Skip to main content


I see that the ANS has published a piece by a Washington cultural property lobbyist ("Ancient coins and the cultural property debate"; see here). The lobbyist is well known for misunderstanding academic debate and again repeats his flawed view of how the Portable Antiquities Scheme operates in England and Wales (NOT Britain and Wales).

It may have escaped the lobbyist's notice that there has been a debate about the PAS in the Papers from the Institute of Archaeology. The forum piece posed the question: "The Portable Antiquities Scheme and the Treasure Act: Protecting the Archaeology of England and Wales?" PAS lists reported find-spots but the removal of archaeological material from the ground by unscientific methods can hardly be described as "help[ing to] preserve context". The two things are very different.

I also note that the quote "pays people to loot" (cited in the ANS "article") ---
many archaeologists remain dismissive of the U.K.’s program, claiming that it “pays people to loot.”
--- was coined, if I may use the term, not (apparently) by an archaeologist (or even by "many archaeologists") but by the coin collecting lobbyist himself.

If the ANS wants to join the debate about cultural property, could it select a more informed commentator than an individual "who provides lobbying services and advice to the International Association of Professional Numismatists and the Professional Numismatists Guild"? (The quotation is from the introduction written by Rick Witchonke [sic.].)

The third essay in the series will be by Dr Roger Bland of PAS.

Bookmark and Share so Your Real Friends Know that You Know


David- Thank you for publicizing my article, but couldn’t you do better in critiquing the content? PAS and the Treasure Act are not even the focus of this piece. Dr. Bland will write on those programs. As for your specific nits, yes I’ll have to admit that us Yanks sometimes confuse Britain with England when it also includes Wales. Perhaps the Brits themselves also sometimes confuse American geographical terms. As for preserving context, again I think your nit relates more to terminology than anything else. But certainly finders have called in archaeologists to excavate what they find on occasion and other times their reports have given archaeologists the opportunity to excavate otherwise unknown sites. Finally, I first heard the claim that PAS and the Treasure Act “pays people to loot” at a SAFE event. I’ve also heard archaeologists also claim that these programs give the public a “license to loot” and other similar formulations. I’m glad that you evidently disagree.

Peter Tompa
David Gill said…
Thank you for your comment. My aim was to focus on your views of the PAS published on the ANS website. Has PAS stopped (or reduced) the destruction of looting in England and Wales? Are all finds reported to PAS? You miss an essential point in your discussion.
And as an advocate of PAS for other nations, such as Italy, I would hope that you would know the difference between England, Wales, Great Britain and the United Kingdom. I would expect a lawyer to be a little more precise in his use of language.
I have noticed that you like to supply words and phrases as if they come from those who disagree with you. Is this a form of discourse that can be pursued with integrity?
I very much look forward to what Dr Roger Bland will write about PAS.
With best wishes

Popular posts from this blog

Codename: Ainsbrook

I have been watching (UK) Channel 4's Time Team this evening. The programme looked at an undisclosed field (under a potato crop) where a Viking burial had been found. The location in Yorkshire was so sensitive that it was given a codename: Ainsbrook. Here is the summary:
In late 2003 two metal detectorists were working in a field in Yorkshire. They found 'treasure' buried just beneath the surface – a collection of Viking material next to a body. Although they had been detecting on the site for a number of years, during which time they had made large numbers of finds, nothing they had uncovered previously compared with this. They decided to share their discovery with archaeologists.The programme explored the tension between metal-detectorists and the English Heritage sponsored archaeologists putting six trenches into the field based on a geo-physical survey. Finds made by the metal-detectorists did not easily map onto the archaeological features.

Part of the programme had an …

The scale of the returns to Italy

I have been busy working on an overview, "Returning Archaeological Objects to Italy". The scale of the returns to Italy from North American collections and galleries is staggering: in excess of 350 objects. This is clearly the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the material that has surfaced on the market without a history that can be traced back to the period before 1970. 

I will provide more information in due course, but the researcher is a reminder that we need to take due diligence seriously when it comes to making acquisitions.

Stele returns to Greece

The Hellenic Ministry of Culture has announced (Saturday 8 September 2018) that a stele that had been due to be auctioned at Sotheby's in London in June 2017 has been returned to Greece (Friday 7 September 2018). The identification had been made by Cambridge-based forensic archaeologist Dr Christos Tsirogiannis.

It appeared that the stele had been supplied with a falsified history as its presence with Becchina until 1990 contradicted the published sale catalogue entry. It then moved into the hands of George Ortiz.

A year ago it was suggested that Sotheby's should contact the Greek authorities. Those negotiations appear to have concluded successfully.

The 4th century BC stele fragment, with the personal name, Hestiaios, will be displayed in the Epigraphic Museum in Athens. It appears to have come from a cemetery in Attica.