Metal Detecting Under the Microscope 4: Harsh Words at Last from the CBA About "Metal Detectorists"

.

Mike Heyworth writes about current policies on metal detecting in Britain in the Nov/Dec issue of 'British Archaeology' in a short text "Changes to the Treasure Act and a review of its practice code are long overdue says Mike Heyworth". This is now available online and I've discussed the first part (about Treasure Act reform) in the post above, the second part of the text is of even greater interest to me. This text has aroused the ire of "metal detectorists" but Dr Heyworth writes perfect sense, and echoes very much a lot of what I've been saying here and elsewhere for the last couple of years - such as indicating what we can learn from "looking over the detectorists' shoulder" through candid bragging You Tube videos, the significance of the near unanimous rejection by English and Welsh artefact hunters of the Code of Practice for Responsible Metal Detecting in England in favour of the less stringent NCMD one, the number of unrecorded finds, that rallies simply do not fit in the picture as presented by the supporters of a "partnership" with metal detectorists, that Stewardship Schemes should be protecting the historic environment not watching on as sites are trashed for commercial gain and so on. Others noted these problems, but for various reasons stayed silent. It is satisfying to see the CBA, which notoriously used to pat "detectorists" on the head when I was on the CBA's discussion list 'Britarch' trying to question these policies, finally appearing to have changed its tune and is at last giving the issues an official voice.

Dr Heyworth's text begins with a reference to a projected next meeting of the Conference on Portable Antiquities (which is convened by the CBA, “as needed” - and when has it NOT been needed in the past decade and a half of "partnership" by the PAS?). This will be he says:

"an appropriate place for archaeologists to discuss with the minister the continuing damage to archaeological sites and findspots across the country caused by irresponsible metal detecting and, in particular, by metal detecting rallies".

Indeed, but why just in a closed meeting with a single minister? Let's have somebody from the archaeological establishment writing not just in a "trade newspaper" like British Archaeology but in the national newspapers, shouting it from the rooftops about "the continuing damage to archaeological sites and findspots across the country caused by irresponsible metal detecting and, in particular, by metal detecting rallies" (and what actually "responsible artefact hunting" consists of), for goodness' sake. To get something done, ministers should not be learning about the cautiously-expressed disquiet of a few academics in grey suits at a London meeting, that will not move them. What will is the widespread concern expressed by a conservation conscious electorate. And at the moment that electorate is being fed PAS-generated news pap about the benefits of "partnership" and "wottalotta- treasure -we-got" from it. If the CBA is at last speaking about about the damaging effects of current policies, let them do so loud and clear and to Britain's public, not in secret meetings with the Minister.

The CBA notes that - as some of us have been stressing for the last decade or so - many finds taken out of the archaeological record by artefact hunters simply do not get reported and no record is made of their context of discovery:

This can be either due to a lack of awareness of the benefits of reporting, or in some cases to the motivations of individuals who are “treasure hunting” for personal profit.

Selfishness and a lack of concern and apathy also come to mind. The CBA newsletter uses photos by Pete Twinn of two guys he came across on land for which he (Twinn) had detecting permission... [Note the sartorial elegance of the modern English gentleman out for a walk in the countryside].

Photos: Two shy metal detectorists in English fields (copyright Pete Twinn)

These images perhaps can stand for the many (thousands of) "grey" detectorists in the United Kingdom about whose activities we learn so little about from the official pro-PAS propaganda. They do not want their faces shown, they don't want you to look in their finds pouch. Who knows what they've taken from where? Have they always got permission to be where they are and taking away artefacts? Where is the boundary between the nighthawks (the people reputed to "get detecting a bad name") and the many more numerous "grey" detectorists, who really ARE the people that get artefact hunting in the UK such a bad name. Dr Heyworth goes on:

Access to information provided by some “treasure hunters” on the web (for example via videos on YouTube) show the degree of wilful damage to the archaeological heritage going on across the country, with rarely any thought given to the context of the finds.

Again, readers of my posts on Britarch and this blog will know that I have long been making use of this kind of material to make precisely this point - and invoking the wrath of the originators of the candid material into the bargain. In the paper copy of Dr Heyworth's text have been inserted what seem to be screenshots from metal detecting videos: one showing a Minelabs user who has just dug up a Saxon hoard, another dancing with joy over his gold coin.

Photos: Two happy metal detectorists rejoicing over finds taken from English fields (from British Archaeology Nov-Dec 2011 p. 65)

Not very flattering images - but as anyone who has spent time looking over the mountains of such material on the internet, wholly typical of what you see time and time again on the candid videos these people make and publish online. Dr Heywork also includes - without comment - an image referring to "Chicago Ron" to which I will return later.

