"Esmeralda's Cumbrian History" on a Second Object in a Crosby Garrett Hoard?

.
Diane McIlmoyle has an interesting blog post (The Crosby Garret Roman Helmet – The One That Got Away 10.01.2012) which presents a slightly different view of the whole sorry affair of the Crosby Garrett helmet. It contains one or two snippets not present in the previous published accounts. Are these based perhaps on local knowledge not otherwise available? I am a bit sceptical because part of the story she recounts reflects what should ideally have happened, rather than what actually did transpire back in May 2010 (I am however left wondering whether this is what the PAS is now putting out for local consumption?)

[...] realised that he might, in fact, have unearthed something quite special. So, like all good metal detectorists, he contacted the local Portable Antiquities team who met him at the Crosby Garrett site to see where the metal had been unearthed. The Finds Liaison Officers could then confirm that as the metal pieces were not a precious metal (they’re brass) and they were parts of a single item found on its own, they fell outside the legal definition of ‘treasure’ under the 1996 Treasure Act. This meant that the detectorist and the landowner were free to dispose of them as they saw fit. The metal pieces were then sent to the famous London auctioneers, Christie’s.

She draws attention to what the FLOs say about the findspot: "In fact, the FLOs (Stuart Noon and Dot Boughton) who visited the finds site at Crosby Garrett concluded that there were earthworks from an ancient, previously unknown, settlement nearby". (Earthworks, eh? Pasture then? That would fit with where I reconstructed the findspot on this blog which has clear earthworks visible on the aerial and satellite photos.)

The blogger has some interesting thoughts on the attempted negotiations with the landowner and finders before the sale, there seems to be more here too than meets the eye. The position of the landowner in particular always being here (as was noted at the time) a bit odd.

There is however one piece of information to which she draws attention which raises an enormous number of questions about the way this find was handled (and indeed should be examined carefully by those reforming the Treasure Act). Ms McIlmoyle reports:

The remaining mystery is that the conserved helmet was constructed from 67 of the 68 pieces of metal found. It was decided that the remaining piece was a patch, as there were traces of solder on it. There were, however, no matching traces of solder to be found on the rest of the helmet. If it had been possible to demonstrate that the 68th piece was part of a second object, then, according to the Treasure Act, the helmet would now be in public ownership.

Well, I suppose we might ask, why was it "not possible" to demonstrate that this piece was part of a second object? Much MORE TO THE POINT, where is this alleged second item in the PAS record of the find? Why was this second object (the patch from another object) not identified as such when the PAS specialists examined the object in Christie's? Why was a team of excavators not immediately assembled and sent out to examine the findspot and the area around it BEFORE the sale? If there is a second object still in the ground in the same ancient pit in which the helmet was buried, and we (allegedly) have the patch (and in fact there was also a metal rod- seen in the PAS photos) then the helmet was not buried as a single object. There therefore should be an inquest, and the objects (including the one already removed from the ground which was not previously the subject of an inquest) declared Treasure.

OR, is the landowner, anxious about precisely such an outcome, blocking access of any archaeological team to the findspot?

OR are the Portable Antiquities Scheme themselves rather wary of approaching this findspot knowing that if they uncover more pieces of bronze, they would be opening a can of worms?

I think the nation is owed the truth about this find, don't you?
.

Digging for Britain, Friday 9th September

.

I did not see this myself, but Kyri drew my attention to it. The Telegraph has a nice summary of it as a TV highlight:

Digging for Britain: Dr Alice Roberts (Photo BBC)

CRITIC’S CHOICE: Digging for Britain BBC Two, 9.00pm; not Wales

Iron Age Britain, Celtic Britain, the Normans, they’ve all been tackled by BBC Two in the last six months. And now the ever-cheery Dr Alice Roberts is back to further exhaust the dark corners of our history. Roberts’s mission is to bring us the latest developments in British archaeology. It’s a tough sell. To compensate, Roberts behaves like most presenters of these overstretched factual programmes, striding purposefully around the British countryside, enthusing wildly to the camera. If broken pots, crumbling coins, and rain-soaked digs are your thing, you might just get caught up in the fun.

In tonight’s opening episode, Roberts [...] exposes a worrying flaw in the law designed to keep found objects in the public domain. Only precious metals are protected. The lucky detectorist who unearthed a rare brass helmet at Crosby Garrett in Cumbria was allowed to auction it off for a life-changing sum.

Sometimes the stories behind the excavations are a bit feeble, but Roberts is an appealing guide. Whether she’s beaming over a barely discernable Roman road or grinning at a tiny fragment of bone, you’re mostly prepared to go along with her. TD

Kyri noticed that Dr Roberts used the un-pc designation "treasure hunters". If she did there will be a ranting and a railing and a gnashing of teeth on the tekkie forums as they reach for their pitchforks and torches for a midnight march to the offices of the CBA. Did she really? If so, good for her. Earlier episodes of the series which I saw were very fluffy-bunny lovey-dovey towards artefact hunters, as per the now-obligatory UK media idiom. If anyone can point me to an online recording of this episode other than the BBC player (which cannot be accessed here in Poland) I'd be grateful.

Anonymous Helmet Collector Stays Low

.
The story of the Crosby Garrett Helmet made international headlines writes Maev Kennedy, ('Shock and awe: Nijmegen helmet gives Carlisle museum a boost', The Guardian 14 June 2011):

Its fate exposed a gaping hole in Britain's protection for archaeological finds. If gold or silver it would have been declared treasure, the finder and landowner compensated, and museums entitled to acquire it. But the bronze was not treasure, and so the finder sent it to a Christie's auction last October, where its mesmeric beauty drove the price far beyond the top estimate of £300k. It was eventually bought by a still anonymous UK collector for £2.3m. Many of the country's most senior archaeologists wrote demanding a review of the treasure law, which the government has promised but still not implemented.

Back at the beginning of October soon after the sale, somebody calling themself Maria14 was writing comfortingly on the BBC website:

As someone who knows who the buyer is, and is familiar with their views on Artefacts such as these, I am fairly sure they will choose to display it. Things like this take time to organise, people just have to be patient.*

In actual fact, the helmet itself is now completely untraceable. The collector who bought remains anonymous and it is refusing to answer any correspondence about it:

"I have written repeatedly through the auction house requesting if not a loan, at least to be able to take measurements so we could create a replica, but we have heard nothing. We still have absolutely no idea who bought it," Hilary Wade, museum director, said sadly. "We would really love them to get in touch."

The History Blog is blunter:

they wrote asking if they could at least take some measurements so they could create a replica to display in the new Roman gallery. No answer. Rat fink.

Well, of course if Britain's crazy system of liaison with artefact hunters really was "working" and producing any useful effects, the measurements (and much more) would already be in the public domain.


* Maria14's further comments in that thread are also of interest, typical collector (Good Home/Antiquarian Roots) arguments :

As it was a struggle for Tullie house museum to raise £200,000 I think it's probably a good thing that the artefact is going to be owned by someone who has the means to ensure it is correctly preserved and maintained, and isn't reliant on hand-outs. Remember, museums started out as private collections that were opened to the public by the owners.

Crosby Garrett Excavations 2011

.
The Crosby Garrett helmet was discovered by metal detectorists last year. After much cajoling the anonymous finder or finders was/were persuaded to admit where it had been found. Apparently FLOs visiting the site saw an "infilled hole" which they were told had been the findspot. An excavation was promised, so that we could all learn about the context of deposition of this Nationally-Important-Shiny-Stuff-That-Is-Not-A-National-Treasure. The object itself has disappeared into an anonymous private collection without sight or sound since. Meanwhile the nighthawks have gone over the site. Winter came and has gone, spring too, we are now well into summer, the ground has dried, the sheep have lambed. When was the excavation? Where is the excavation archive? Where and when will it be published? The only Google hit for the term might be helpful to the excavators, but does not reveal that one took place. So what happened? What was the context of deposition of this extraordinary object?

