British Archaeology Fail: APPAG Cuddly Pink Unicorn Inquiry on Archaeology and Artefact-Hunting

APPAG Inquiry on Archaeology and Metal-detecting

Relations between archaeologists and the metal-detecting community have improved significantly over the last 25, especially with the establishment of the Portable Antiquities Scheme – a project to record archaeological finds made by the public in England and Wales – and reform of the Treasure Act 1996, covering England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Most archaeologists now recognise the value of detector finds for advancing knowledge, and recognise the contribution made by responsible metal-detecting for understanding Britain’s past. The UK has led the way in this regard, becoming a model for public finds recording schemes elsewhere in Europe. However, there is a recognition that more could be done to bring these communities closer together in the public interest, especially with more people than ever taking up hobby metal-detecting. As such, the aim of this inquiry is to see what can be done to support responsible metal-detecting in England (specifically) and promote the benefits of archaeologists and metal-detectorists working more closely together. We therefore welcome written submissions from anyone with responses to any or all the questions in the call for evidence by the deadline of 30 April 2024:

1). What are the main factors contributing to better relations between archaeologists (whether academic, commercial, community, museum-based, organisational etc) and metal-detectors users (both independent and within detecting organisations), and how could these be advanced further?

2). What is the role of hobby metal-detecting (as a research tool) in the context of advancing our understanding of the archaeology and history of Britain, and how does that link with professional and non-professional archaeology? How should access to metal-detected finds (especially those in private collections) be facilitated, for both the wider public and academic study?

3). What is the relationship between metal-detecting and other forms of community archaeology, and how could closer cooperation be encouraged?

4). How do we better promote responsible metal-detecting, and what are the roles of archaeological bodies, landowners, detecting organisations and those that organise events for detectorists, such as those organising detecting holidays and rallies?

5). How could archaeologists better facilitate the use of metal-detectorists (and the wider public) in archaeological projects, and what are the barriers to that? Might it be possible to develop and promote methodologies for systematic metal-detecting surveys?

6). How do archaeologists, metal-detectorists and others work together to better acknowledge best practice? What is the role of museums (for example) and other publicly funded bodies in highlighting the positive contribution of metal-detecting?

7). How have museums benefitted from detector finds, and how could mechanisms be improved to enable museums to acquire more public finds?

8). What should happen to archaeological finds found through metal-detecting not acquired by museums? How can metal-detectorists be encouraged and supported to document their collections and plan for when they can no longer look after them?

Total submissions should be no longer than 500 words and sent by email to APPAG@archaeologyuk.org.

Following the submission of written evidence, the committee will select representative parties to give oral evidence at the Houses of Parliament.

The committee will decide whether to accept a submission and whether to publish it – all written evidence will be considered by the committee (whether published or not). Once a submission is published it cannot be changed. Consider carefully how much personal information you share.

All pink unicorn stuff. Five hundred words is the length of their notice, so a rather dumbdown "inquiry". And all of the questions are loaded, the typical jobsworthy and conciliatory-defeatist claptrap that is all British archaeology can offer. Searching for the word "context", "methodoilogy" or "documentation", "ethics" or anything much else than mealy-mouthed fluff, then you'll see where this is going. Needless to say I did not bother. I wonder what the response was. | 

For the record: 

1). THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE is that there is no "better relations between artefact hunters/collectors" and archaeologists/ heritage professionals generally and it is head-in-sand bollocks to say there are. Look on the metal detecting forums and social media. Just look. 

2). WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE (and if you can't be bothered yourself, there are also several recent papers by me "Alter Vikings", Medieval, Judaica - one on Bronze Age possibly coming up soon) hobby artefact hunting and collecting do not actually "advance our understanding of the archaeology". If you look objectively and as archaeology, the questions it asks and answers are simplistic and mostly based on Kossinnist dots on maps. Context is ignored,. That is NOT archaeology but antiquarianism. 

How it "links with professional archaeology" is that archaeologists get a supply of loose artefacts to write context-frei articles about without getting up off their butts. 

Metal detecting (artefact hunting and collecting) is NOT Archaeology any more than collecting costume Barbie dolls is ethnology.

3). Since artefact hunting, ripping loose archaeological finds from a more complex context, treating the latter as a quarry for collectables is NOT archaeology, it can't have any relationship with "other" archaeologies.  Loaded question - APPAG should define what archaeology is - just "digging up old things"? 

4). From the point of view of actively managing the erosion of the archaeological record by the various agences that are reducing it, it seems to me that the term "responsble artefact hunting and collecting" is an oxymoron, or at least has yet to be properly defined in Britain. The superficial and antedilluvian Code of Best Practice...,) hardly does that as it fails to cover issues such as targeting known sites, information collection strategies, and the dissemination of the record (finds) when a personal collection is dismantled.

- "detecting organisations and those that organise events for detectorists, such as those organising detecting holidays and rallies" [as the PAS already say; see also Heritage Action in 2017]  are NOT treating the archaeological record responsibly, they are using it up just to make some money for themselves. APPAG should define "responsible" first.  

5). Not only is it "possible to develop methodologies for systematic metal-detecting surveys" people are doing them (Rendlesham in GB, Grunwald here in Poland, work in Denmark). What are you "inquiring" about? Whether hobbyists can or will do them on their own initiative? Just read the forums and don't ask stupid questions. 

6). Is "highlighting the positive contribution of metal-detecting" what the emphasis should be on? what about highlighting for the better informnation of the wider public the damage done when it is done "wrong"? (again, what actually - from a resource conservation point of view - is that non-damaging "right" anyway? I do not see one, not in Greece, Turkey, Egypt, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Ukraine or the UK).

7). What pressures are put on museums by not curbing the way the archaeological record is being hoovered up and dumped in their glass cases without much site context?  When we have the National Museum of Wales deemed superfluous and closing - are these pressures that museums can cope with in this period of Britain's cultural decline? WOULD the National Museum of Wales be "saved' if some metal detectorist walked in with even the biggest ever Roman denarii hoard found in a Welsh field, twice as big as any ever known from the British Isles? Of course not, the problem lies elsewhere. 

8). "What should happen to archaeological finds found through metal-detecting not acquired by museums?" Should have thought about that before potentially 12.27mln of them have already been dug up and dispersed. I'd be interested in collecting here the references to all those conference papers delivered on this subject in Britain since 1996.