I beg to move amendment No. With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam Mr. Allan said that the key to the narrowness of the Bill was in clause 2.
Any object that would previously have been Treasure Trove, but does not fall within the specific categories given above. Post a Comment. Members for their comments about my officials and the help Cases britain finding tainted archaeological objects they extended to the promoter of the Bill. I know that the Bill will stand the test of time and that many people, not only in this country but in those that are seeing their cultural heritage destroyed, will have reason to be grateful for him. An object may be of interest or of value, but the context in which it is found—or not found when it had been expected to be found—is often far more important in archaeological terms. I can understand that sunken vessels may well be historic monument sites. I beg to move amendment No. Mr Wicks has already attracted attention of antiquities trade watchers in the past. Chope before adding my support to amendment No. Gentleman wants me to say that the Government have reflected on his comments in Committee and decided that the wording of the Adult sex group in basinger florida amendment is better, I am happy to do so.
Columbus cum christo. Digging into archaeology law in the U.K. and U.S.
Every year many thousands of objects are discovered, many of these by metal detector users, but also by people whilst out walking, gardening or going about their daily work. January This disruption was felt far beyond Britain, even beyond Europe, as most Polaris um pro pegs nerf bars the great Near Eastern empires collapsed or experienced severe difficulties and the Sea Peoples harried the entire Mediterranean basin around this time. The first distinct culture of the Cases britain finding tainted archaeological objects Palaeolithic in Britain is what archaeologists call the Creswellian industry, with leaf-shaped points probably used as arrowheads. Prehistoric Europe. Page options Print this page. It produced more refined flint tools but also made use of bone, Cades, shell, amberanimal teeth, and mammoth ivory. Excavations Cases britain finding tainted archaeological objects Howick in Northumberland uncovered evidence of a large circular building dating to c. Who will have access to the information about my finds? Fujimura planting artefacts at Kamitakamori. They ate cattle, sheep, pigs and deer as well as shellfish and birds. I have been metal-detecting on a local farmer's land, with his agreement, and have discovered a whole range of material from Roman to modern times. Staffordshire Hoard Helmet Reconstruction, can we How do I report my find s? A large plain between Britain and Continental Europe, taintrd as Doggerlandpersisted much longer, probably until around BC.
With the exception of Treasure finds see below all archaeological finds found in England , Wales or Northern Ireland are normally the property of the landowner.
- The best archaeological discoveries are those which challenge our ideas of human history, reveal new secrets all together, and above all capture the imagination.
- A blog commenting on various aspects of the private collecting and trade in archaeological artefacts today and their effect on the archaeological record.
- Several species of humans have intermittently occupied Britain for almost a million years.
- The national and international antiquities laws that looters and smugglers including Schultz violate have largely developed during this century.
- British Broadcasting Corporation Home.
- We tend to think of fake antiquities as being a problem created by the illicit trade in cultural objects.
I beg to move amendment No. With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam Mr. Allan said that the key to the narrowness of the Bill was in clause 2. Amendment No. I would not classify as a significant cultural object a brick taken from a listed building that had been demolished, but under the Bill"s broad definitions it would be a tainted cultural object because it had been taken from a listed building without consent.
However small a piece of masonry it was, it could be caught by the Bill. I hope that the promoter will be persuaded to limit the provision to significant historical, cultural or architectural objects.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Westbury Dr. Murrison suggested in the previous debate, we should restrict the scope of the Bill. I should like to explore with the promoter why he seeks to extend the definition of "monument" to include vehicles, aircraft and other movable structures. I can understand that sunken vessels may well be historic monument sites. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge Mr.
Randall is an expert on sunken vessels, or parts of sunken vessels. I do not understand why old cars—old bangers—left in listed buildings or parts of aircraft should be protected under the Bill.
I look forward to hearing from the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam why he thinks the Bill should cover such objects. I am sure that in the context of weapons of mass destruction we will discuss where there is a sign of them or just a trace, but in the context of the Bill, if we are creating criminal offences, there should be a sign of the object"s previous existence—something that can be seen—rather than a trace that can be seen only under a microscope or with the expertise of a scientist.
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that a trace of biological weapons could be extremely significant? I certainly accept that, but I am not sure that biological weapons have yet become cultural objects, although I know that they are achieving a significance similar to that for the Government. Gentleman makes my point: should the mere trace of a cultural object give rise to criminal sanctions?
I hope that the promoter will see the strength of the argument in support of the amendment. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Christchurch Mr. Chope for tabling amendments so that we can explore clause 2, which defines the scope of a possible offence.
He eloquently explained that his amendments would narrow that scope. He used the word "significant" in the first two amendments, but the general point is that objects should be substantial.
I shall resist those amendments and speak to my amendment No. Amendments Nos. Under clause 2 3 , an offence must have been committed. That creates the significance threshold that the hon. Gentleman seeks through his amendments.
An offence must have been committed, so by definition we are speaking only of objects that have the legal protection of heritage law. I hope that he will accept that heritage law is not applied willy-nilly and that a building or archaeological site must already be significant to achieve protection under listed building or sites and monuments legislation. Looking abroad, I would surprised if many of the places where looting takes place had strict heritage laws.
