It took me a while, but I finally discovered the “download” button on SSRN. I therefore had the opportunity to read Dr. Derek Fincham’s Portable Antiquities Scheme (PAS) article, “A Coordinated Legal and Policy Approach to Undiscovered Antiquities: Adapting the Cultural Heritage Policy of England and Wales to Other Nations of Origin,” from the International Journal of Cultural Property.
If you are interested in potential solutions to the issue of looting, I would recommend reading the article in its entirety. The author does not advocate for a sudden transition to a PAS system in source nations, but instead evaluates the strength and merits of the PAS, contrasting it with the current system in other nations, including Scotland. He suggests pilot programs to evaluate whether the benefits that the UK and Wales have experienced could be effectively replicated. He admits that cost is the largest obstacle to implementing a PAS in source nations, and makes suggestions as to how that obstacle might be surmounted.
The focus of Dr. Fincham’s article, however, is not to advocate for the widespread use of PAS, but instead to present a reasoned appraisal of that system. From that appraisal, he concludes two aspects of PAS should be widespread: first, that finders of true chance finds must be rewarded to encourage reporting and, second, that educating the public on heritage and context can be effectively pursued through community outreach programs.
In his conclusion, Dr. Fincham rightly comments, “Heritage scholars persisting in polarizing their policy discussions will leave no room for meaningful discourse.” PAS might not work just anywhere, true enough, but evaluating attempts to systematically and directly confront the plague of looting is a worthwhile effort. Only through such efforts will heritage enthusiasts of all ilks begin to bridge the gap between dissidence and synergy.
What do you think? Click the comment button below. Guest comments welcome.
Cultural Property & Archaeology Law 
PK Tompa
November 20, 2008
For the latest on the PAS and Treasure Acts, see:
http://culturalpropertyobserver.blogspot.com/2008/11/more-success-for-treasure-act-and-pas.html
There is a recognition that the PAS needs more funding to continue its successful operations.
Sincerely,
Peter Tompa
Paul Barford
December 3, 2008
Well, as a step towards “meaningful discourse”, I’d be interested to hear which countries you think could most usefully take part in this bold experiment, and why you chose them. To run a pilot scheme in the way you describe, you’d have first to dismantle any existing “restrictive” laws; how do you think “the market” (Fincham p. 348) would be able to achieve that and what could induce those countries to pay heed to its suggestions?
Kimberly Alderman
December 3, 2008
Paul,
As a general note, I’ve noticed you have acrimonious relationships with some people on the blog circuit. I am not interested in having this sort of relationship with you or anyone else online. I have made it clear that I do not sympathize more with archaeologists or collectors. I am not keen on the tone you used in the comment I am responding to. Cultural property law is a scholarly interest for me, not a mud wrestling frenzy or a cockfight. Let’s treat eachother well, and keep a non-contentious tone.
As to this specific post, no where did I suggest running a pilot program. I summarized Derek’s piece which does. I did suggest “evaluating attempts to systematically and directly confront the plague of looting.” There is no need to restrict this to certain countries.
In the interest of meaningful discourse, if you would like to refer me to an article which challenges Fincham’s analysis of the PAS system, I would happily consider doing a post on it on par with this one.
Thank you for your interest and I’ll look to hear from you.
Kimberly
Paul Barford
December 4, 2008
> Cultural property law is a scholarly interest for me <
It is for me too. I asked a question (and I really do not see anything particularly “contentious” in the tone of my brief message) because I wanted to learn your response to some rather fundamental problems with the model you seemed to be very enthusiastic about.
Kimberly Alderman
December 4, 2008
Paul,
There are only a few sentences in the post which could be construed as anything other than a summary of Fincham’s work. They suggest reading the piece, and that it is a good thing to consider alternatives to looting.
I am not “enthusiastic about PAS.” I don’t know anything about PAS compared to the good people who are implementing it, and those who are studying it. I know that Fincham put out a well-thought, scholarly piece that I would recommend. I have not seen a single other serious piece on PAS, despite my requests for someone to point me to one. I know that I like when people do serious inquiries into potential ways to address the scourge of looting. It makes me feel warm and happy.
I also know that I’ve seen the PAS post some amazing objects which would have likely sat under cow pies until the next millennium otherwise. Whether this is worth the context that is lost, I simply do not know.
I am unwilling to take a firm position on issues for which I lack the requisite knowledge base to do so with any quantum of credibility. PAS is, for the time being, included.
Thank you for following up. I’ll look to hear from you for references to articles which might balance my perspective on PAS.
Kimberly