According to a metal detectorist "Big Tony from Bayonne" (February 4, 2014 at 2:04 pm), organising a PAS-like system for isolated finds would be a doddle:
Our lands are a far cry from several hundred year old relics. Yes we had Columbus and several other sea going societies landing hear – but even then they had 1492 years of documented history in Europe. Any such agreement here in the US would be really much simpler to handle because… we didn’t have Romans or Norsemen’s pillaging… I could ramble on with a history lessonNo, actually I do not really believe he could. The logic of whatever it is the gentleman wanted to say escapes me. Surely if historical sources are being dug out of the ground by collectors, there is a need for recording that information before it is lost, regardless of the age of the items. If eighteenth century military buttons are considered a historical resource in North America then erosion of that resource needs to be mitigated by reporting and recording. Maybe they will find an archaeologist in the US who knows what-is-what who is willing to brave their bad-mouthing and "outreach" to them.
What is interesting about this "discussion" (I use the term loosely) under the title "Who WANTS a PAS here?" ("here" being the USA) is that it emerges that US artefact hunters discussing it are all-too-eager to find excuses why, if such a Scheme were set up in the USA, few detectorists would actually work with it.
What the comments thread reveals is an open display of the sort of anti-cooperative attitudes (and chip-on-shoulder pretended gripes) which suggest that if something like England's PAS were set up by federal or state authorities, the takeup by US detectorists would in fact be no better than that suggested is the case in Britain by Heritage Action. A certain clique in the US metal detecting community strenuously deny that there is any veracity to the HA model (but then, what do they know?), but the same groups own reactions to the suggestion that a recording scheme be set up in the US show almost with one voice that the effects of having one in the US would look exactly like that. It is not clear what makes them think that they are in any way different from UK metal detectorists in this regard. One may comfortably extrapolate from the reactions published on the metal detecting blog that however much money and goodwill the one side puts into it, such a scheme in the US would not succeed in getting everybody working together for the common benefit.
This raises the question of what makes lobbyists for the antiquities trade, eager to see a finds-releasing PAS instituted in any other antiquity source country, think that artefact hunters (collectors themselves) would be any more keen than those of the US voluntarily to collaborate in such a scheme?
How about the ACCG International Affairs Committee initiate a series of parallel discussions on metal detecting forums in Bulgaria, Italy, Greece and wherever else the AGGC proposes should adopt a PAS-like system, to judge interest of the people on the ground in the American proposal? Indeed, since they have been keenly making this proposal for a number of years, why have they not done this yet ?
2 comments:
You obviously think the ACCG is better funded and more "all powerful" than it is. Anyway, the ACCG has already done what it can to promote PAS, including setting up a talk about it in the US Congress. The reality though is that there is no money these days to set up such a system on a federal level or to create a new bureaucracy to administer it.
Perhaps, a State University might consider setting up a database that could be used to record detector find on a State Level. This would have to be voluntary unless some state legislature would be interested in setting up a scheme and adequately funding it. I don't see that happening anywhere soon these days either, again for budgetary reasons, though I certainly would not oppose such an idea, particularly if it was voluntary. (Also keep in mind under our Fifth Amendment and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution, the state has no rights to artifacts found on private land unless they are "condemned" and full market value is paid.)
Ironically, it might be easier as a bureaucratic matter for the US State Department to fund a pilot program in a small country like Cyprus and see if it helps encourage the recording of artifacts. You would support that wouldn't you? I would.
I'm finding it difficult to follow your logic here. I thought you were proposing a PAS type organization (and the legislative framework to support it) to replace existing modes of heritage management in antiquity source countries.
You seem now to be suggesting something which functions in parallel, but how? How would you use a "university" and its staff to "regulate metal detecting" in Bulgaria, Cyprus or the USA?
You know, before you get on to Cyprus, I am really more interested in how you'd see such a system work within the specific situation and heritage management system of the US (known unknowns and all that). What kind of working relationship do you think Mr Stout, "Big Tony" et al would have with the universities? In Texas for example - with the state legislation Mr Stout discusses in that thread.
I look forward to hearing some substantive comments on these issues.
Post a Comment