Pyramids in Vogue

Semir Osmanagić is perhaps the modern day Schliemann in the archaeological world. A Bosnian ex-pat who moved to America where he made his fortune, he subsequently turned actively to archaeology, where he made his claim to fame by proclaiming the hills surrounding the Bosnian town of Visoko to be pyramids constructed by an advanced civilization several thousand years ago. In an effort to promote a revisionist history of the world – one populated by several advanced civilisations that were subjected to cataclysmic destructions at the end of the last Ice Age in the event of sea-level rise, he has enlisted the media to spread his convictions, he undertaken lecture tours to put foward his views and expound upon the latest results, and employed team of archaeologists and other specialists to legitimate his claims. The parallels with Schliemann are perhaps superficial and only on the surface, but nevertheless uncanny.

Such figures always invite controversy, be it praise or censure, and indeed there is plenty to go around on both sides. Certainly, the writer of this article is unequivocally cynical. I’m one of the suspicious ones. Misrepresentation of the archaeological record can be blatant or go undetected, with considerable consequences, be it on the level of publication or collection of data. This is something Schliemann is particularly well-known for, as has been demonstrated in research of the past 25 years. Even so called great archaeologists, like Arthur Evans, were not above some falsification. Evans deliberately falsified photographs in his Palace of Minos volumes of Middle Minoan strata to make them appear more congenial towards his theories relating to the apogee of Minoan culture during this period.

Is Osmanagić merely a dilettante, eager to acquire intellectual respectability, or is he onto something? Such ad hominem arguments are circular and contibute little towards reaching any kind of understanding. Osmanagić’s activities present an opportunity in examining the nature of archaeological discourse, the genesis and consumption of knowledge through various media, and the role of archaeologists in society. For instance, in the context of the former Yugoslav republics, nationalism has frequently played a role in seeking to create a co-extension between abstract ideals and the material world in order to justify the undertaking of actions. Archaeology and history have often played significant roles in such endeavours, not merely in the Balkans. Osmanagić is not above repeatedly discussing the exceptional nature of Bosnia in the light of his theories, doubtless bolstering claims for his homeland’s significance in the context of human history and enhancing its cultural capital. Such seems to be the enthusiasm regarding the Bosnian pyramids that the Italians are finding their own too.

Schliemann did not in reality find Homer’s Troy. Instead he discovered a period of mercantile and cultural fecundity in the Aegean and Mediterranean. What Osmanagić has discovered remains to be seen. Perhaps the tale of Schliemann should urge us to exercise caution in evaluating Osmanagić’s claims, for the machinations involved in the production of archaeological knowledge are many in their variety, subtlety, and aims.

 

Unprecedented find, unprecedented fee

Oetzi, the famous ice mummy, found at the border of Austria and Italy has remained in the news ever since its unsettling find in 1991. After the border dispute about his national affiliations, settled in favour of the Italians, the dispute about the finder’s fee has finally been settled last week. An Italian court has ruled and reinstated that the council and its provincial museum should compensate the remaining finder. The finder’s fee agreed upon amounts to 150,000 Euros, which seems to be a better reflection of the “25% of a discovery’s value” than the 10,000,000 of the pre-Euro Italian currency (i.e. 5,000 Euros) proposed in 1994. However, in several respects it sets a precedent: not only is the amount of the finder’s fee itself unprecedented, but also the way in which it was settled has far-reaching implications . The court rule takes into account the revenues of the museum that currently houses the unprecedented find. In other words, the value of Oetzi has been set after the fact and not according to the intrinsic value of the archaeological find, as for instance in the British Treasure Act. It would seem that we can expect more long-lasting law suits to follow in other cases based on this precedent. We can only hope for the heirs of the finders that the fee is not cursed, as the find itself, but for archaeology it is far from a blessing.

Online register of archaeological sites in Turkey

The Türkiye Arkeolojik Yerleşmeleri (TAY) project has just launched an updated online database and searchable map of archaeological sites, TAY GIS. The launch is reported in the Turkish Daily News.

The register allows searches of sites from the Palaeolithic, Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Bronze Age across Turkey. There are also other search options, including a facility to look up destroyed or damaged archaeological sites (tick the ‘tahribat türü’ or ‘destruction type’ tab). The type of destruction is described for each site – agriculture, looting (illicit digging), contemporary settlements and road building.

I’ve previously had my doubts about the TAY project’s aim of recording “all” archaeological sites in Turkey. But the enthusiasm and prolific output of the project team and the way that information is made so widely accessible makes this an invaluable resource – and makes my theoretical quibbles sound quite trivial!