The Amateurish Destruction of World History by Britain at Crosby Garrett

.

An intriguing text by arts journalist Souren Melikian about the Crosby Garret helmet ('The Destruction of History') has just come out in the April 2011 issue of Art+ Auction magazine, now accessible online. The basic thesis is that the object is of Sassanian workmanship (which I do not accept) and raises the question of how it got to where it was found. Oddly, in the context of the article's main thesis, it does not discuss whether it was actually found where it was reputed to have been found. Melikian does not have too good a word for British laws on artefact hunting...

The piece[...] was found by an amateur at a site that was disturbed in the rough digging process instead of being recorded in detail. [...] If ever there was an instance of inept legislation granting legitimacy to what is effectively the destruction of an archaeological context, this is it. The British media chorus [...] implicitly accepting the notion that digging for the purpose of treasure hunting is okay. Reports deplored the loss of the helmet to the region where it had been unearthed, but not a word was said about the far greater tragedy incurred by what may be called Britain’s underground records of history. [...] The surrounding terrain [...] should have been very carefully investigated. Apparently it was not.[...] Whatever the location, each properly recorded discovery yields invaluable information to world history.

The article discusses the place of manufacture of the Crosby Garrett helmet, invoking a series of parallels completely ignored by the ('Universalist') British Museum's PAS in their own write-up of the object and then finishes with a flourish:

A law that [...] ignores the proper preservation of buried archives cannot be right. The notion of discovering a "treasure trove" is suitable for Boy Scouts but is absurd for anyone concerned with culture and knowledge. The amateurish digging up of artifacts from the ancient past is as unconscionable as burning the Amazon rainforest. It is high time for international agreements to be hashed out about the archeological ecology of our world. As the saying goes, we are all in it together.

And we are all the losers as the result of Britain's boy scout heritage mismanagement laws.
.

Another Griffin like the Crosby Garrett one?

.
Two people have drawn my attention today to Tony Henderson's article "Vindolanda excavators close to hitting jackpot", The Journal Jan 14th 2011.

EXCAVATORS at a Northumberland Roman fort have come tantalisingly close to hitting a cash jackpot. They unearthed a bronze griffin figure, identical to that which features on the peak of a helmet found last year at the north west Cumbrian village of Crosby Garrett by a metal detectorist [...] The latest find was made at Vindolanda fort near Bardon Mill in Northumberland, where 500 volunteers work over the excavating season. Robin Birley, director of research at Vindolanda, said: “The griffin is exactly the same as the Crosby Garrett helmet and has been made by the same craftsman. [...] This has been made for a pretty posh bunch of cavalry and we had cavalry at Vindolanda from time to time.” The discovery is one of several hundred finds made during the excavating season.

The find of two identical bronze griffins made by the same craftsman would be significant. The findspot of the Vindolanda one is certain, the Crosby Garrett find however was undocumented for three months and remains unconfirmed and doubts have been raised about whether the helmet had indeed originally been buried there. This new evidence cvould raise the question whether the Crosby Garrett helmet had been used by a cavalry unit at Vindolanda (a scheduled site)?


While it's a nice story, the truth of the matter is that there are quite considerable differences between the Vindolanda and Crosby Garrett griffins. The former has a flat base, nothing in front and no loops, it's also much smaller than the Crosby Garrett one. It's just a griffin like any griffin. The archaeologists' enthusiasm is getting the better of them.

Note also the way in this story that the current damaging emphasis placed on cash rewards for Treasure by British archaeology's largest outreach scheme has misinformed the journalist that what archaeologists are digging for at Vindolanda is "hitting a cash jackpot".
.
Vindolanda griffin.

Gill on PAS as Preservation (6): "Response" from the PAS?

.

Well, this is an ODD one ! Very very odd. Ms Worrell is accredited as: "Prehistoric and Roman Finds Adviser, Portable Antiquities Scheme, UCL Institute of Archaeology". Sadly she is the only member of the PAS staff who responded to Gill, according to the editor Brian Hole, "Unfortunately due to the sensitivity of the subject, PAS itself was less willing to contribute". That can only sound extremely comical. Fifty staff members of the PAS are out there in the midst of the general public engaging with treasure hunting clubs, for example in the roughest areas of Essex, and with cultural philistine "what's this archaeology for then, anyway?" diehards like my Mum, explaining to them the importance of what they do. And yet when David Gill ("the polite one") writes a text involving a few gentlemanly arguments, the PAS cannot muster up an answer? The PAS cannot spend a few hours at most discussing these issues with archaeologists in a proper archaeological journal, giving its response to what David wrote? Why not? Why run away from the opportunity to discuss with the very milieu the PAS is suppodedly representing as archaeology's "outreach" to the wider public? Was the venue, a proper journal produced by an academic institution, not in some way suitable? If they were invited to talk to metal detectorists I bet they'd find the time and the words and petrol money...

So after all that effort, all we get from the PAS is this brief text by Ms Worrell. David Gill initiated a discussion on current policies towards artefact hunting in England and Wales, in which the recently discovered Crosby Garret Roman helment is mentioned several times. Instead of addressing the issues Gill raises, she summarises events surrounding the discovery and sale of this single object (this is in fact similar to her text in British Archaeology published about the same time). What is notable however is that Worrell does not add any depth to the discussion on how the problems which obviously occurred here could be resolved. The text seems more of an apologia, explaining why the finders and landowners cannot really be accused of doing anything wrong. Surely that was not the point that Gill was making.
.
One might say, taking the lead from metal detectorist Candice Jarman: "How about answering some questions, Dr Bland?" Well, I have answered hers, now let Roger Bland give David Gill the answer his thoughtful contribution deserves. Shame on you PAS.
.

Allegedly: "All you Wanted to Know About THAT Helmet (Almost)"

.
British Archaeology is claiming the next issue will contain: "All you wanted to know about that helmet (almost)".

We can't tell you who bought the Crosby Garrett Roman helmet, but our feature contains much new information about this iconic object that sold for £2m in October, with previously unpublished photos. Archaeologists who studied the helmet during its restoration write about what they saw, and Darren Bradbury explains his extraordinary restoration work. Described for the first time are an analysis of the metals, a simple workshop mark on the helmet, details of the hinge that connected the face to the back and an ancient repair. While the face was found nearly intact in the ground, the back had been broken and folded up. Also described are details of attempts to persuade the helmet's original owners to sell it directly to Tullie House Museum in Cumbria – attempts which, of course, failed – and archaeologists' plans for the future.

I guess when so far there has not been very much information at all about this thing revealed by those who should be imparting it, providing "much new information" would not be difficult.

"Darren Bradbury explains his extraordinary restoration work" that'll be a treat, we can at last discuss it in the open. It will be interesting to learn what he has to say for himself in an archaeological journal.

Also the missing photograph has been relocated: "The pic that was on this thread called "just excavated" or such like showed the face mask, with a hole in the chin, held in two hands. The pic looked as if it had been taken by a mobile camera. The pic is now not on the thread, for some unknown reason.......". It was posted by the mysterious contributor to the Roman Army Talk thread on the helmet calling themselves "Timogen", but then when the discussion about the authenticity of the find began was removed. Now a copy has surfaced:



This photo shows the state of the object before the 'grey gunk' restoration which appears in the PAS photos (from the RAT forum). Whose hands are these? Rather too well manicured methinks for a Cumbrian metal detectorist who'd just been digging about in the Cumbrian soil. These are surely not the hands of some twenty year old Peterlee man or his father. And that jumper in the background, does it not have a rather "Eastern European" look to it?

