There is a BM produced video of the launch of the Treasure report featuring almost entirely the Lenborough hoard - tipped out onto a kitchen table and scrubbed in a laboratory sink. A student looking at the video this morning suggested that Ed Vaizey having grown a beard before appearing here might be due to "a desire not to be recognized". There is an interview with the finder and not a mention that it was dug up in just a few hours by the FLO:
Posted on You Tube by britishmuseum
Let me guess that tomorrow morning the papers will be full of this and not a single British archaeologist or organization will be on record there raising even a murmur about the circumstances surrounding the finding and then hasty 'excavation' of this find.
see http://classicalcoins.blogspot.com/2015/02/they-scrubbed-up-really-well.html
ReplyDeleteDave Welsh
Ye-e-e-s, do please have a look at the dealer's "contribution". How to suck eggs Californiay style. Apparently the problem is that Caveman Britain has no archaeologists who "could be entrusted with properly carrying out excavations of significant importance and properly recording the results, as well as ensuring safeguarding of any finds pending their study and analysis" .
ReplyDeleteIt seems nobody has been able to explain to Mr Welsh what the actual problem is here in terms which people like him will understand. But THAT is the job of the PAS not mine.
I think you've either missed my point completely or are not interested in discussing ways to improve what takes place in the case of a find such as the Lenborough hoard.
ReplyDeleteBritain apparently does not have an on-call system that makes competent archaeologists available on short notice when they are needed, not when they happen to become available. If such a system were in place, then why did not the Lenborough FLO call an archaeologist to come out and take over the dig? Did she know that there were capable resources available that could be quickly mobilized to deal with this, or did she feel that she was on her own with no time to improvise a structured dig and no resources available to draw upon?
Perhaps you can explain to me (in terms which I will understand) which archaeologist(s) would have been able to handle that dig, how long it would have taken to arrange to get them to the site, how it would have been secured in the mean time and who would have paid for the work.
Also, how would the interested parties (discoverer and landowner) be convinced that this arrangement would secure their interests in what promised to be a very valuable find?
The whole point behind having regulated professional services is that they can be, and are, routinely trusted by the public.
Perhaps I may be forgiven for wondering whether your real objective in this is to ensure that excavations of coin hoards are carried out properly. Or is it instead to discredit the PAS?
Who are you writing your blog for, anyway? If I can’t understand the steps that the FLO should have taken to improve upon the excavation that took place, given all the attention I have paid to the subject, how do you expect the general public to grasp it?
The way to "improve what takes place in the case of a find such as the Lenborough hoard" is for finders to follow as a minimum requirement the Treasure Act Code of practice.
ReplyDeleteIt is not economical to keep a full-size emergency team on permanent standby just to service the minority hobby of metal detecting a dozen times a year all over the country when the country cannot afford to fully finance the PAS.
Despite what you say in your discussions with John Howland and Peter Tompa overon another blog, there is no shortage in Britain of professionally qualified commercial units and other teams in the local area of finds like this.
Other hoards have been secured and excavated, several last year (and discussed in my blog). Securing a site until they get there right slap-bang next to the farm buildings (and overlooked by at least one other house) is not exactly rocket science. Here's a text on the topic:
http://paul-barford.blogspot.com/2015/01/how-to-hinder-nighthawks-ad-preserve.html
If "responsible detecting" is socially acceptable (while irresponsible is not), how responsible is it for a commercial event to target a known archaeological site with NO contingency plans for finding something like this? The organizer and landowner (both making money from this) should have established beforehand how this would be done if needed (and it is). You do not take a group of schoolkids out sailing in a small boat on the high seas in a squall without the backup of a crew of experienced sailors and without lifejackets. That is not "responsible". Neither is excavating a Saxon hoard with a paint scraper and carrier bag as the main equipment.
"why did not the Lenborough FLO call an archaeologist to come out and take over the dig?"
Anybody's guess - she's not saying (and should).
The PAS liaison officer certainly should "know whether there were capable resources available that could be quickly mobilized to deal with this". If there were no such resources (no lifejackets in the boathouse) then the search should not have taken place. That is the height of irresponsibility.
My thesis in advocating professional status for archaeologists has little to do with knowledge and experience, and much to do with availability, public trust and responsibility.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure we agree upon the basics of what an archaeologist needs to know, and have in the way of experience, to deal with excavating a find such as the Lenborough hoard. I am not in any way attempting to pronounce upon how such excavations should be carried out. My concern is instead to ensure that an archaeologist is made available when needed to do it.
Placing the onus of 'responsibility' entirely upon the organizer, landowner and FLO as you endeavor to do is not, in my opinion, likely to resolve this. It leaves hanging, as it were, an important public interest.
There are many other situations in which an important public interest is involved in an excavation. One does not have a right to spontaneously carry out any sort of excavation one desires on one's own property without the public interest being considered.
There are certain thresholds which require a permit, which is not issued without due provision for supervision by a regulated professional expert.
I suggest that there is now sufficient need for archaeological excavations in the UK to further codify this. The primary economic sustenance of such expert firms would be commercial and public activities such as building and roadway construction.
