Zalewska A. 2013.
. Sprawozdania Archeologiczne 65, 9–49.
[...] The “black archaeology” phenomenon of illegal excavations, often linked to trafficking
finds, is growing. It is estimated that in Poland there are about 100 000 detectorists
(Trzciński 2010), while five years ago the number was around 35 000. There was almost
no problem of looting of cultural material in the communist period (although according to
experts in this field, this problem also existed at the time, but has not yet been established). The period 1993-1994 is identified as a turning point for “black archaeology” in Poland
(Cultural Heritage Cooperation 2005, 29 — 32).
The problem of so-called “detectorists”,
“treasure hunters”, “looters”, is not considered amongst the general public as significant or
substantial (see Saunders 2007, 9-17; Trzciński 2010; Ulst 2010). This hinders effective
prevention of trafficked objects. To this problem can be added:
(a) imperfect legislative
solutions,
(b) pragmatic reasons, which are in conflict with the ethical and/or economic
objectives of the protection of the archaeological heritage,
(c) ‘non-obviousness’ (cognitive,
ethical, aesthetic) of the conditions and consequences of the treatment of the material remains of conflicts from twentieth century
(d) the reluctance of archaeologists, conservators
and regional curators to take responsibility for twentieth century material heritage, etc.
As
one of the obstacles can be also perceived (e) the relative passivity of community of archaeologists and lack of clear rules in cooperation between professional archaeologists and “volunteer archaeologists” or “amateur archaeologists” (those who want to preserve the heritage
and are driven by noble motives). This results in both a serious tension between archaeologists, with a deepening discredit of their social position and a powerlessness in the teaching
of preventive measures.
As many important observations on the matter has been already
made (see Brodie et al. 2000; Bursche 2001a-b; Szpanowski 1999, 2001a, b; Trzciński 2010)
I will limit myself here to define illegal archaeology, and then to sketch its relationship with
First World War archaeology.
“Black archaeology” as defined by I. Ulst (2010, 154) means
“all the single or group-based activities which are related to the illegal non-scientific excavation, removal and selling
of archaeological heritage originating from illicit or official excavations, including but not
limited to the preliminary research and communication activities, search and excavation
works, removal and cleansing of finds, any support activities, networking and contracting,
and the offering for sale and selling of finds to the previously identified or non-identified
buyers in the country of origin and abroad”.
Although I fully accept this complex definition
of “black archaeology” as applicable in Poland, it requires expansion to include the long-term consequences (moral, epistemological, ethical) of such actions.
The task is a difficult one, particularly when its observation is accompanied by the
awareness that, as in Poland, officials responsible for prosecuting and penalising these
sorts of crimes are often themselves advocates of this hobby. I base this opinion on the
conclusions of those who have had dealings with prosecutors, border guardsmen, police
officers and soldiers (including retirees) often present among the “explorers”, which is
naturally not without significant consequences. They lobby for each other (also people
from outside their own professional circles) and present the opinion that it is simply a form
of harmless entertainment (a way to deal with the stress of everyday life). I am unable to
name specific persons and without sufficient evidence they will go largely unpunished.
To
counter the phenomenon and to propose an antidote that will initiate the process of resocialization of the participants of “black archaeology” in this unfortunate business, further in-depth study is required with the aim of determining the motivation, circumstances and consequences of the actions of particular individuals belonging to the highly varied
group of “ detectorists”, “enthusiasts”, robbers, plunderers and looters. Unfortunately the
scope of such research lies far beyond the competences of an archaeologist. However, since
the phenomenon in question is yet to receive proper sociological or cultural attention in
our country, one may assume that (unless the situation changes) archaeological circles
may indeed be forced, regardless of considerable obstacles, to attempt to face the challenge independently (naturally with the support of competent individuals). The results
and consequences of such research will take us a step closer towards relevant and applied
archaeology.
It is useful, in illustrating the theoretical assumptions of relevant and applied archaeology, to consider a grassroots initiative of uncovering, retrieving and exhibiting World War
I relics in the Bolimów area (Łódzkie Province). On August 2012, in the forest by the river
Rawka, around the fragile material remains of a mine crater, the planned, official and non-invasive stage of exploration of a site with material remains from World War I began. It
was the result of a bottom up initiative. The target was to define the scope of archaeological
works to be conducted on site in September and October on the initiative of the Friends of
Bolimów Region Society („Stowarzyszenia Inicjatywa Ziemi Bolimowskiej”) and on behalf
of the planned Museum of Military and Applied Technology in Bolimów.
The preliminary
exploration was conducted with the help of the initiators and members of Exploration and
History Society group “Łódź”, supervised by an archaeologist from the University of Łódź
(Piotr Nowakowski, PhD). The researchers hoped to uncover trenches destroyed by an
explosion where, according to German regimental documents, a number of soldiers in battle gear were buried. The investigation uncovered several small items connected with the
battle fought a century ago, including the transport caps from Lishin Grenades. These can
be interpreted as confirming information from the regimental records of the hand grenades widely used by the Russians in that area (vide German Regimental Unit History of
227 Reserve Infantry Regiment, here after Kaliński 2010). Researchers hoped to recreate
certain events and the reality of the military skirmish which were not (unlike most German successes which are usually described in detail in regimental annals) recorded by German
officers.
However the explorations have not proved successful, despite (a) significant involvement of people, (b) the fact that the crater would benefit from conservation care (it is
treated both as a garbage dump by local gardeners and as a space for exploration by illegal
looters), and (c) the merits of undertaking scientific surveys (i.e. the very limited data on
the gas attack on the Eastern Front and the actions preceding it may be a result of intentional seizing, or at least marginalizing of the “episode” by the Germans). The potential for
deepening our historical awareness by recognizing the material aftermaths of the combatants’ activities in the daily routine of warfare was lost. This was a local event, nowhere
outside the scope of interest of a local newspaper. But what is also intriguing in that case,
in common with many bottom up initiatives connected to battlefields survey, the amateur participants of the project solicited archaeological participation and supervision. As the
negative side of such ‘cooperation’ I perceive the fact that it was not driven by the amateurs’ recognition of the essential / substantive support from professional archaeologists,
but by their fear that they would be punished for illegal use of detectors or by their needs
for legal status of activity (for example due to the specific ownership constraining easy access to the field of interest and/or due to the planned continuation of public commemoration or tourist development). Such an attitude is reasonable for a few reasons. Certainly,
‘they’ would be punished (due to strict legislative rules in Poland) and, additionally their
activity needs to be ‘patronised’ / formalized / professionalized (due to the social rules in
our country). But also, which is the saddest, they do not expect research support, because
they see the shortage of professionals dedicated and specialized in twentieth century archaeology.
It seems from the analyzed cases, that the archaeologists and the people, formerly known as audience have switched positions. It can be diagnosed as symptomatic
and as, to some extent, an affront to the authority of archaeologists and, what is much
more important, as a diminished opportunity to common protection of material remains
of twentieth century conflict.