Meet the ‘responsible’ lithic collectors

While browsing the web for information on antiquities sales in the US, I found myself at a forum for discussing how to find and purchase ancient chipped stone tools. This site linked to a number of regional and national groups and dealers. Clicking through to some of these websites, with names like ‘Arrowhead Hunters’ and ‘Goodflint’, it was clear that these were small time vendors and chat rooms for people who collected lithics as a hobby, most featuring galleries of artefacts for sale, at around the $100 mark, but some going into the thousand dollar range.

Being slightly familiar with treasure hunting / metal detecting in the UK, it seemed that these artefact collectors were considerably less informed about preserving and recording archaeological context, though not necessarily more reckless than their British counterparts. The typical ‘code for responsible collecting’ read something like the advice at Texas Cache:

Artifacts are special pieces of ancient history. Please dig responsible and preserve your finds through photographs and proper documentation. Happy hunting!

It made me think again about the concept of ‘responsible artefact collecting’. Can there be such a thing in this day and age? Unfortunately, the notion seems to have been given credence, perhaps inadvertently, by people otherwise opposed to looting. Taking a photo, covering the hole you’ve dug, recording a six figure grid reference – these are what counts for responsible according to some codes. But surely the very act of treasure hunting, looting, looking for objects for their own sake, is irresponsible. How much responsible artefact collecting can be done before a land becomes so degraded to be archaeologically useless?

Treasure hunters duped

As the legal proceedings by the Spanish government against maverick American treasure hunting outfit Odyssey Marine Exploration drag on, a less high-profile story involving maritime loot has just concluded in Australia.

The case involved a businessmen, Christopher Woolgrove, luring investors into handing over more than $2m, to lift the lucre from a gold-laden Portuguese shipwreck off Sumatra. Which never existed. In 1995 he was convicted for touting a similar scheme. But this time he used the ‘credibility’ of unabashed underwater treasure hunter Captain Mike Hatcher, who claimed that the episode had tainted his ‘reputation’.

 

What is responsible metal detecting?

Tomorrow I’m giving a talk on current treasure hunting practices and policy in Britain. I will focus on the kinds of information that metal detecting is able (and unable) to offer, and critique the popular concept of ‘responsible metal detecting’.

My interest in this subject grew from research into the material culture of pilgrimage in medieval England. This focused on a distinct class of metal artefact, ampullae, that were produced in the 15th and early 16th centuries. Many hundreds have been found across England in recent years, as a direct result of metal detecting.

We only know about these objects because the people who found them have reported them – to finds officers who are employed as part of the Portable Antiquities Scheme. The PAS encourages metal detector users to document and report their finds, even if they do not fall under the remit of ’treasure’ as defined by the Treasure Act 1996. 

Those who record and report their finds are seen to practice ‘responsible metal detecting’, as opposed to irresponsible detecting, or ‘nighthawking’. The concept is widely used and accepted, including among archaeologists opposed to looting (eg. Renfrew), but what counts as ‘responsible’ is poorly defined and highly subjective.

The voluntary code of practice issued by the Department for Culture Media and Sport [pdf] and endorsed by several interest groups including archaeology and metal detecting institutions, focuses on adhering to trespass and antiquities laws, minimising disturbance of undisturbed land, recording findspots and reporting finds. What this code does not do is to encourage the application of best practice sampling and recording strategies that would be expected of archaeologists. Although the Portable Antiquities Scheme does offer additional advice about recording non-metal artefacts and ecological context, there is still a focus on the metal artefact as the be all and end all. This, in my view, is not very responsible. It misleadingly conflates artefact collecting with archaeology, and it gives primacy to the artefact out-of-context, encouraging an antiquarian approach.

I do not say that there is no information to be gained from metal detecting. In the case of medieval ampullae the discovery, reporting and cataloguing of these objects has greatly expanded the repertoire of known examples and allowed more precise dating and consideration of their use. Indeed, the fact that so many have been found on cultivated land where metal detectorists operate is itself significant, and gives some contextual information. But nothing that was not already known. Their distribution does seem to follow patterns, but are these patterns of ancient deposition, or modern metal detecting, finds recording and reporting? I want to believe that there is some contextual knowledge to be gleaned. But it is a high cost to pay if these slivers of information are coming at the expense of degrading the archaeological landscape.

 

The Pitt Rivers panopticon

The Pitt Rivers Museum in Oxford, one of the world’s most resolutely anachronistic exhibition spaces (but see recent shrunken heads debate), has on its website a fabulous virtual tour.

Pitt Rivers Museum in 360 Degrees allows panoptic views of the exhibition hall from 30 positions on three levels of the building. The museum is currently closed for renovation, so this is a great document to see how radically they can maintain the status quo!

I expect this 360 degree technology has been used at other museums and sites, but it seems especially well suited to the crowded wunderkammer that is the Pitt Rivers. What is important is the dense coverage over a small space, meaning that views are not ‘best of’ scenes, but allow the viewer genuine choice over where to look.

