Monday 16 February 2015

Big-Endians and Little-Endians

Jonathan Swift

". . . It began upon the following occasion. It is allowed on all hands, that the primitive way of breaking eggs before we eat them, was upon the larger end: but his present Majesty's grandfather, while he was a boy, going to eat an egg, and breaking it according to the ancient practice, happened to cut one of his fingers. Whereupon the Emperor his father published an edict, commanding all his subjects, upon great penalties, to break the smaller end of their eggs."
Swift's jibe against Protestant/Catholic animosity in Gulliver's Travels serves for any example of heated conflict over issues that others might find trivial. I think that the current conflicts between archaeologists and metal detectorists/collectors can be framed within this allusion. The egg, in this case, is the past, and the conflicts are over its treatment in the present.

Dick Stout's aptly named blog post "Reading Between the Lines..." contains a video which points to two rather illusory viewpoints: the first is that of some archaeologists about what drives metal detectorists, collectors and archaeologists, and the second is that of the detectorists who base their views of archaeology and archaeologists on what they hear in such conflict situations. If blame must be given, it must be heaped far higher on the archaeologist spokesmen of this viewpoint for the simple reason that it is archaeology's task to interpret past societies — a task far more difficult than interpreting present societies, so you would think that when an archaeologist starts to talk about collecting that person probably has least asked collectors a few questions about the activity.

There was confusion, on the video, between England and Wales' Portable Antiquity Scheme which is a voluntary reporting system for finds which organized what some people already did about reporting finds (usually to a museum or specialist) and the Treasure Act which replaced the old Treasure Trove laws and deals with what constitutes such "treasure"; public or private ownership, remunerations, etc.

An archaeologist's choice of religious terminology in saying that collecting is anathema to archaeology is telling, as is a statement where archaeological professional ethics are projected upon non-archaeologists. These are cult-clues. Many archaeologists know that a coin reference that they give in a report exists because of a collector's study.

Selling is equated with profit. This would seem very strange to a collector who frequently sells a poor example when a better one shows up. The sale might be to another collector, or a part trade to the dealer with the better example. Even the dealer is more frequently there for the lifestyle than the profit. An owner of a collectibles shop is a common media icon of the struggling small-businessman who won't give up because of the love for the subject. A metal detectorist said, defensively, that he has kept everything he found and never sells anything. I would be tempted to ask him if he also owns thirty-seven cats and tall piles of newspapers. Apparently, profit is a bad thing when applied to the archaeologically sacred.

The contrasts between archaeology as science and collecting and metal detecting as pleasure and profit are so ham-fisted that we can entertain only ignorance or condescension as an explanation for their use. A specialist collector might well know much more of the science concerning their collection than the average archaeologist who sees very little of such things. That is who you get to identify something for you. If you cannot find such a person, then contact a dealer who will have seen more than the average collector, though not as much as the specialist. The dealer's reputation and livelihood depends on such knowledge; the archaeologist might get refuted but won't lose any tenure over a mistake.

If you limit people's views of the past, and what is important or unimportant to that view, you limit the public's interest in the past. When the public does not care about something, it gets no funding. It does not matter which end of the egg you crack open, what is important is that the egg gets cracked open.

6 comments:

  1. "East is east and west is west and never the twin shall meet," wrote Kipling , and that I feel, just about sums up the status quo in the relationship between some archaeologists, and collectors/ detectorists.

    That said, there is enormous co-operation between Portable Antiquities Scheme archaeologists and the detecting fraternity. What really matters is that any newly-found artifact is reported and recorded in the correct manner. In the event that the coin or whatever, is handed back to the finder - who might not be a detectorist - for retention, or disposal for profit, matters not. What matters is that its been recorded.

    As for that video you mentioned, well, it boils down to the old press adage....'Dog Bites Man' - not news, BUT, 'Man Bites Dog' - NEWS!

    Anyway John, it was the usual good read. Thanks

    John Howland

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, John,I think that what is most needed for England and Wales in this topic is that detectorists who report to the PAS (or any other finds database) need to start selling antiquities and coins which have been given a PAS number. For one thing, I'm curious as to the increase in retail value that such a designation would create. We see the value added in high end antiquities with a chain of ownership but no one does the same for the bulk of cheap antiquities (in most cases this would be impossible to do anyway because of privacy laws).

    If the market establishes the value of reporting, the FLO's will start to get very busy indeed!

    Cheers,

    John

    ReplyDelete
  3. John, your last sentence..."It does not matter which end of the egg you crack open, what is important is that the egg gets cracked open" pretty much says it all, but unfortunately it does matter to most within the archaeological community. They want it all....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree, Dick. You would think that the archaeology community would engage in less yellow journalism if they wanted to be taken seriously. I suppose some of them believe that their audience is not clever enough to catch on to their spin.

      Delete
  4. Curiously, one of the whelps who yaps incessantly against private collections and collectors, promotes himself as an 'expert' on classical oil lamps and has a huge collection of them. Another, has a fine collection of antique Japanese prints.

    \Who are these nits trying to bullshit? Certainly not hard-nosed cynics like me, who've seen all this scatology before.

    What does worry me though, is the number of politicians, few of whom have a grasp of what's going on at street level, and who swallow anything put before them, provided it comes from an academic without checking-out the provenances. It's lazy politics and singles out those who are in it for the money and perks, rather than those who really care.

    Call me an old cynic? You betcha!

    John Howland


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anyone who insists that collectors insist on an unbroken chain of ownership going back to 1970 (or even earlier in some cases) should be summarily ignored. The vast majority of items valued less than a few thousand dollars have no such chain of ownership and no such chain could even be reconstructed. Also, the vast majority of antiquities are multiples like lamps. prints and coins. Most painted vases are standard shapes and painting subjects (like the owl skyphos and S. Italian vessels showing fashionable women). Most of this stuff gets stored away from public view and there is even a shortage of available space for it.

      I don't think much of most politicians at the best of times.

      John

      Delete