that sentence? And what does it have to do with "lucrative bragging rights"? And it just gets worse:
"Etiquette dictates that public detectorists should always seek the landowners’ permission before setting off [...]
That brings us to PC Plod's "nighthawking down". Duh. It's the law, Tracy, the law. 
anything found of possible historical or regional interest should be reported immediately to your local council’s Find Liaison Officer for verification and cataloguing. Depending on rarity and condition, most finds [...] will be passed on to museums.
Ummm- NO.

In my view, this is the DAMAGE the activity of PAS and the head-in-the-sand lethargic inactivity of other British archaeological bodeies are doing. A lot of people have got it into their heads that archaelogy is just about digging up old stuff, its nothing verey difficult, anyone can do it, there is no secret to doing it, just having a nack, archaeology is not really a discipline that you need to actually study to get to grips with. That's why you get some blonde "brand consultant/ event and content producer" who imagies she can just dash off an ill-researched text full of basic gaffes and it'll be just what the Torygraph and the Great British Public need. What was she thinking?

Read it here.

,

Thursday 14 March 2024

"Illegal Artefact Hunting Down", What are the facts?


The PAS estimates that there are 40000 metal detectorists in the UK, and Statista estimates the number of farmers in the UK 2021-2023 as approximately 104,700 (in the third quarter of 2023, compared with  103,900 in the previous quarter). Of these, in England the latest figures show that 54% of farms are owner occupied, but 31% mixed tenure and 14% wholly tenanted. Only the landowner can give metal detecting permissions. 

The metal detectorist can approach the landowner for a search-and-take permssion for a particular property - this may be a company or a member of Britain's nobility, but whoever they are, they will probably not be as easy to convince to let a stranger on the land however well they say they will behave there.

Here are some issues for them to sort out:

Crombie Wilkinson 'Permission for metal detecting on your land'
Farmers' World: 'Metal detectorists on your land – what farmers need to know'


Apart from property rights, there are insurance and liability issues, the possiblity that unknown intruders will cause unforseen damage etc. 

There are other landowners. Apart from private ownership, every single other piece of land is owned either by the Crown, Local Authorities, City Councils, or Town Councils. There is no such thing as public land in the UK there’s public access but that does not mean that it is public land. Many local authorities etc, and bodies such as the National Trust refuse to issue metal detecting permits for hobbyists. There is no list of such bodies. 

Most metal detectorists will want three or four 'permissions' in order to give their searching some elsticity and variety. For 40k detectorists that is between 120k to 160k search sites with permissions. 

If however there are only 100k farmers, and only 54k of them can issue ther own search-and-take permissions, and an unknown number of them will refuse outright, where is a metal detectorist to search legally?

The forums are full of people bemoaning the fact that they can't get 'permissions', there are webpages (here and here, for example)  and You Tube videos devoted to helping tekkies sort this out, there is also at least one book: David Villanueva, 'Permission Impossible: Metal Detecting Search Permission Made Easy' 2007.  The frequency this issue comes up shows it is a real problem in the UK.

Added to this is the fact that there are now commercial firms that offer landowners hundreds of pounds for a weekend's access to organize pay-to-dig events from which the organizers make a living. This is great for the many metal detectorist members who do not have to learn "how to get permissions" as they just pay the admission fee and get access to the land for a fixed period of time. As more and more landowners hear of this "business opportunity", even fewer wiill be willing to let individual hobbyists on their land for free. 

Also how many of these former participants, having scouted out the land, and its potential, cannot resist the temptation privately and clandestinely to revisit the site again in conditions of lesser visibility to have another go at an area they found 'productive' during the rally? This should not happen of course, but can anyone say that it does not? 

Likewise, the hobbyist who travels with a detector in his car boot out on a drive through the countryside and finding himself in a layby by a tall hedge on a quiet road with no traffic... and right by the road sign "Silver End", or "Old Hall Road", or "Viking Howe"... how many are not going to go through the hedge with their machine "just to see"?
    
I simply do not believe that real life actual circumstances support the glib assertion that "only a minimum of metal detectorists use their machine in situations that are not in accord with the law". It beggars belief. 

Where is the report? 


 




"Nighthawking Down", Right to Roam ?



     One approach to the problem    
Highflyer Sunday 24th January 2016quotequote all
Caught two guys walking around my field today early afternoon with metal detectors, when I asked them if they had found anything the reply was no. I politely asked them who had given permission to just enter my field and walk around with metal detectors, the reply was, "we have the right to roam", at this point I completely lost the plot and basically made a few suggestions that if they didn't leave immediately I would take matters into my own hands[...]

 
Creative Commons License
Ten utwór jest dostępny na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa-Bez utworów zależnych 3.0 Unported.