Some Questions About Detectorists' Sharing of Information in the States

Artefact hunting, the
hobby that pays for itself

Detecting icon, Dick Stout is always going on about how archaeologists owe detectorists some kind of a debt because the latter "share" the artefacts they find with the public. I guess he has in mind those detectorists that take their finds along to museums and archaeological units (or in Britain the Portable Antiquities Scheme) to report them, so their discoveries can be added to the sites and monuments (Historic Environment) record for research and conservation management purposes. In his writings, this artefact hunter is also presented as "rescuing" information before it is "lost forever" beneath concrete - or whatever. I was interested then to see some examples of his own achievements in that field. We read on his "Stout Standards" blog a few weeks ago  a post in that  vein:

Yesterday, just for the hell of it, I decided to check out what was once an old colonial homesite in Buckingham, Pennsylvania. It had provided me with an exceptional 1796 Large Cent many years ago (which I recently sold). This is that site today… [Photo showing the Wawa Store]  I know, I know….it’s called progress but let it be a reminder to all of you that if you want to find all those neat things you lust for, don’t wait for progress to take them away.  It’s also a reminder to all those arkies out there who think leaving them in the ground is so much better for future generations.

I was a bit disconcerted about this. I asked Mark Shaffer (Historic Preservation Specialist Bureau for Historic Preservation, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission) about the background. He looked into the department's archives in the state records repository and got back to me with some interesting observations.

1) There is no information on file that indicates a “colonial homestead” was located at the site of the Wawa store in Buckingham, PA. If the metal detectorist's "research" had discovered such evidence, he kept it to himself and did not share it with the archaeological authorities. If Stout found documentary evidence of a site here and used it only to hoik artefacts out of it, and did not disseminate the information, he not only was acting selfishly, but also by not ensuring that information got into the planning documentation, hindered any archaeological conditions being placed on that site when it was developed. This is the whole rationale behind the PAS in the UK.

2) There is no record on file of Mr Stout, or the landowner, having reported any historical (eighteenth century) metal detected finds  from the location of the Wawa store.

3)  There is no information to indicate that any archaeological project was done on this reputedly "colonial" site prior to the construction of the Wawa store, which appears to have occurred sometime in 2002 or 2003. Mr Shaffer however did supply the following information about the site (in litt. 01.05.14):

In this office (the State Historic Preservation Office), we review proposed development projects in accordance with both state and federal historic preservation regulations. In general, we review projects that require permits, approvals, or funding from state or federal agencies, although we are not a permitting or a regulatory agency. We are an advisory agency. We advise other agencies on how the projects they permit or fund may affect cultural resources. Our office did not review the project involving construction of the Wawa store. In all likelihood, this is because no federal agencies were involved in permitting the project, and the state agency that would have permitted the project (the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection) has a policy by which it does not require its permitees to consult with our office concerning impacts to cultural resources if the project involves an area of less than ten acres, which is probably the case with the property in question. In June of 2003, after the Wawa store was built, our office was consulted on a project involving the expansion of the parking lot of the Wawa store. This required the crossing of a small drainage way (actually, a drainage ditch) with a connector driveway. This activity required a Water Obstruction and Encroachment Permit from a federal agency, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Because of this, our office was consulted, in accordance with a federal regulation, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, which requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of its undertakings (in this case, issuance of the permit was the federal undertaking) on cultural resources. Because we had no information to indicate that the area of the permit action contained any historic or archaeological properties (the area in question was a vacant gravel and macadam lot associated with a previous commercial venture), our office provided cultural resource clearance, and the parking lot expansion proceeded.

So, obviously, in apparently keeping the information about his historical finds on the site to himself, Mr Stout  could have contributed to a loss of opportunity to examine the site further.

4) Even if an archaeological study of the area had been commissioned, the fact that somebody had 'done over' the site with a metal detector would have distorted its results. Metal detecting to recover artefacts from a site and the excavating without stratigraphic control that may go with it, is obviously more detrimental than helpful in terms of understanding the site as a whole.

5) Mr Shaffer asked, given the complicated ownership situation of the site, whether there is any indication of what form of permit Mr Stout had to search and who from and which areas they covered. Stout skips over this question.

In particular there is the issue of Mr Stout's sale (for nine hundred dollars) of a coin a 1796 Large Cent (with the so-called 'Liherty error') from this site (here, here (scroll down for photo, maybe) and here - where it is said that it was found stratified in "sawdust". Was the landowner appraised of the value of this find and reimbursed for this coin which Mr Stout walked off with? What was the arrangement? Or, like having located a "colonial homesite" and what he'd found there, did Mr Stout keep quiet about that too, which is why there seem to be no records?

I would like to thank Mr Shaffer for taking the time from his busy schedule to answer an enquiry about heritage management from a member of the public.