In many places, objects might be property of the state rather than being subject to heritage law. Would that mean that the objects were outwith the provisions, or would they be included? Gentleman is right to raise the international aspects of the Bill, and I am grateful for his close attention. He is right that the scope of heritage protection laws varies in other countries and that that is significant in the context of the Bill.
The Bill aims to support the United Kingdom"s membership of the UNESCO convention on illicit trade in antiquities and, by doing so, to give an international assurance that we will classify as tainted any material removed in contravention of the law of any other state and therefore not allow it to be dealt in United Kingdom markets.
That is a very important element of the Bill, which originated, in a sense, in the need to address that potential mischief.
Protection laws in other states vary. Some provide that all heritage material belongs to the state. Indeed, within the United Kingdom, Scottish law points a little more in that direction than that of England and Wales.
The Bill operates by seeking not to prejudge heritage law, but to reinforce it by saying that if an object has been taken in contravention of another country"s law it will be tainted in the United Kingdom. Member for Uxbridge was right to say that such issues will vary, but I think that that is the most workable and practical approach. An approach that sought to define a different threshold for other countries was considered, involving bilateral agreements with Italy, Greece and so on, but it was discounted in favour of that which has been adopted, whose onus is on knowing whether an item has been legally or illegally obtained from the third country.
Gentleman is raising as many questions as he is answering. Let us take the example of property that belongs to somebody, after which there is a change of regime and the state says that no private property should be held and that any such property is therefore state property. The person who previously owned the property, which could have been in their family for generations, might decide to get rid of it or sell it.
Would that constitute an offence? There is a separate regime for illegal exports. The Bill seeks to remain narrow. Gentleman said that I had raised as many questions as I had answered. This is an area in which we cannot be entirely definitive, as there are problems concerning a lack of regime and, as he pointed out, the way in which legislation can change.
All we can do—this is why I point to the United Kingdom"s accession to the UNESCO convention as a significant aspect—is attempt to make our law as effectively as we can and accept that United Kingdom courts may have to make judgments about whether the law that they are asked to work with was properly enforced. I do not think that we can cater for every eventuality, but the Bill will go a long way towards supporting our UNESCO convention membership and the general thrust of law on illicit trade in antiquities, which seeks to ensure respect for each other"s legal codes.
I cannot go into the detail of every regime change that could take place, but I think that the general principle is a sound one. The matter was considered and discussed by the panel of experts, and the principle that has been used is the one that it felt was most likely to be effective.
I should like to cite a nitty-gritty example from my constituency, where there is a grade 1 listed building called Highcliffe castle, which has recently been restored. In recent years, its owners have been selling off pieces of masonry from the castle, which are now adorning people"s gardens in Christchurch. Are those cultural objects tainted? Such items are not significant, but they are cultural objects.
Gentleman cites a very good example. Provided that the building"s owners had listed building consent, the objects will not be tainted in any way. The key point in clause 2 is whether an offence was committed and, therefore, in the context of the UK, whether materials were taken contrary to listed building consent.
The architectural salvage trade has properly raised concern about the issue. When a building has been demolished or altered with all the consents in place, there will be no problem whatsoever. Any material from the building can be sold on to the market in accordance with whatever other legal provisions exist.
The Bill has no locus where people have listed building consent. The concern about the word "significant" is that it would set up a double test: first, whether an offence had been committed—the test that is already included in the Bill—and, secondly, whether the material was significant. I think that the additional second test is unnecessary.
If the offence has been committed, the matter should be serious enough for the offence set out in the Bill to be considered. We should not have to reach a second threshold of significance. Chope was kind enough to indicate that amendments Nos. On amendment No. I refer him to battlefield sites and second world war plane wrecks.
Such sites can properly be listed as protected. Increasingly, if we are future-proofing the Bill, we must recognise that some objects and sites need protection in respect of the longer description that it sets out.
Such objects might include aeroplanes or vehicles that require protection, rather than merely ships or vessels. I hope that he will accept that that is the reason for the broader scope, especially in respect of battlefield sites. In respect of amendment No. Gentleman referred to traces and the fact that scientific detection is required. He is right: archaeological scientific detection is required.
One of the key points is that traces can be the most important element of an archaeological site. The Bill seeks to bolster the protection of those sites. Somebody who digs up an archaeological site, as happened recently at Yeavering Bell, can extract objects that may be of little value in themselves, but will destroy material of huge archaeological and scientific value. Frequently, such material takes the form of traces. For example, in respect of Anglo Saxon burials, the nature of the ground and soil in Suffolk is such that the skeletal remains will frequently have disappeared, leaving only a trace in the sand.
Such a trace will have huge scientific and archaeological relevance, but we could not deem it substantial. Any test saying that it was okay to destroy such material as long as nobody took large objects made of silver or gold would be anathema to archaeologists and contrary to the purpose of the Bill.
Can the hon. Gentleman explain how one can deal in traces in the sand? This is the season for sandcastle building, but it is difficult to preserve sandcastles. Likewise, how could anybody move a trace in the sand, deal in it and open themselves to prosecution under the Bill?
