Andrew, I would like to understand better the rationale behind the p.a.s., because whenever this kind of discussion is started in Italy it is always mentioned as the non plus ultra in terms of regulation of the subject matter. It appears to me that it is mainly aimed at occasional finds and possibly non-destructive searching (i.e. metal detector). I also kind of understand that the area of the find can be put off limits for further "independent" searching if something especially relevant is found. Could you please clarify these aspects? I think we (in Italy) often misunderstand the subject, and think (or sometimes wish) that one could go to a potential archeosite with a caterpillar.
Also, I would like to stress the fact that strict rules about antiquities have been brought about (sometimes as early as the end of 19th c.) because of the digs, not the other way round. I anyway agree that have been often inane, in the sense of unable to prevent looting. If you can read Italian, the one below could be an interesting reading. The author is a Rome newspaper journalist, not strictly an insider or a fanatic, as far as I know. The title translates into something like "Raiders of lost Art. The looting of archeology in Italy".
So this is a dead complex subject even to start talking about, and I am NOT an expert, but I will tell you what I know.
I'm currently reading "The Medici Conspiracy: The Illicit Journey of Looted Antiquities From
Italy's Tomb Raiders to the World's Greatest Museums". I find it quite balanced and factual to the extent that it deals with one specific route, exactly as described in the title. "From
Italy's Tomb Raiders to the World's Greatest Museums". Specifically that. There was a major problem with that specific route (
Getty Museum etc), and it seems now to be more or less fixed. None of the "World's Greatest Museums" are anymore acquiring illicitly gained art, and much has been given back.
The book does not address "collectables" of low value and very large quantity that end up in private
collections.
Nor does it address scattered site finds or lost objects by metal dectorists. Such have quite different origins. In the case of site finds from ploughed fields or the sides of
Roman roads, they usually have zero archaeological information except the sole fact of the geographic location that they were found, and what other material was found at the same place. Preservation of information from such finds mainly demands that the find location be known - that's all. When it
comes to
coin hoards, bearing in mind that 95% of
hoards were hidden OUTSIDE a residence, the only significant information one gets is geographic. Midden heaps: more or less the same applies. It's interesting to know which midden heap a buckle or coin
comes from, but archaeologists generally (there are exceptions) don't do stratified excavations on such.
It may be difficult to figure what point I am making. It is that the great majority of
ancient coins originate from locations where the only relevant information to an archaeologist is the geographic coordinates. They are 95% not inside houses or temples when they are found. Coins are found in excavations and can
help to date them but most coins are found in
hoards buried in fields, beside roads, in marketplace areas etc.
In this context, criminalising the finding, keeping and sale of such finds only causes the useful information -
geography, and other finds at the same place - to be lost. It has no impact, positive or negative, on the
Getty museum acquisitoins of
rare large high-quality
pottery or sculptures, as such
rarities are not generally found hidden by themselves in a
field (as a
hoard is),
nor by a roadside or marketplace areas (except maybe in very small fragments).
The PAS is indeed aimed at occasional finds and metal detecting. It is throwing up enormous amounts of information about trade patterns and movements of coinage and people (specially troops) and is enabling the users of this information to draw very new conclusions about
Roman Britain. It is not aimed at large controlled excavations at palaces or forts to tombs. In principal,
Italy could introduce a PAS without in any way weakening its control over archaeological sites, because the PAS is aimed at locations which are not controlled sites. It adds to information without increasing risk to controlled sites.
I visited Naples during the summer (it was far too hot..) and my photos of the trip can be found here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/sets/72157621933264382/detail/Of specific relevence to this posting was the exhibit in the Palazzo Reale on recovered works of art. It
had perhaps 100 high-end artworks, most famous being the following, rather badly photographed behind
glass:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahala_rome/3785570312/I was virtually the only visitor to the exhibit in the hour or so I spent there but was interested in the subject from having recently browsed "The Medici Conspiracy" that I mention above. The book starts with the rather well known story of the Euphronios
krater that I last saw in
New York in January 2008, and since returned to
Italy. The protection of antiquities is a complex issue, but a few observations from my visit were that
(1) the art works displayed were all top-notch
(2) there were prominent
Italian Police antiquities division placards in every room, but no commentary at all by which process the artworks left
Italy, or by which they were then returned. It left perhaps a deliberate impression that this was some enterprising sleuthing, and more of the same would unearth an equally large haul. Certainly there was no discussion at all on merits of different approaches to protecting our ancient patrimony whether by public or private means.
(3) Without being an exact count, rather tellingly about 60% of the displayed artworks were from American museums (mostly JP Getty, some
Met, some
MFA Boston), all cited as originating from "illegal excavations", and the remaining 40% were recorded as stolen from
Italian museums! In otherwise just about everything (excuse me if I missed some pieces) was in a citable museum
collection at some point.
The 100% of the items on display at the exhibit came from museums leads me to two conclusions. The first is that presumably now they lock the doors of the
Italian museums against egress, and of American museums against ingress, then if museums are the target then the problem should now be fixed. I doubt JP Getty will acquire any more such works.
The second is that this exhibition says (literally) nothing whatsoever about the academic merits, educational benefits or otherwise of private ownership, what sorts of museums should hold pieces that are in public ownership and what is the best way to protect (in the broadest sense) mankind's patrimony. It was a very interesting exhibit but missed a chance for a much wider exploration of some interesting issues.
Consider what I just said again. 100% of the items on display at the exhibit came from museums at some point. None at all came from private collectors without at least having been in a museum at some point.
That's a striking point. And it is not unrelated to the earlier points I made about coins being generally found in different locations to vases and
statues. The
Italian police have been focussed on tomb-raiders and looters of major archaeological sites - both of which they could protect better with a fence and a watchman.
Yet the legislation which affects the vast majority of collectors of coins is aimed at finds in fields and roadsides and marketplaces, causes these finds not to be recorded, stops collectors meaningfully contributing to historical science by their study, and has no impact on the separate issue of locking the doors of museums and protecting archaeological sites. It is simply perverse. In order to prevent the theft of items from known major sites, rather than protect the sites, these impediments to collecting / trade / lack of a PAS serve only to add further damage to scientific information from other locations, whilst not reducing that caused to existing major sites.
The results are telling: What do we know about ancient
Italian monetary circulation from records of site finds? With the exception of Pompeii, not a lot. What do we know about
England? A
ton of information.
It is perverse.
In all the above I should make clear that it is a layman's view. I have neither a commercial
nor professional role in the subject.
regards
Andrew