The text then turns to the topic of commercial artefact hunting rallies which quite clearly, as I and Heritage Action have long been insisting, are the weak link in the whole web of arguments about so-called "metal detecting" in England and Wales. Dr Heyworth seems to agree and stresses that hard-pressed FLOs working across England and Wales are already fully stretched recording finds:

Yet at this time of year there are a number of metal detecting rallies taking place, often targeting areas of known archaeological potential, stretching the FLOs network to breaking point and beyond. Many rallies occur on land which is held under environmental stewardship, through which the owners receive financial compensation for environmentally beneficial land management practices. Yet Natural England appears to be powerless to prevent damage to the archaeological heritage through rallies on this land.

No, they are not only "powerless" (and that is not true, there would be a way to stop this) but they have been recorded on a number of occasions as having (quote) "bent over backwards" to allow them to go ahead, in other words aided and abetting the erosion of the historic environment. It is with some satisfaction (but with regret that it is so belated) that we note that

"The CBA will be calling for the government and its agencies to ensure that the rules for stewardship land are followed more closely in the future".

That means stopping the erosion of the record by the selective removal of collectables. But that means the admission that this process IS an erosion of the archaeological assets of the land in question, and not some "beneficial partnership" with the collectable artefact procurers. By the way the discussions on the bending of stewardship regulations was going on years ago, when the PAS still had a forum (and the PAS was being asked by its "partners" for support in this). It is a shame that the CBA did not take note (the PAS forum was a public one, even if many metal detectorist forums are closed ones) and take up a standpoint together with people like myself and Nigel Swift who argued that the schemes exist for conservation and therefore should conserve.

Dr Heyworth also takes up the points made by Heritage Action's longstanding questioning of "charity rallies":

A key argument often used by rally organisers is that they donate a share of the proceeds to charity, and should therefore be allowed to go ahead without hindrance from “bureaucracy”. Yet the “cost” of ensuing archaeological damage and associated knowledge lost forever as a direct consequence is not taken into account.

The upshot is that the CBA will at last be:

asking for more research to be carried out on the damage to archaeological sites and lost knowledge due to rallies, to provide a counter-weight to arguments put forward by the vested interests of rally organisers. If CBA members and readers of British Archaeology hear of any examples of “treasure hunting” or detecting rallies causing damage to archaeological sites, then please contact the CBA director in York. It is helpful to build up a portfolio of examples across the country to present to the government when future opportunities allow.

While it is nice to see that the CBA are at last saying what has long needed to be said, and precisely by the CBA, it is just such a shame that it has taken so long for the CBA to come to the conclusions that seemed to a few of us so obvious a topic to speak out against eleven years ago when I started writing on these issues. This was on the CBA's Britarch discussion list and we came up against a stone wall of archaeological apathy and incomprehension about the issues. How many artefacts have ticked through the Heritage Action counter in the time to get from one point to the next? (Nigel?)

The last paragraph of Dr Heyworth's text is a bit awkwardly-written. At the beginning it refers to damage done by "rallies" (only) but at the end it refers to damage caused by "treasure hunting” or detecting rallies. What type of data is he in fact collecting, what is understood by the term "treasure hunting" when the text also uses that unsatisfactory label "metal detecting"? Does anything lie behind this distinction?

Also I do not understand how hoiking out randomly selected objects from the archaeological record with poor documentation of the context of discovery can be regarded by any decent archaeologist as NOT causing damage to the integrity of the record. It'd be simpler to ask people to notify the CBA of examples where the archaeological evidence of a region earmarked for a commercial artefact hunting rally can be shown NOT to have been damaged by the selective but random and unmethodological removal of elements of the archaeological record. That would be a thin folder, then just list the other sites in a bulging thick one.

It was 1993-5 that it was precisely the CBA who initiated (with commissioning the Denison and Dobinson report), Britain's dotty social experiment of partnering "metal detectorists" for the sake of some of the archaeological information (I use the term loosely) that this might produce. It has taken nearly nineteen years and thirteen million pounds investment in a Scheme for it perhaps to finally dawn on people that an enormous amount (probably the majority) of the archaeological information is still being lost and destroyed and all that has happened is that the artefact hunters have been empowered to adopt attitudes of entitlement and to continue to carry on regardless in utter secrecy and attempting by various methods (including on the CBA's own Britarch discussion list) to silence any questioning of the wisdom of the policies that allow this destruction to go on. That includes the use of threats of violence, personal attacks and other nastiness. I personally welcome the signs that at last the British archaeological establishment (first Rescue, now CBA) are beginning to awaken from the Slumber of Reason that has created the artefact hunting nightmare that now faces the archaeological community in Britain and beyond.