Every year many thousands of objects are discovered, many of these by metal detector users, but also by people whilst out walking, gardening or going about their daily work. The possibility that groups also travelled to meet and exchange goods or sent out dedicated expeditions to source flint has also been suggested. Copper was mined at the Great Orme in North Wales. The eruption destroyed the city and killed its inhabitants, a tragic story indeed but one which has left us with a vast archaeological site and a hoard of Roman treasure. The bilateral agreement with El Salvador on Pre-Hispanic archaeological material was amended and extended in March Are you only interested in seeing finds made by metal-detector users?
Cases britain finding tainted archaeological objects. Navigation menu
Faking the Past: when archaeologists commit fraud
A blog commenting on various aspects of the private collecting and trade in archaeological artefacts today and their effect on the archaeological record. Nothing to do with eBay my friend you can get sued for slandering people's information on here digest you keep your comments to your self.
Somebody called Mr Wicks from Hailsham is an eBay trader his name and address are published on the sales offers of the two dealers I mention so I do not know what "slandering people's information" is meant to mean, if I am merely reporting for my readers' benefit what is in the public domain. The four men are named in court documents released to the press. They are innocent unless found guilty.
As for my comments, the global archaeological heritage belongs to us all and I think if somebody is going to be profiting from its sale, then we should all be looking at the way they go about it and its only by talking about it that we can establish what 'best practice' is. Anyway, we will all be watching the trial of these four, and maybe some more information will emerge.
I imagine that since the DICOO Act has so far not been used much, this time the authorities will make a bit of a show trial of it all. I did not see this dealer offer any Anglo-saxon gold objects, but he certainly has some interesting other items on sale at this moment I wonder where they came from and what paperwork there is The hearing has just opened its doors and is at an early stage!
But also if you hold such information regarding this individual you can be sworn in on oath to explain why you hold and released such information before a court has ordered its release. So, "Dr peters sic " [uncapitalised, new account, two views, poor punctuation and syntax] what you are saying is that the West Media police press officer, the BBC and Eastbourne Herald are in some way all in contempt of court placing that information in the public domain.
Have you written to each of them too explaining the way you see this? It is a matter of public interest and there is nothing "illegal" in giving the information that these men are appearing in court, there is nothing illegal in saying public information what they are charged with, and there will be nothing illegal in me following this case and saying what the verdict is.
In the same way there is there nothing "illegal" in pointing out one of the men accused of handling 'tainted' aretafcts has the same name and place of residence as a known eBay dealer who goes under the same name. There is nothing "confidential" about information that has specifically been made public by West Mercia police about a case they have been dealing with for over two years. I think it is going to be a show trial 'pour encourager les autres'.
Post a Comment. The gold and silver coins, a gold ring, gold arm bracelet, crystal sphere, and silver ingots were found in a village near Leominster, Herefordshire, in It seems that the man named as Simon Wicks is an eBay seller going by the name of ace-antiques aka Britanicus The addresses match.
Are these charges the result of PAS monitoring of eBay? Mr Wicks has already attracted attention of antiquities trade watchers in the past. According to the places of residence given in the media, the three Welsh men live between 73 and 85 km from the alleged findspot.
Posted by Paul Barford at Newer Post Older Post Home. Subscribe to: Post Comments Atom. Since the early s or even longer a primary interest has been research on artefact hunting and collecting and the market in portable antiquities in the international context and their effect on the archaeological record.
View my complete profile. DW Documentary: Fakes in the art world - The myste The Legacy of the Portable Antiquities Collecting Men in court over Leominster Anglo-Saxon treasure The Polish Key, what's in a Name?
British Archaeological Professionals on Archaeolog Staffordshire Hoard Helmet Reconstruction, can we Looted Byzantine mosaic goes on display at Cyprus PAS Archaeologi What do Metal Detectorists use their Artefact Coll Popular Posts.
Metal Detecting Ancient Woodland. I was alerted by a reader to some metal detecting videos on the "iDetect" You Tube channel that shows a bloke hoiking aarttef Liechtenstein Raider with metal detector Caught in the Act and Deported.
Ending Freedom of Movement creates a prison not a fortress. Statement from Prof. Dirk Obbink. Dirk Obbink, through his attorneys has officially denied allegations that have recently been made :. Papyrology Bingo. Created by Jona Lendering JonaLendering featuring frequent phrases heard in discussions in papyrology: hat tip Roberta Mazza. Uncertainties about Parwich Hoard. Meanwhile on a British Metal detecting forum near you. There is a high level of ethical awareness among the "responsible metal detectorists" of that little island off the coast of Eur How Did This Come on the Market?
Posting comments About posting comments to this blog, please see here. Disclaimer Disclaimer, see here. Abbreviations used in this blog "coiney" - a term I use for private collector of dug up ancient coins, particularly a member of the Moneta-L forum or the ACCG "heap-of-artefacts-on-a-table-collecting" the term rather speaks for itself, an accumulation of loose artefacts with no attempt to link each item with documented origins.