In the last two pages of that thread there are a lot of questions being raised about the true findspot of the helmet, and whether it really is a British find. I doubt though that anybody involved will really be looking at this question in any detail, a hole will be re-excavated in a Cumbrian field and will also - I predict - be inconclusive. If Mr Bradbury received (as the account by Sally Worrell says) the object with the back of the mask filled with compacted soil, perhaps he thought to keep it and a heavy mineral analysis and isotope analysis could be carried out to link it with the findspot (if one can be certain that the soil was not inserted...). The photo reputedly showing it just "after excavation" however does not show whether the mask was filled with soil, certainly part of it was not.

On balance the British Archaeology article is unlikely to tell us "all we wanted to know about that helmet", not by a long chalk. Nevertheless, I await the arrival of my copy impatiently.

Crosby Garrett Findspot Attracting Attention of Artefact Hunters

.
There were plans to conduct excavations on the findspot of the Crosby Garrett helmet. It may already be too late, farmer Eric Robinson, the owner of the land where it was found has been having "serious issues of trespass and unauthorised detecting on his land since the find site was declared public" (Cumbria Farmer, November 12). This prompted Lee Finch, Chairman of the Kendal and District Metal Detecting Club to write a few days ago (26th Nov 2010) in the Cumberland News:

Can I assure Mr Robinson and other landowners/ farmers in Cumbria and the surrounding areas that no member of the Kendal and District Metal Detecting Club has been near or on his land since the find was announced, without his permission. If it was found that a member took part in this behaviour, they would be expelled from our club and reported to the National Council for Metal Detecting. We do not condone the acts these irresponsible detectorists are carrying out and we regret the harm they can do to our hobby. As it is said; it only takes a few to tar everybody else with the same brush. We have built up a good relationship with many landowners/ farmers in Cumbria through our hobby, often visiting agriculture shows at their agricultural committee’s request to display our finds from the area and show young and old alike what our hobby is about and the responsibility that goes with it. If any landowner or farmer wishes to make use of our free search and recovery service or talk to me about a charity rally on their land or any issue to do with our club and responsible metal detecting they can contact me at ******** [...].

Mr Lee fails to enlarge on what the consequences of reporting an illegal artefact hunter "to the NCMD" might be. We note however that reporting the criminal to the police is not one of the things that comes readily to Mr Lee's mind. Note that instead of the word "illegal" Lee uses the word "irresponsible". This is linked to the old definition of the notion responsible/irresponsible where merely operating within the law is the deciding factor and any notions of "best practice" and reporting finds to the PAS are simply absent.

Note above all that this letter is NOT at all about the destruction of irreplaceable archaeological evidence at Crosby Garrett through criminal artefact hunting, but merely a plug for the Kendal Club's "free search and recovery service" (these generally function as a publicity stunt to get access to more land for the club) and proposals of organizing commercial artefact hunting rallies (note the insertion of the word "charity" as a smokescreen to avoid stating what this really is about)

The Kendal milieu's webpage however is quite revealing. Here's their free recovery service ("Farmers & Landowners") Look at their Code of Practice link... As you read down, all well and good, here we have the text of the official Code, principles 1 to 8. But... that's it. Principle nine? Not there. 10 to 13 likewise. And what is number nine, you may ask? Well, it's the one tekkies do not like because it defines "responsibility":

9. Reporting any finds to the relevant landowner/occupier; and (with the agreement of the landowner/occupier) to the Portable Antiquities Scheme, so the information can pass into the local Historic Environment Record. [...]

It then sneakily directs detector using artefact hunters to the Countryside Code and as an afterthought tacked on, the PAS leaflet "advice for finders of archaeological objects including Treasure" ("Am I legally obliged to report all my finds? No"). This is NOT a Code of Practice for Responsible Detecting.

A question we should be asking ourselves, given the existence now for a number of years of a very clear official definition of responsibility whether it really IS just those who use metal detectors illegally who are the only ones who get the hobby a bad name? Is it not the degree to which irresponsible behaviour is rampant in the hobby as a whole, a substantial portion of which still behaves as if there was not now a Code of Practice in existence - rather like Mr Finch's Kendal and District Metal Detecting Club which pointedly omits to post it on their website.

Landowners beware, such conduct strongly suggests that these people are being less than honest with us all.

Hat tip to Nigel Swift for the link

Crosby Garrett: Compare

.

As I have previously mentioned on this blog, there has been some interesting discussion of the Crosby Garrett helmet on the Roman Army Talk forum. This post Re: The Crosby Garrett helmet caught my eye because I was suggesting here when I first saw it that the find had a 'Balkan' look to it. It seems worth sharing the information it contains. It is by "last roman" (don't you just love those cutesy screen names?) and was posted yesterday:

Decebalus wrote:It was mentioned in the previous posts that the helmet looks Bulgarian/of Balcan origin and it is interesting to note that of the six known helmets of the Silistra-Type (to which the mask would belong [in Junkelmann's typology, part of Robinson's CSB]) two are from Bulgaria (Chatalka-CSB12 and Silistra-CSB06), two said to be from Bulgaria (Ex-Guttmann AG 449 and AG 813 [CSB08]), one from Serbia (Smederovo-CSB25) and one from the Netherlands (Roomburgh-CSB07).

Here is some pics of Roman helmet with mask from Chatalka /now exposed in Historical Museum of Stara Zagora/:

Click on the post's link to see the two photos and note the similiarities and differences with the RECONSTRUCTED Crosby Garrett helmet and then go back to the PAS website where the initial state of the object in fragments is shown (after the restoration process had begun).

How precisely was the reconstruction of the top of the helmet achieved? What alternative reconstructions were considered and rejected and why? Is the process of arriving at the form we see in Christie's catalogue described at all in the "restoration" report? I know the answer, but - since the picture of the reconstruction already functions in the public domain - I think this information should also be in the public domain. On the basis of reading the restorer's report [I am referring to the version dated 16th September 2010] one might well ask, what exactly are we looking at when we look at the RESTORED Crosby Garrett Helmet? Is the photo on the PAS website one of an accurate reconstruction or not? Were all the pieces at the disposal of Christie's from the same object?

.

Vignette: Daily Mail

Crosby Garrett: An Adequate Record? Hardly

.
In a post yesterday I quoted the opinion of UK artefact hunter and author Julian Evan-Hart on the Crosby Garrett helmet fiasco. I think a couple of things he said need further discussion:

The main focus here is :- the find has been measured, weighed photographed and probably drawn so it matters little whether such a find goes into a main national collection or indeed a private one..there is enough associated reference material now for any academic to make comparitive studies etc about this great object . [...] Im glad a private individual now can cherish the artefact as can we all by looking at all the information and images of it.

Now in fact it is not true that an adequate record has been made of the object - or at least what is in the public domain is by no means an adequate reccord for those who want to do a little more than just "look at pictures of it". What "measurements" were taken? What for example was the thickness of the metal sheet at various points? What in fact WAS the "weight" Mr Evan-Hart? It was apparently NOT "drawn". I have seen the conservation report and the version I have seen is, quite frankly, judged as a report on the conservation (I use the term loosely) of an archaeological artefact of this nature, an appalling piece of work which raises very many serious questions of professional accountability. I hope they may be aired in public at some time. The viewing of the object by BM and PAS staff in Christie's offices, apparently already half-way through the restoration process, hardly provides the best facilities for proper observation and documentation, the whole process was a farce from beginning to end.

Mr Evan-Hart, here the blame must fall entirely on the finders (and landowner) who carted it off down to London to Christie's at the first opportunity, not giving the PAS or local archaeologists the chance to see the find in situ at the time of discovery, to work on it in a proper environment for its study, or to make more suitable arrangements for its analysis and conservation. The people at fault here are those that are now smiling on their way to the bank having sold off a bit of the British archaeological record from under our noses. Here are the rewards for NOT being a "partner" of archaeology and heritage management. Oh yes, they were perfectly entitled to do what they did by law, the "partnership" with archaeologists and the rest of society is (still) purely voluntary. But then that is precisely why voices are now being raised to say that since artefact hunters and collectors are consistently abusing that trust, cases like this clearly show the need to change that law to make sure such abuses are not repeated.

