PAS and controlled archaeological excavation

The Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) "allows finds discovered by members of the public to be recorded for the benefit of researchers and the public alike" (Michael Lewis, press release). And I noticed that The Times on Saturday (Mark Bridge, "For history and riches go treasure-seeking", 27 December 2014) was discussing how PAS had reported its millionth find. Yet we also know that the PAS database includes material from "Controlled archaeological excavation". So a major Roman coin hoard excavated by archaeologists in Bath appears in the database.

One of the things that was discussed by Gill and Chippindale is the difference between objects with a secure archaeological context (a1), and those with a reported or alleged find-spot. To what extent is the PAS database falling into the 'a2' (or a3 / a4) categories? How far can we trust reported find-spots? ['a' stands for archaeology. And this is another reason why I am trying to discourage the use of the obsolete term "provenance".]

There are clearly some important methodological issues that need to be addressed in the nuanced design of the database.

And perhaps this is where the Micropasts project enters the debate.

It is important to notice that even quality 'tabloids' like The Times do not check the facts behind press releases.

Comments

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.

Looting Matters

Search This Blog