 

Egyptian mummies censored

In February, we heard about a public consultation being conducted by the Manchester Museum, to assess attitudes towards putting human remains on display. This was in preparation for the ‘repatriation’ of Lindow Man for an exhibition that opened in April, where visitors are given the choice of seeing, or not seeing the corpse. 

No such choice is given to visitors of the Egyptian galleries. In a move that resembles the Victorian habit of inserting fig leaves, dismembering statues, and adding skirts to table legs, Manchester Museum has ‘respectfully’ covered its mummified bodies in white cloth. Naturally, the Daily Mail relished this case of ‘political correctness gone mad’:

The decision, which has prompted wholesale derision, came after Manchester Museum said it had received ‘feedback’ from the public saying it was ‘insensitive to display unwrapped mummies’.

As I said in my previous post, such actions reflect a willingness to accommodate marginal and pious outlooks in a flamboyant display of being inclusive, at the expense of everyone else. It’s hard to believe that Manchester’s distinguished Egyptology department supports this exercise. More likely the initiative came from some public relations quarter – which as anyone who has worked in today’s museums knows – have far more influence than curators.

The museum’s own Egypt blog has a post on the subject which has received over a hundred comments, most of them opposed to the ‘policy’.

 

Metal detecting in Northern Ireland – the rulez

I’ve noticed a few hits reaching this page using the search terms ”metal detecting” and “Northern Ireland.” There are significant differences between the laws in Northern Ireland and Scotland and those in England and Wales. The following explanation by Roger Bland should help:

“In Northern Ireland the old common law of Treasure Trove applied and so the Treasure Act has effect in the province (with, however, its own Code of Practice). However, there is also in Northern Ireland a statutory duty to report all finds of archaeological objects, as well as legal controls over archaeological excavations, neither of which exists in England or Wales. The 1995 Historic Monuments and Archaeological Objects (Northern Ireland) Order includes a statutory requirement under Article 43 for the finder of any archaeological object to report the circumstances of its finding and the nature of the object within fourteen days. the object should be reported to the Ulster Museum, the police or the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland, who may retain it for up to three months. In addition the Order makes it an offence to excavate any land while searching for archaeological objects without a licence, which means that metal detecting is at best a dubious activity. The Order also contains provisions, under Article 29, for archaeological objects found on scheduled monuments. [...]“

Bland, R. 2004: ’The Treasure Act and the Portable Antiquities Scheme: a case study in developing public archaeology’, in N.Merriman (ed.), Public Archaeology. Routledge, London: 272-91

 

Diamond miners find shipwreck

Geologists prospecting for diamonds off the coast of Namibia have stumbled on a 16th-century shipwreck. The ship’s cargo included copper ingots, elephant tusks and a hoard of Spanish and Portuguese coins. Cannon parts and astrolabes, navigational devices used to measure the angle between the sun and the horizon to establish latitude, were also found.

Dieter Noli, who provides archaeological advice to diamond cartel De Beers, says the ship’s history is likely to be documented.

Noli said the large amount of copper could mean the ship had been sent by a government looking for material to build cannons. Trade in ivory was usually controlled by royal families, another indication the ship was on official business. On the other hand, why did the captain have so many coins? Shouldn’t they have been traded for the ivory and copper? “Either he did a very, very good deal. Or he was a pirate,” Noli said.

The discovery is intriguing in itself, and also because it shows how big business – especially mining and engineering companies – come into contact with archaeology, and how they deal with it. In this case the miner was Namdeb, a joint venture between De Beers and the Namibian government.

The company had cleared and drained a stretch of seabed, building an earthen wall to keep the water out so geologists could work. Noli said one of the geologists saw a few ingots, but had no idea what they were. Then the team found what looked like cannon barrels. The geologists stopped the brutal earth-moving work of searching for diamonds and sent photos to Noli …

From what’s written it appears that Namdeb acted responsibly by allowing the wreck to be investigated. This might be down to the Namibian government’s involvement in the project. Mining News reports:

The discovery was made inside the Namdeb Mining Area 1, which is only accessible with permits issued by the Ministry of Mines and Energy and the Government’s Protective Resources Unit. This protective zone ensured that the wreck was secure, allowing it to be thoroughly researched.

Whether there was a systematic, documented rescue excavation is not clear.

What can be said is that De Beers, whose product depends solely on its public perception, have done a good PR job and have received extensive media coverage. Heritage destruction is often accompanied by spin, in the form of media releases, superficial assessments and buying off academics with petty grants. That is not necessarily happening here, but it does happen.

There’s a term in the environment movement – greenwash - that describes how companies project or spin their ethical credentials, or make superficial gestures, whilst not taking any real steps to be more green. I’m not saying that this is such a case, but let’s beware also of heritagewash.