Crosby Garrett Helmet, "not fizzing away in a field"

.
Yesterday I briefly commented on the remarks of Julian Evan-Hart giving the detectorists' take on the Crosby Garrett helmet fiasco where he aggressively criticises those who think the object should have gone to a museum:

[...] those who bleat constantly about where it should be stored totally miss the point that whatever its now no longer fizzing away and corroding in a field...[...]

That is quite an interesting comment isn't it? It's part of the tekkies' empirically untested assertion that they are "rescuing" objects from destruction by hoiking them out from below ploughsoil level (as expressed here by Rod Blunt for example). This is in my opinion total nonsense, but never mind that now, let's look at this single case of the application of the argument.

Mr Evan-Hart has (it says on his website) 30 years of detecting experience in Britain. On the basis of that experience he would expect to find evidence that something that had been lying in a Cumbrian field for nigh-on two thousand years would be " fizzing away and corroding". The state of preservation of metal detected finds from adjacent areas of Cumbria (including Crosby Garrett itself) visible on the PAS database was discussed here earlier. They are indeed heavily corroded. I'm not sure I see any evidence that they were "fizzing away" in the process, but the point is that a certain amount of crustier corrosion would be expected on a find made here. Mr Evan-Hart apparently agrees with this assessment.

It seems however that Mr Evan-Hart has not in fact looked too closely at the photos that have been published of this find, none of which (and now some of us have seen the photos in the conservation report not released to the public). If he had he would be puzzled by the fact that on none of them are any corrosion products anything like those he obviously expects to find. No real evidence of the metal "corroding in a field" and certainly none of it " fizzing away in a field". So why not? The corrosion products form under the specific conditions of the burial environment. Why did the precise spot where that object was found have a burial environment which was so atypical of the area around? What was the burial environment of that object that led to this effect? If Mr Evan-Hart was to buy some dug-up coins on V-coins, how would the seller be describing that 'patina'? Would it be "typical dug up British detector find patina"? Would it be "Cumbrian Fell patina"? Or would it be named suggesting it had come from an entirely different geographical location and burial environment? (Gentle Reader: do a search of coin selling sites and see what it would be called).

Evan-Hart co-wrote a book about beginning artefact hunting. It is summarised on the NCMD website where we find the following passage:

For example, copper alloy - that develops a certain patina - will eventually become familiar in terms of age and colour in your search areas. Some of us have got pretty good at this recognition, and when a fellow Pastfinder shows a coin etc to fellow members, we can state where it was found with reasonable accuracy.

Really? So maybe a "PAStfinder" can tell us where in Cumbria one would find objects with the somewhat specific corrosion products like this.

The whole point is that the Crosby Garrett helmet does not have corrosion products on it which are entirely consistent with the story that it is a find from the region of Cumbria that is stated to have been the findspot. No evidence of that "fizzing away and corroding in a [Cumbrian] field". Why not?

[This question is not discussed in the "restorer's report" which does not describe the state of the object upon receipt in more than general terms].

Photo: Inside the Crosby Garrett helmet showing the corrosion products and state of the metal (photo by Caballo on Roman Army Talk).

Crosby Garrett Helmet Fiasco: Evan-Hart and the Archaeological Community

.
Yesterday, in a post below this I briefly present a comment on what is revealed by the comments on a detectorists' forum by author and detectorist Julian Evan-Hart giving the artefact hunter's take on the Crosby Garrett helmet fiasco. In his text he extremely aggressively criticises the archaeological community and those who think the object should have gone to a museum. Let's take a look at that part of his text again:

[...] undoubtedly the £300,000 as if anyone can pre value such a find was perhaps more inspired and influenced by greedy officials hoping they could procure the find for such a paltry sum....tough one guys it appears not eh? [...] undoubtedly we all face a barrage of bleating from those who believe its should have been obtained for a lesser sum and should indeed be in a national collection And who will now set about trying to change the Treasure Act so that such a heinous "crime" cannot be repeated... [...] they remind me of the spoilt child at a party, who cannot bear other children to win prizes, makes no effort to join in the games, and sits in the corner whingeing and whining until its parents arrive and console it with a MacDonalds and trip to a toy shop to pacify their little angel and make up for his "traumatic real-life experience". I just hope this Government do not act as the consoling parents to this whingeing group....Museums are stuffed to seam splitting point with enough objects, its just this dinosaur like attitude that the common people should never even be allowed to find their own heritage let alone sell it for profit. They may deny that attitude..... but finding objects used to be pretty much an exclusive career (and dont tell me that these exclusive careers didnt sell finds back then as they still do today)...and now its not so they get galled about it... One rule for some and another for us eh?.....many of us dont sell things...but the choice to do so is a democratic right...something that should be deeply considered by our critics...many of whom never get off their fat swollen at tax payers expense backsides, and who amazingly make little to absolutely no effort to to recover our heritage themselves...and yet appoint themselves as self-elected custodians to tell us all what to do......with our bloody finds!!!!

Well, talk about a chip on a shoulder...

First of all, I am not sure how Evan-Hart thought the museum community placed pressure on Christie's to publish a low estimate. This is a common tekkie accusation, that archaeologists want to depress the true market value of artefacts in order that British museums can buy national treasures cheaply. These people might wonder why the British taxpayer should be buying these things back at all from Treasure hunters (as opposed to accidental finders). The reward is nowhere stipulated in British (UK) legislation, it is discretionary. If Crosby garrett showed anything it is just how uncertain the valuation of a few lumps of corroded and bent metal fresh from the field can be. An artefact is just a lump of crud, the value of which depends on a number of factors, in this case how many people were bidding how much to get their hands on the item.

As for "they remind me of the spoilt child at a party, who cannot bear other children to win prizes", if this had been found on an excavation the finders would not have got a penny (but, depending on the terms of the pre-excavation agreement the landowner might still). So no archaeologist has anything personally to gain by preserving the archaeological record in situ for further proper investigation.

We see the trotting out of the old "museums are stuffed to seam splitting point with enough objects" argument. Presumably intended to justify why this object should not g to a museum where everyone can see it and it can be properly studied. The cultural philistine tekkie/coiney "empty the museums" argument however really has no place in this discussion.

Concurrent with that is the People's Archaeological Relic Liberation Front argument about an alleged "attitude that the common people should never even be allowed to find their own heritage". Where does this come from? What has the PAS been set up for? I know Evan-Hart does not personally use it, but that is his choice and thousands do. I do not recall seeing anything in the archaeological literature about stopping the finding of archaeological artefacts by members of the public, the emphasis however on those that do sharing the information (at least) with the rest of us. Somehow I suspect the message of thirteen years of public outreach by the PAS has been falling on deaf ears.

Evan-Hart describes the critics of current policies on artefact hunting and collecting:

...many of whom never get off their fat swollen at tax payers expense backsides, and who amazingly make little to absolutely no effort to to recover our heritage themselves...

Well, I'm not sure how he envisages the mechanisms of backside swelling at tax-payers' expense, maybe he means buttock implants? More seriously of course it is taking the ranters of the pro-collecting ilk an eternity to realise that very little archaeology these days is directly funded by the "taxpayer". Most of the money that is available from the public budget goes on upkeep of sites and monuments (and then - even when bulked out by other rants and sponsorship - its never enough). I think the main focus of critics' activities (as perhaps the PAS should be explaining to these people) is not to "recover" "things" from the ground, but to ensure the preservation of archaeological deposits assemblages and patterns so that they may be interpreted by archaeological means in the future. It is called "conservation". The artefact hunter and collector have an eternally object-centred picture of the whole issue, again this is something thirteen years of PAS outreach has not dealt with, or at least made any headway with. Maybe they need to change their methods?
.