Licensed civil engineers get most of their income from major commercial projects. However, when I found it necessary to rehabilitate a relative's house I was able to quickly find such a professional to supervise excavation and strengthening of its foundations.
The Treasure Act Code of Practice does not appear to be sufficient as it now stands to ensure that the required arrangements are made prior to an event such as that which occurred at Lenborough.
I suggest that the responsibility threshold should not be what you recite above, but rather something much more clear and unequivocal: "Stop NOW . The law requires a permit for this excavation and securing the site meanwhile."
Public acceptance of the need for such further codification would, in my view, depend on assurance that "resources that could be quickly mobilized to deal with this" would be available.
That would be one responsibility firms and individuals engaged in the public practice of archaeology would incur. As regulated professional specialists, they would have to know what is needed and have plans, materials and routines ready to quickly and properly secure sites to prevent "nighthawking."
How to suck eggs California style.
ReplyDelete"My thesis in advocating professional status for archaeologists ...."
I suggest that you share your ideas and observations with one of UK archaeology's existing professional bodies, like the Chartered Institute for Archaeologists.
"Placing the onus of 'responsibility' entirely upon the organizer, landowner and FLO as you endeavor to do...." Is how the system works in the UK at the moment - the same as if you want to build a supermarket in the middle of the same site.
" One does not have a right to spontaneously carry out any sort of excavation one desires on one's own property without the public interest being considered."
so how did there come to be a commercial artefact hunters' "dig" on the site, eh? I think you are getting confused about the legal and organizational background to what we are discussing.
" The primary economic sustenance of such expert firms would be commercial and public activities such as building and roadway construction."
We have them. You are talking round in circles and just getting lost in your own rhetoric.
The only reason the "Treasure Act Code of Practice does not appear to be sufficient as it now stands to ensure that the required arrangements are made" is because oikish metal detectorists irresponsibly and recklessly ignore their obligations to abide by it in this respect. No other reason. We place too much trust in these people's abilities and willingness to do the right thing. It is the FLO's job to encourage abiding by the Code. Here she very publicly failed to do that and THAT is what this discussion is about.
But I am glad to see you advocate regulating these activities - so do I. Let's see an end to this free-for-all and introduce a proper permit system. As the Valetta Convention requires.
>> " One does not have a right to spontaneously carry out any sort of excavation one desires on one's own property without the public interest being considered."
ReplyDelete> so how did there come to be a commercial artefact hunters' "dig" on the site, eh?
That particular type of excavation does not presently require a permit. I was referring to other types of excavations that are required by law to be authorized by permit, such as those which involve building construction.
> I think you are getting confused about the legal and organizational background to what we are discussing.
I don't believe I am. I'm not trying to sort all that out at this point, but instead seek to outline a conceptual approach which would halt an excavation when a certain threshold is reached, secure the site and require a qualified archaeologist to supervise the excavation. Obviously legal changes would have to be made to implement such an approach.
> The only reason the "Treasure Act Code of Practice does not appear to be sufficient as it now stands to ensure that the required arrangements are made" is because oikish metal detectorists irresponsibly and recklessly ignore their obligations to abide by it in this respect.
This suggests that one basic difficulty is the lack of a workable enforcement scheme to prevent their ignoring it. I would suggest that another difficulty may be that they don't adequately understand their obligations.
Think of it this way: suppose that the building code or UK equivalent thereof contained something resembling the passage in the Treasure Act regarding obligations of a property owner and building contractor. What would happen if they did not conform? How would authorities become aware that the law had been scouted?
As it stands, a building permit must be issued for any constructional activity that exceeds certain clearly defined thresholds. That permit then has to be signed off by one or several building inspectors to verify that the work was performed to code. Separate permits may be required for major sub-projects such as an excavation.
Would it not have been better if a permit had been required for the Lenborough excavation, and all excavated items had been impounded until released after due process, including the supervising archaeologist signing off the permit to verify that the excavation had been properly performed?
"another difficulty may be that they don't adequately understand their obligations "
ReplyDeleteThick as planks some of them.
Right, so basically we've come to permits for digging up artefacts, absolutely.
So that is basically the same as the permit systems in place in countries like Greece, Italy, Egypt, Bulgaria, Iran and all the other countries you and ACCG sell ancient hoard coins from.
Please be clear on what I mean by an excavation permit process:
ReplyDeleteI do not envision metal detecting and "digging up artifacts" always requiring a permit.
I envision that legislation could be cooperatively devised that would require a permit when a threshold is reached during an excavation which makes it clear that an archaeologist ought to supervise the process, as in the case of the Lenborough excavation.
I doubt whether public support would be found for any standard could be set which approaches "the permit systems in place in countries like Greece, Italy, Egypt, Bulgaria, Iran" and the like.
I believe that if properly approached, responsible metal detecting societies would be willing to work toward agreeing upon a standard for requiring a permit, that would apply when it becomes clear that there is likely to be something unusually important about a find, as in the case of the Lenborough hoard.
That would be a relatively uncommon event, and should not greatly impact the metal detecting hobby.