UK Detectorist Julian Evan-Hart on Crossby Garrett Helmet: Well Done That Man!

.
UK artefact hunter and author Julian Evan-Hart has today given a UK metal detectorist's reaction to the Crosby Garrett fiasco (the paragraph divisions are mine, punctuation and spelling as in original):

Sun Nov 21, 2010 1:52 pm
Id just like to say well done to all involved..... from the detectorist who recovered all the helmet sections, to the conservator, to the auction house who obtained a fine price for the finder.

The main focus here is :- the find has been measured, weighed photographed and probably drawn so it matters little whether such a find goes into a main national collection or indeed a private one..there is enough associated reference material now for any academic to make comparitive studies etc about this great object .

Since it was outside the declarable parameters of the Treasure Act it was absolutely fine that the landowner and finder be justly rewarded...the landowner for being so kind as to grant permission and the detectorist for his painstaking (and some may say heart stopping) dedication in locating all the pieces....undoubtedly the £300,000 as if anyone can pre value such a find was perhaps more inspired and influenced by greedy officials hoping they could procure the find for such a paltry sum....tough one guys it appears not eh?

So what happens now eh? well undoubtedly we all face a barrage of bleating from those who believe its should have been obtained for a lesser sum and should indeed be in a national collection And who will now set about trying to change the Treasure Act so that such a heinous "crime" cannot be repeated....

The only important focal points worth considering are that its been recovered......its not going out of the UK and Im sure the new owner may consider lending it now and then for major exhibitions providing adequate insurances are given and taken.

Im glad a private individual now can cherish the artefact as can we all by looking at all the information and images of it.

Those who bleat constantly about where it should be stored totally miss the point that whatever its now no longer fizzing away and corroding in a field...indeed they remind me of the spoilt child at a party, who cannot bear other children to win prizes, makes no effort to join in the games, and sits in the corner whingeing and whining until its parents arrive and console it with a MacDonalds and trip to a toy shop to pacify their little angel and make up for his "traumatic real-life experience".

I just hope this Government do not act as the consoling parents to this whingeing group....Museums are stuffed to seam splitting point with enough objects, its just this dinosaur like attitude that the common people should never even be allowed to find their own heritage let alone sell it for profit. They may deny that attitude..... but finding objects used to be pretty much an exclusive career (and dont tell me that these exclusive careers didnt sell finds back then as they still do today)...and now its not so they get galled about it...

One rule for some and another for us eh?.....many of us dont sell things...but the choice to do so is a democratic right...something that should be deeply considered by our critics...many of whom never get off their fat swollen at tax payers expense backsides, and who amazingly make little to absolutely no effort to to recover our heritage themselves...and yet appoint themselves as self-elected custodians to tell us all what to do......with our bloody finds!!!!

Well done that man for finding this remarkable object.....Jules

Well done Mr Evan-Hart for showing us all where the UK metal detectorists' true loyalties lie. I think the UK archaeologists-metal detectorists "partnership" is looking more and more like this memorably shameful display at the 2003 MTV awards ceremony:



Mr Evan-Hart figures loudly in this comments thread, alongside the protests of a couple of other barely-literate detectorists. I find the comment of Heritageaction of May 9th pretty revealing.

.

Conservation Report of Crosby Garrett Helmet

.
We now know (from Minerva) the identity of the Crosby Garrett helmet refabricator, Darren Bradbury. We learn from Google that he has office premises next to a funeral parlour 350m from the seafront in an East Sussex town (nice chloride-free environment for conservation of excavated metalwork then). He however does not appear to be on the Conservation Register. Colleagues among whom I have enquired have not heard of him, so who is he? What are Darren Bradbury's qualifications, affiliations and experience with this kind of work?

We have seen the state in which the bits were in upon receipt in Christie's. We may then ask what documentation Mr (Dr?) Bradbury kept of the state of the object before he started (condition of metal, the form of individual pieces that would be reshaped in his work) as well as the programme, process and results of the conservation work (cleaning, stabilisation, reshaping and reassembly) of the object. Has anyone outside Christie's seen this documentation? Were any outside consultants involved? (Since the British Museum was involved in the authentication of the findspot, was it involved in refereeing the conservation work done?). Who commissioned the work, the sellers of the object (its then owners) or Christie's and what was the brief of the project? What concerns might there be about the reassembly of the fragments and the long-term stability (both physical and chemical) of the resultant construction? Where is this documentation going to be deposited? Just curious.
.

The Christies Crosby Garrett Photoshoot

.

Digging the Dirt comments on the sale of the so-called Crosby Garrett Helmet,

And so it went. Lost to the nation. With sadness and regret, diggingthedirt would like to congratulate the Government’s loophole makers for ensuring that however the dice is rolled, the auction house always collects. Tails they win. Heads we lose.

In particular the blog comments tongue in cheek on the photos of Georgiana Aitken (Christie's Head of Antiquity Sales) ["Cultural theft never looked so good.."]:

Lustily draped around the shiny helmet, Aitken is bang on-trend in the auction’s publicity shots, rocking the look that Vogue’s September issue’s calling ‘Illicit Chic’. The Staffordshire Hoard is so last season baby. If you really want to turn heads at the antiquities meat market, anonymous international telephone bidders are the way to go. [...] As for Ms Aitken, we’ve removed you from our ‘hot list’ and hope you enjoy your new home on our ‘not list.’[...] Best of luck getting to sleep at night.

Now I think that is unfair. Obviously what happened on September 12th when the photographer, Dan Kitwood, saw this helmet thing was notice the huge area of gap-filling and green paint which would have shown up under that lighting if he'd stood closer. So he looked around for a way to take the shot from further away and Ms Aitken just happened to be walking by...

The poor lady looked quite melancholy in those publicity shots having to pose to draw the viewer's attention away from the degree of reconstruction of the shiny face of a small metal curly-haired boy on a stick.

My suspicion is beneath it all, the well-spoken Ms Aitken has the heart of a conservationist, and would far rather hug trees. I suspect also - working perforce where she does - she will not be too bothered about not being on some archaeologists' "hot list". But I will admit I too was curious about the dress.

Vignette: Georgiana Aitken and friend (original Photo by Dan Kitwood/Getty Images Europe)

Putting it in Perspective

.

Yesterday the world heaved a sigh of relief as the last of thirty three miners that had been trapped 700m deep in a mine in Chile for nearly 70 days was winched to safety. Several teams of men had been working all this time drilling three boreholes down to reach them, constructing an elaborate device to bring them out. Such an effort costs money, 14 million pounds, but the money was found and the men are safe and sound, reunited with their families. While the men were trapped down there, an anonymous buyer spent in Britain 2.3 million pounds (so one seventh of that sum) to secure a striking and "cultural" decoration for his hallway instead of it going to a British museum where we can all see it. One seventh the cost of one of the most elaborate and technologically advanced mine rescue operations ever carried out. I think that rather puts the somewhat obscene price paid for this trophy piece of heavily restored metal detectory into perspective.

Johnathan Jones too on his blog ('I can't bury my hatred for Antiques Roadshow any longer') talks of how an interest in history is being replaced by an interest in how much objects from the past are worth financially:

Last week an ancient Roman helmet, only discovered a few months ago by a young man with a metal detector, was sold at auction for £2.3m. The museum that hoped to get it was outbid, despite raising an impressive sum. To add insult to injury, the buyer has remained anonymous – in other words, this remarkable piece of British history (see my blog last week for why it is so special) is being spirited from public view to an undisclosed place, one supposes behind closed doors. Reports in the press have focused on the fact that the money made will be shared between the man who dug it up and the farmer whose field it was. Concern for the fate of a beautiful and fascinating object that logically belongs in a British public collection has been eclipsed by the narrative of treasure-hunter-gets-rich. Buried treasure has dazzled the media. The Antiques Roadshow view of the world has prevailed. [...] There are much healthier approaches to archaeology and history on television. The popularity of programmes that dig up the past is terrific – and it has nothing to do with dosh. The Time Team don't hold a car boot sale at the end and sell off the stuff they have found. But Antiques Roadshow is an advert for a sleazy industry. The antiques business prospers by turning heritage and culture into a racket. It turns us all into money-grasping cynics who would sell Magna Carta, given half a chance.

To the joy of those who'd buy it, to stash it away for their own sole self-gratulatory enjoyment, a tacit expression of their wealth and 'influence'. Something only they have the right to properly appreciate. But there is no "archaeology for all" here.
.

Crosby Garrett helmet: What an odd state to be in

.
In a comment to an earlier post here Barendina Smedley questions the state of the Crosby Garrett helmet when found, which prompts me to attempt to pull together in one place a couple of things that have perplexed me since I first saw the photos of the object.

The PAS record does not really contain much of a description of what was found/what was received by Christie's (i.e., the state of the object before it was prettified) [See also David Gill's typically penetrating questions on a related topic]. The record however states: " In this case of this helmet, the visor was found placed face downwards and the helmet had been folded prior to deposition". This really does not make any sense. What on earth does this mean, that the helmet was "folded" like a table napkin? Where are the "fold" marks on the metal sheet fragments in the photo that led to Ms Worrell making such an odd statement?

The photos on the PAS database are the only ones currently in the public domain showing the pre-reconstruction state of the object. It is not clear whether they show all the (reportedly 67) pieces brought to London. If anyone else has any other photos of the discovery "as found", they are not showing them.

What we see in these photos may be discussed in five main groups of finds (in the descriptions, "right", "left" etc unless otherwise specified refer to the person whose head was inside the helmet, not the view from outside):

1) The griffin. [Let us leave aside the question for the moment whether it really belongs where it has been stuck which I raised in an earlier post; for the purpose of this discussion, let's assume it does]. This is cast and was apparently soldered to a rounded surface. There are no photos of the underside of the base in the public domain. A question that needs answering is when, how and why it was detached from the helmet (which it apparently was by the time the finds reached London).

2) Large fragment comprising the almost complete back of the helmet body itself, repousee copper alloy sheet - apparently not tinned. The lower part is complete and undistorted, with chips out of the neckguard (these bits were not included in the reconstruction, they may still be in the ground at the findspot). The upper edge of the fragment at the back is broken off irregularly. The photos show clearly that this is not a cut or tear made in fresh metal, it is damage caused to metal already corroded and brittle. Note there is no bending of the damaged edges in the preserved fragment (see below). No photo has been made public of the concave surface of this piece, so we cannot see to what degree the rim of the object was preserved here, neither do we learn anything about lining attachment, fastening mechanisms or hinges.

3) The almost complete visor/face mask of the helmet, repousee copper alloy sheet, apparently tinned externally. We do not see the convex face in the (oblique) PAS photos, to judge what its rear edge looks like, perhaps it was substantially intact. In the photo there is a stress crack on the lower part of the (face's) right cheek. Note that fine details of the eyes were undamaged in the soil. The dent at the tip of the nose (and a less obvious one on the bridge of the nose and by the lips hinted at in several photos) may have been caused in use, or at the time of deposition. In the PAS photo there is an extensive area of some grey gunk on the chin. What is this? It does not look like a typical corrosion product, is this some kind of crude gapfilling (using car body filler for example?). Would this be filling a hole of a dent? This raises the question, just what treatment this object had received (and where and why) before it came to Christie's. Note this whole area has been painted over green in the Christie's reconstruction - leading us to suspect the extent to which the desirable "patina" we saw displayed in the auction room is green paint (see Barendina Smedley's musings on this).

That accounts for three pieces of the "33 fragments, with 34 smaller fragments found in association" reported by Ms Worrell. Most of the rest seem likely to be in group (4):

4) Several dozen joining fragments of at least twelve pieces of convex copper alloy sheet. The form of the fractures show that they occurred post-deposition in brittle, presumably corroded, metal. Perhaps due to some soil movement before or during discovery by the treasure hunters. They join to form two conjoining roughly triangular fragments of an object with a finished edge along the base of the triangle. The dimensions are not clear as there is no scale (!) in the photos.

Assuming that these fragments all came from the helmet, it can be surmised that the finished edge is the rim of the helmet body and since it seems likely that (although we do not see them in the photos) the left and right sides of the helmet's front opening are preserved on piece (2), this probably is the portion of the edge of the helmet running across the brow and temples which obviously is absent from this element. The general convex form of the piece of the helmet from which these fragments came can be seen from the photos, these fragments must be what later became in the reconstruction the front of the peak of the helmet above the forehead.

If this was conical (as reconstructed) the lack of scale in this photo makes it difficult (impossible) to say how much of the back part of the peak of the helmet is represented here. Needless to say, by the time the helmet has been reconstructed and the differences between original bits and gapfilling of unknown material have been obscured by liberal use of green paint, even a close scrutiny of the published photos of the reconstruction cannot identify the contours of the individual fragments shown to determine how they were placed in the reconstruction. This of course goes against the ethics of archaeological conservation. It seems likely that fragments from a substantial part of the back of the helmet was absent from the pieces brought to London.

The fragments of the Crosby Garrett helmet as seen by the PAS in May (?) 2010. Photo PAS.

To come back to the bits pictured lying on the table, there are two odd features about this reassembled group of pieces. On the left of the picture (just above the little polybag with the small bits) although the photo is not clear, there may be a sharp-edged raised ridge, as though the metal has buckled in the past. There is no such doubt about what we see on the right of the photo, just above the detached griffin. Here the metal is curved under quite strongly. This curved plane does not appear on the reconstructed helmet (it would be at the top of the right parietal region) and seems to be due to the buckling of the metal while it was still fresh (ie before post depositional corrosion occurred). We'll come back to this in a moment.

5) In the foreground of the same photo can be seen the peak of the helmet, sheet metal with a clear keel. Not the sort of finish you would expect had it been intended to attach a griffin terminal here by soldering. The edges here are clearly brittle fractures made after post-depositional corrosion. We have no information what the interior looked like, was there for example a brazed seam between the two halves of the helmet visible here?

Nota bene: There is absolutely NO information about the results of the examination of the object which reveal anything about the technology of manufacture (except the single misleading word: "cast" in the PAS record, the object as a whole quite clearly is not "cast"). Many of the 'records' in the PAS database are equally superficial, which rather casts doubt on their fulfilment of all but the most minimalist requirements of "preservation by record".

Having attempted to discuss on the basis of the poor information the public have the state of the object at the time of discovery, I'd like to turn attention away from the artistic aspects of the reconstruction of the pretty thing we saw in the auction to the more archaeological question of the damage of the object in the ground. Ms Worrell reckons it was lying face down and "folded", whatever that means. Well, what does that mean?

If (ignoring that word 'folded') she means the whole helmet was lying face down in a hole, how could one account for the damage we see evidenced by the state of the fragments? Element four consists of the FRONT part of the helmet which has been smashed into pieces - but then how could that happen in the ground (these are in part post-depositional breaks) if the helmet was lying face down, and the back (element 2) is for the large part undamaged? Perhaps she meant that the visor was lying face down and the helmet was nested IN it (do they in their reconstructed form nest in that way?) which accounts for the two largest elements being preserved - but then how did the damage to the upper part of the helmet occur if it was lying horizontally as Ms Worrell asserts (presumably on the basis of what the finder(s) said)? In particular, why does it affect both the front AND the back (which would be nested deeper in the ground)? In fact where is the entire back part of the peak of the helmet? Its fragments are not shown in any of the PAS photos. There should be more pieces showing the effects of the substantial distortion which caused the "roll" on part of element 4. Where are the missing bits? If they are missing, how did they become disassociated from the rest of the bits? On what basis in fact was the upper part of this helmet reconstructed?

It seems to me that this must involve guesswork. What has been reconstructed is a vision of the helmet as it looked "in use". What we do not see is how this helmet looked when deposited complete in the ground. Something clearly happened to it before it corroded, there is severe buckling in the peak of the helmet, an event totally erased from the history of the object in the reconstruction. Yet, following the distortion of the object is a key to understanding what it looked like before it was damaged. I'd like to see the documentation made of the process of analysis of this buckling which must (jolly well should) have preceded the reconstruction of the "unbent" form. What we see is quite perplexing.

In passing one might ask how the restorer coped with fitting the "rolled' fragment into his/her reconstruction (which is in fact a deconstruction of the state in which the object found its way into the ground). There is only a limited amount of hiding you can do with green paint. After two thousand years in Cumbrian soil, the metal would be mineralised and therefore surely not malleable enough to be simply unrolled. Was this fragment omitted from the reconstruction? Was it flattened by sticking nylon gossamer over it both sides to keep the bits together and bashing it with a hammer and then moulding the mosaic of little splinters into the desired form (unethical but effective)? Why can it not be seen anywhere on the finished form? Is there ANY documentation of the "conservation" work at all and where is it?

Now I suspect that it is this buckling which Sally Worrell interprets as "folding". But its not folding, is it? This is probably fairly thin metal sheet (nota bene the thickness is nowhere described in the PAS report) and it looks like the peak of the helmet was bashed in. Only afterwards did it corrode and then the post-depositional breaks occurred. So when was it "bashed in"? In use? In some ritual act of disfigurement before it was deposited? In the ground?

What seems to have happened is that the peak of the helmet was pushed down inside the upper part of the helmet, causing a "roll" in the metal on the right parietal region and maybe a buckled ridge on the left. Maybe the force with which this was done was responsible for detachment of the griffin. In fact if you look at the front of the helmet as displayed in Christie's it can be seen that one eye is higher than the other, and the neckguard is at different heights on right and left, there is a stress crack at the bottom of the visor on the (wearer's) right. The whole helmet seems to have been slightly distorted (twisted slightly) by some action.

Was this how it looked when deposited? Perhaps. But if so, the peak-buckling damage occurred near the findspot - because if it had happened in some distant skirmish and was then brought to another place, why is the detached griffin still present in the assemblage?

This leads us to consider the possibility of another scenario - that the damage occurred when it was in the ground, which is why the detached griffin was found associated with the damaged helmet. But then (barring mechanisms involving second century bulldozers, giant armour-plated moles tunnelling, alien spacecraft takeoff or continental drift), such damage could not be caused if the helmet was lying horizontally in the soil "face down". It is more likely that the peak caved in under vertical pressure (or a blow). Like for example if it was sitting upright in a pit and somebody stomped on the peak (to make it fit in the hole) or drove a heavy cart over the pit where it had been previously shallowly buried. If however it was an empty helmet in a hole, applying pressure to the peak would be more likely to buckle the lower edge of the helmet to an extent greater than we see here. It would seem that at the time the peak collapsed, the lower part of the interior of the helmet was supported not only by something outside (earth) but also inside. Maybe it was partly filled with earth that had seeped in but leaving an airspace in the peak - or, perhaps at the time of burial and stomping, the helmet contained something else - like the wearer's severed head. At some later stage soil movements caused some of the elements to fracture after the metal had become brittle through corrosion. Perhaps the summit of the peak and griffin (elements 1 and 5) dropped inside the helmet as a result.

Another reason to postulate that the state of the surivuing bits strongly suggest that helmet was buried upright and not horizontally is the disposition of the missing fragments. Bits are missing from the projecting neckguard (damaged when the helmet was stomped on from above?) and around the back of the peak of the helmet, in particular in the region of the buckled edge caused by the stomping. If the helmet had been sitting vertically in a pit when discovered, it is precisely this region of the object that would have been uppermost, and therefore subject to accidental damage and disturbance/removal during any (ancient or modern) agricultural activity) of removed unnoticed at the time when a metal detector bleeped and a "ten inch deep" hole was dug to retrieve it.

I really cannot see (though stand to be corrected) how the PAS can explain away these facts with reference to their own documentation and applying the model: "the visor was found placed face downwards and the helmet had been folded prior to deposition". The point is if the Anonymous Single Finder who was a plural reports the object was found "in this 'ole 'ere m8" and it was lying horizontally "folded", but the physical state of the fragments, according to the 'documentation' made by the PAS is inconsistent with that model, but instead consistent with a completely different scenario, it really casts (another) doubt on the whole sorry story.

Barendina Smedley observes that what was bought at Christie's was in effect a recent pastiche and drew attention to the fact that it is difficult to see how one can arrive at something like that from the battered bits which came down to London, fresh from Cumbrian soil. The shiny arty object (which for all we know could be a few bits of ancient bronze supported on chicken wire and polyfilla painted green) bought for two million quid is not quite a reconstruction of the state in which this archaeological find was in through most of its two thousand years existence.

I suggest that there are disturbing discrepancies in the story of the discovery which indicate that it too is a convenient pastiche which has been hiding some important elements. What is especially galling is the way that the publicly-funded PAS allowing itself once again to be drawn in to the conspiracy of silence and being used to buttress the 'sanitised' and secretive story of how another part of Britain's fragile and finite archaeological record (supposedly belonging to us all as our "common heritage") has become a geegaw, the plaything of a rich afficionado of dugup "classical art".

UPDATE 1: Some more photos here, including two valuable ones taken at Christies which give additional information missing from the PAS 'record'. They show the inside of the helmet, showing the thickness of the metal, the rather remarkable corrosion products inside the visor and its state of preservation. Sadly we do not have a shot up the inside of the 'phrygian cap' at the back - doh! Now I've seen that type of corrosion on uncleaned coin sales sites, where some sellers even give it a name, and its not "Cumbrian wet soil corrosion".

The interior of the Reconstructed Crosby Garrett helmet (photo by "Caballo", 4th October 2010).

UPDATE 2 (4/11/10): Quite by accident I find that there is now yet another new photograph on the PAS website which shows the helmet in an "even more as-found state" than the five photos in the database when I wrote the above post which it seemed would represent the state of the object when Sally Worrel recorded it a few days after the discovery (I assumed they were her photos made at that time). The new photo somewhat alter the conclusions that one can come to about the state of the object in the ground, in fact I wonder whether that was the purpose of the PAS in posting it, since what was shown on their website was indeed totally at odds with the "official" account of how it was found. I have decided not to edit this text in the light of the new photo. Let this be an indication of the degree to which having the full information available about such finds is important. That information was missing when I wrote this, leading to mistaken interpretations. How many other finds are there in the PAS where the additional information coming to light after the discovery has not made it to the pages of the database?

"Flogitoff" is Robinson

.

I've just received a comment (thanks, Mo) alerting me to the fact that the Mirror has revealed the name of the landowner ('Farmer Eric Robinson reaps £2.3m from treasure-hunter's helmet find' 9/10/10)

A hard-up farmer is celebrating after a Roman helmet dug up on his land by a treasure hunter made him a record £2.3million. Eric Robinson, 56, thought the precious 2,000-year-old helmet would only fetch about £20,000 at auction when the unnamed student uncovered it his field. But several mystery bidders at Christie's in London on bumped up the price and it sold in just three minutes. The grandad, who works 70 hours a week on his farm at Crosby Garrett, Cumbria, said: "My legs went to jelly. When you've been farming for years and made no real money, it's a big amount. "To think it has been in the ground all those years".

Just think, lying there in an archaeological layer in the fields he owns, but generations of predecessors also did without feeling the need to flog off the archaeological finds ... Lets hope farmer Robinson has no more nationally important archaeological sites or findspots in his fields, other wise he'd be letting the treasure hunters empty them.

Another more local newspaper gives us some interesting food for thought (Thom Kennedy, 'Fight on to keep Crosby Garrett Roman helmet in Britain', News & Star 9/10/10):

The farmer on whose land the helmet said he would have liked it to stay in Cumbria, but Eric Robinson remained tight lipped over whether he will receive any of the money raised from Thursday’s auction. “It’s quite amazing [that it was worth so much],” he said. “I would have liked it to be kept in Cumbria but I can’t do anything about it.” Mr Robinson said the man who found it had been coming to his farm for seven years and ‘hit the jackpot’ with this find. He added: “I saw it when he found it. It looked very special, like it was pretty important.”

Did it? A box of bits like the ones the PAS photographed in Christie's (except "when he found it" surely it was covered in mud/clay?). That is one odd thing the farmer on whose land the helmet was found says in this interview. There is another one though. The journlist wrote "Eric Robinson remained tight lipped over whether he will receive any of the money raised from Thursday’s auction". What an odd phrase; "remained tight lipped" suggests to me that the question was asked, "Mr Robinson, this helmet was found on your land, will you receive any of the money raised from Thursday’s auction?". What a dumb stupid question, in normal circumstances. [The helmet is his property, the question would be better phrased whether he would be sharing the cash with the treasure hunters who found it on his land. If he lost his prize bull the day before it was due to go to market, and the treasure hunters found it behind his barn, would they expect half the money made when he sells it?] So why on earth did Thom Kennedy ask such an odd thing? Why would the landowner not receive any of the money if it was found ON HIS LAND? What an odd thing to write. Unless Thom Kennedy has heard something in the village... a rumour perhaps about the nature of some strange deal whether verbal or written between Mr Robinson and The Anonymous Single Finder (who is now plural)? Odd.

Let us recall something Roger Bland wrote here:

Christie's asked for the PAS reference number but we declined to record it until we were satisfied that we had a precise findspot. We stressed to Christie's that no museum could consider buying it without that information and without assurance that the object was being sold with the agreement of the landowner.

It was "the Finder" who brought the object to Christie's, it was "the Finder" that refused to reveal where it had been found. It was when PAS pointed out that unless the landowner was produced, the object would not sell as well, so then - and only then - a/the landowner was produced and a findspot to match. What was the Crosby Garrett landowner's place in the sale of this object before that?

UPDATE: A reader who is better at such things than me has located farmer Robinson and his farm, its in the centre of the village just 2 km from the enclosures on the fell pictured in a post below this.

UPDATE (2): This is scary, Sunday morning I received more information dug up on the internet by two different people (neither of whom are policemen with special privileges); it is quite horrifying just how much information you can find out there about somebody, family business partners etc. Obviously I'm not going to share it here, but it adds some background to some of the puzzling features of what-we-are-not-being-told by those involved. All this of course really makes a mockery of the reasons that would no doubt be given why the details of who what where and when "has" to be kept a secret. No man is an island, even in Crosby Garrett, it seems.

Archaeological Asset-Stripping in Crosby Garrett: Two Google Earth Games (1)

.
I hate secrets, don't you? I hate it when somebody swipes something which should belong to us all from under everybody's noses and flogs it off for 2.3million quid and will not tell anyone where he got it, or even tell us what his name is. Where, oh where is the land of the equally anonymous landowner (let's call him "Farmer Flogitoff") where "Anonymous Persistent Single Finder" (who is plural) from Peterlee eighty kilometres away has been going back by himself, but with his mates and finding "nothing"? Actually, I think the public [who are the real stakeholder in the bit of overpriced archaeological heritage sold off to some anonymous buyer] have a right to know. Why should the origin of this nationally important find be known only to one farmer, one metal detecting artefact hunter (or group of them) and a few boffins in the Portable Antiquities Scheme? (And perhaps a few nighthawks who've been down the pub in Crosby Garrett and listened to the gossip)?

Until the full story comes out, we can play an amusing game with Google Earth. Please join in if you have it installed, its quite an eye opener.

We have some clues from what the PAS and others have been saying about the site they were shown by Mr "Anonymous Persistent Single Finder" (bear in mind he is now revealed to be a they).

Or we could do it the other way round. We could imagine we are metal detector using artefact hunters out to find some collectable or saleable (remember one of us is currently unemployed) loot. Let's start off with this approach first.

GAME ONE- FIND A SITE TO LOOT (LEGALLY OF COURSE)

Well, as any looter knows, goodies will be found anywhere, but its boring and unprofitable going over empty fields, so we have to find a "productive" site. Preferably not too far from the road, but far enough so your searching won't be interrupted by passers by asking stupid questions. Obviously there are areas up in northern England where nothing much happened, bits of the landscape which for large parts of the past were wasteland, fields, pasture, woodland etc. Then there are places "where people were" and where they may have dropped, lost or buried things. Obviously the best thing to do is look for known archaeological sites and search around them. As we know collectors like Roman stuff, its easy to understand, classical roots of western civilization and all that... So out comes the Victoria county History (for those counties with useful ones) and the OS map of Roman Britain (could be any edition really bought in a secondhand bookshop for pennies). There we see where the romans "did things". Like build Roman roads, lots of them shooting across the province joining up places, places "where people were". Lots of dots around them, marking where the OS had records of Roman sites.

But the Roman roads are a good place to start. Now obviously its along these roads, major and minor that people were settling and "doing things". That's where the collectable finds are. So we can look in Google Earth and pretty soon, once you've got your eye in, you can see where many of the Roman roads ran, some are roads and tracks today, some mere hedgerows in a discontinuous line - some just soilmarks or earthworks. We can narrow down the search even more and look for traces of settlement, old field systems, banks and ditches of settlement enclosures. That's where to dig! Indeed, many ancient sites like these are perfectly visible on Google earth to a satellite kilometres up in the sky. Amazing. Once we've spotted a likely one, a trip out there will probably be rewarded with something collectable.

So let us imagine we have some urge to go to a peaceful little village somewhere - like Crosby Garrett (good pub there). Let us have a look, Roman road, yes, you can see one snaking across the hills... and around them all sorts of earthworks. Field systems, trackways, something that look like pillow mounds to me (but cannot be, not here surely, unless they are monastic, was there a monastery up here?). The field archaeology of this parish looks fascinating. How many of those shallow earthworks have been surveyed and recorded? What proper fieldwalking and field survey projects (amateur or professional) have taken place here? Like most of Britain, this needs documenting properly before destroyed by agriculture, development and - artefact hunters.

To sum up, in this parish there are all sorts of places to look, but here on Google Earth I can see some sites that if I was a looter I'd be on like a shot. There are one or two things visible on just this one source without any need for looking in books and other boring things about archaeology. There's enough information here to go a'looting on if we were looters trying to get artefacts out to fill our own collections or to sell. There are one or two sites just crying out to be looted for collectables here. Can you spot them? I bet even if you cannot, somebody else already has (even before the days of Google Earth), and probably most of them have already been stripped of part of their artefactual content by daytime (legal) detectorists and nightime (illegal ones).

[Let us note that the PAS database where the location data is "fuzzy" does not contain a single artefact which looks as if it is coming from those sites you've just looked at. Do we really believe that ten thousand artefact hunters over the past decade or so have not yet visited them, either by day or night? Some of them are so obvious, aren't they?]

For GAME TWO: FOLLOW THE CLUES, see the post below this.